Donald Trump is the President Mark IV (Read Mod Warning in OP)

ct5amr2ig1nfhp

SHS has issued a statement regarding the book.
"This book is nothing more than fabricated stories, many by former disgruntled employees, told to make the President look bad"

Water John

SHS dissing Bob Woodward is really stupid, for her.

mcmoustache

Keira Orange Store wrote: »

SHS has issued a statement regarding the book.
"This book is nothing more than fabricated stories, many by former disgruntled employees, told to make the President look bad"

Water John wrote: »

SHS dissing Bob Woodward is really stupid, for her.

She has no shame. Woodward has tapes.

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/307582196196188160

Pelvis

mcmoustache wrote: »

She has no shame. Woodward has tapes.

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/307582196196188160

She's not calling Woodward a liar, she's calling his sources liars.

Water John

Well that means she's saying Woodward is a fool, to believe his sources.

Beechwoodspark

Have absolutely no sympathy for “alternative facts” Conway.

mcmoustache

Pelvis wrote: »

She's not calling Woodward a liar, she's calling his sources liars.

Fair enough. I have a feeling that Woodward checked with multiple sources. It would be mad if Omarosa had some tapes to confirm some of the juicier bits. Unfortunately, I think it's wishful thinking as she'd have released them by now.

aloyisious

Pelvis wrote: »

She's not calling Woodward a liar, she's calling his sources liars.

Oh, I'd like her to name them in the open to the media.

Beechwoodspark

I just hope the dems get the upper hand in November. They need to put serious manners on this wretched presidency

borderlinemeath

Pelvis wrote: »

She's not calling Woodward a liar, she's calling his sources liars.

His sources would be her coworkers in the current administration. She has a neck like a jockeys proverbials as she has to work alongside them.

mcmoustache

aloyisious wrote: »

Oh, I'd like her to name them in the open to the media.

You can be sure that she is a source for a lot of these stories. They're all leaking on each other.

spacecoyote

Opening to the Kavanaugh hearing was extremely heated.

I can see why the Dems asked to adjourn. How you could be expected to cover 42000 docs overnight is a bit of a stretch

everlast75

Can someone please explain to me why the dems agreed to even have a hearing for the supreme court pic?

Why did they not do what the reps did with garland?

Can anyone tell me?

mcmoustache

everlast75 wrote: »

Can someone please explain to me why the dems agreed to even have a hearing for the supreme court pic?

Why did they not do what the reps did with garland?

Can anyone tell me?

Mitch McConnell controlled the senate and the Judiciary committee was republican controlled. My guess is that the judiciary chairman who calls these hearings.

Quin_Dub

everlast75 wrote: »

Can someone please explain to me why the dems agreed to even have a hearing for the supreme court pic?

Why did they not do what the reps did with garland?

Can anyone tell me?

Because it's not their call.. Majority party convenes the hearings, so as long as the GOP have the majority, the Dems can do very little to slow them down.

If the Dems decided to not turn up to the hearings in protest for example, the GOP just hold the vote right there and then and he gets confirmed..

In the absence of a couple of GOP senators with any sense of shame (of which there are none), Kavanaugh is a done deal.

Hurrache

Trump questions the credibility of Woodward, but there's a tweet for everything
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/307582196196188160?s=19

mcmoustache

Quin_Dub wrote: »

Because it's not their call.. Majority party convenes the hearings, so as long as the GOP have the majority, the Dems can do very little to slow them down.

If the Dems decided to not turn up to the hearings in protest for example, the GOP just hold the vote right there and then and he gets confirmed..

In the absence of a couple of GOP senators with any sense of shame (of which there are none), Kavanaugh is a done deal.

Thanks. I've been playing around in the other thread and, well, there's a different standard there. My answer here was cráp.

SimonTemplar

That Woodward / Trump tape is extraordinary.

Firstly, there is the typical Trump narcissism of you do know how great I am, etc.

Secondly, he is either caught in a blatant lie or shows a lack of attention to details:

Trump: Nobody mentioned to me.
Woodward: Graham said he'd mention it to you
Trump: Oh yeah, he mentioned it to me.

Also, he seems to realise this a second time and immedately contradicts himself: "I didnt hear about it, lindsey did mention it but im just hearing about it"

Rjd2

Probably best to stay on the right side of Mattis.

https://twitter.com/ZekeJMiller/status/1037147983106777088

Manic Moran

everlast75 wrote: »

Can someone please explain to me why the dems agreed to even have a hearing for the supreme court pic?

Why did they not do what the reps did with garland?

Can anyone tell me?

It’s not a matter of agreeing, it’s a matter of their only choices being to attend the hearing or not attend the hearing, which will go on whether they want it to or not. The Republicans control the Senate now, and they controlled the Senate two years ago when Garland was nominated. As a result, the Republicans control when or if hearings happen. For the Democrats to have any say in the matter, they need to win back the Senate.

Probably best to stay on the right side of Mattis.

I don’t know how many of them cross over into the feeds of non-military Irish folk, but rarely a week goes by without some meme relating to Saint Mattis of Quantico crossing my feed. This is this week’s. https://m.imgur.com/VK7HfY5 (Are knife-hands a thing in Ireland these days?)

For all the issues over folks like DeVos, Mattis is absolutely beloved by the folks he is in charge of and was an inspired choice. He’s done wonders for morale.

Leroy42

If the line about Mattis refusing to carry out the orders of POTUS are true, surely that is a firing office and a possible court martial?

Isn't that simply the military taking power without election and deciding foreign policy?

Zubeneschamali

Leroy42 wrote: »

Isn't that simply the military taking power without election and deciding foreign policy?

If the other option is Trump deciding things, I'm all for it.

It's commonly known that Reagan was senile and his "advisors" really ran the White House - this is no different.

circadian

Hurrache wrote: »

Trump questions the credibility of Woodward, but there's a tweet for everything
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/307582196196188160?s=19

According to his interview in the Daily Caller, Woodward has some serious credibility issues. Can't make this stuff up!

I get the feeling Kelly is there trying to put the fires out and stop something absolutely end of days horrific from happening. I feel bad for him, I think he's trying to manage Trump and while he's focused on that you have the likes of Miller pushing an extremely dangerous agenda.

Captain Obvious

Leroy42 wrote: »

If the line about Mattis refusing to carry out the orders of POTUS are true, surely that is a firing office and a possible court martial?

Isn't that simply the military taking power without election and deciding foreign policy?

The military has already abandoned their oaths by failing to show faith and allegiance to the constitution in favour of some new guns. I doubt it'll matter if they abandon the other half of it too. Who'd court martial him?

seamus

I heard a conservative commentator calling the people in the book hypocrites on the basis that if the WH was really so morally reprehensible, then why didn't they just quit instead of propping it up?

Which seems like a fair point, except that it appears that many people are staying where they are out of fidelity to their country, and to protect the country against its own President. If they left, then the lowest common denominators will take their place and they'd have no problem letting Trump do what he wants.

What a complete mess. I wonder how many of these people are actually working with Mueller and just waiting for him to give the nod before they drop Trump in it. The piece about trying to encourage Trump not to testify says a lot - they don't care about him. They don't care about protecting Trump and keeping him out of jail. It's about optics, about what the other world leaders will think of America when their leader stands in front of a court and looks like a complete idiot.

This is where nationalism becomes dangerous. When you'd rather let your country burn than let other countries see it charred and damaged.

Christy42

I believe the line is that if you quit you are a disgruntled ex employee and if you didn't and were that unhappy you should have.

Essentially they have excuses in place to ignore anyone and everyone.

You knee the character assignations of Woodward were coming. It is the MO of the administration. They can't attack the post so they attack the poster. Go after Woodward and people will ignore what he is saying.

Zubeneschamali

Christy42 wrote: »

Go after Woodward and people will ignore what he is saying.

This is Bob Woodward we are talking about - the only people who would believe Trump over Woodward are the 27% who would vote for a turnip if it ran as a Republican.

Leroy42

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

If the other option is Trump deciding things, I'm all for it.

It's commonly known that Reagan was senile and his "advisors" really ran the White House - this is no different.

I am not saying I disagree with it, but where do you draw the line?

Should the military then decide who to assassinate? Would this include US citizens? What if they don't agree with the what in Afghanistan any more, should they simply be allowed to refuse?

Like it or not POTUS is given this power. For Mattis to simply ignore his commands is unconstitutional.

It is not a healthy state of affairs. If someone cannot carry out their duties they should be removed and replaced, not simply used as a puppet for other non elected persons

everlast75

Leroy42 wrote: »

I am not saying I disagree with it, but where do you draw the line?

Should the military then decide who to assassinate? Would this include US citizens? What if they don't agree with the what in Afghanistan any more, should they simply be allowed to refuse?

Like it or not POTUS is given this power. For Mattis to simply ignore his commands is unconstitutional.

It is not a healthy state of affairs. If someone cannot carry out their duties they should be removed and replaced, not simply used as a puppet for other non elected persons

Apparently they did - see the quote about Assad!

seamus

Leroy42 wrote: »

It is not a healthy state of affairs. If someone cannot carry out their duties they should be removed and replaced, not simply used as a puppet for other non elected persons

Yep. And this would be part of the reason they're propping him up too, because a puppet president means you can get more of your personal agenda done without being caught.

Pence might be a horrible person, but at least he's a logical, horrible person. He won't do things that are devoid of logic and sense. So given the choice between Trump or Pence, unfortunately Pence is the lesser of two evils.

Could it be that he's holding off from any suggestion of removing Trump for being unfit so that he can use him as a puppet and run the WH from behind the scenes?