Welcome back!
Be careful about saying that.
Come to think of it, be careful even saying you heard somebody else say it.
Lest Trump sic the DOJ on you:
[Probably paywalled, but the title tells it all]
Reminder of the 5 W’s:
[6, if you count ‘Witness’]
Passing through… I’ll put this right here…
Trump says the US is going to, nevermind longstanding sanctions, buy Russian diesel, because Trump’s inept policies have made diesel so fucking expensive.
https://apnews.com/article/trump-russia-diesel-midterms-12baccc7aade559bf329079b0548c9da?utm_source=copy&utm_medium=share
Wall Street Journal article – for some reason not behind a paywall for me:
Honey Please’: Kimberly Guilfoyle Pushed Donor to Wire $100,000 to Her Amex Account
I do not like listening to podcasts, but this next incredible interview with the Trump donor is an exception. Mr. Deters admits to repeatedly bribing a variety of Trump family members, who take the money but, he complains, don’t deliver the goods:
The Bulwark Interview with Eric Deters
The goods Deter seeked were:
- Pressure the government of Pakistan to extradite a surgeon who fled the U.S. in the wake of hundreds of malpractice and medicare fraud charges (since Deters represents, or represented, the medical victims).
- Get a personal IRS case thrown out.
- Get Kid Rock to record a song he wrote.
You could say that the Trump Crime Family is more into defrauding those who wish to bribe the administration than it is into doing what it is paid to do. But it suspect it is more that Deters did not pay enough.
Cool - liking getting Rudy Giuliani to send my brother a Cameo birthday wish. ($375 incredibly stupid dollars later)
Maybe Kid Rock can take some of my song ideas - all about coke and whiskey.
And the odd nuclear code.
Did he say which ones?
Throw in a line about having sex with minors and he’s certain to record it.
From what I’m seeing, this will NOT bring down the price of diesel in the USA. It’s far too small an amount (about the amount we use in 14 hours).
This is about Donald helping out his beloved Vlad by blowing up the international system of sanctions against Russia. Which will reap the equivalent of billions of dollars (for use against Ukraine, and also to help Iran target US bases and vessels).
Yes, but Eric Deters didn’t provide documentation there the way he did with Kimberly Guilfoyle. I’m not going to repeat uncorroborated character assassination from Deters, a disgraced former lawyer who then misrepresented himself as a lawyer.
That’s the fundamental problem with trying to find witnesses to corruption among people like the Trumps. The people they surround themselves with are just about as scummy as they are.
I do not see any fundamental problem. I haven’t done a count, but I’m pretty sure I’ve posted dozens of documented Trump administration horrors in this thread. What about the $2 billion Jared got from the Saudi sovereign wealth fund?
My objection to assuming the truth of all the middling amounts that Eric Deters claims he used in attempting to bribe Trump family members is that the only evidence comes from the claim of one individual – Deters. Given Deters’ history, it is quite possible that some of his claims are mistaken. And even if Deters was a saint, it would be reasonable to want either physical evidence or a corroborating source. Why give the Trumpers the satisfaction of being able to say the opposition is making false charges when it is so easy to find undoubted corruption?
Donald Trump this week:
Putting aside that the above would normally be a state secret.
And putting aside the question of whether the U.S. should wage war against Iran.
And putting aside that it is Trump himself admitting to basing military decisions on the U.S. election calendar.
Isn’t it a major scandal that the U.S. President would let electoral considerations dictate when he is going to wage war?
P.S. Because of today’s attack on the Riyadh airport, maybe Trump will go back on his promise to put off resumption of bombing until after the election. But he still was planning to delay resumption of an unpopular war until after the election, and I think that should be a major league scandal.
After the midterms, he’s going to have a hostile Congress and possibly a hostile Senate and I would imagine one of the first things they will do is take away any sort of authorization for the use of military force against Iran. So I guess what Trump is saying right now is that he’s no longer interested in the war but in November he’s going to pretend he is so he can blame the Democrats for blocking him from achieving victory for the 28th time.
You really think so?
Anyway trump doesn’t need or wait for any stinkin’ authorization. He just does whatever he wants.
Exactly what I’m thinking. He pretty much telegraphed it.
Yeah, I strongly suspect that, like so many definitive pronouncements he’s made regarding this war, that promise will last less than one Scaramucci. He says whatever makes him feel powerful and in command at that moment, with no regard as to whether it’s true, or whether he’ll be bound to whatever he said.
Next week: Trump gives his word to not lay a finger or a hook on Iran.
The commander in chief does not need congressional authorization to order the Air Force to attack.
The War Powers Resolution is written on the assumption that the war is boots on the ground, in which case it is clear when the war started and thus when the 90th day of the war, after which there needs to be positive congressional authorization, falls. With an air war, under the War Powers Resolution, all Trump has to do is stop for a day or two and then say he’s starting a new military campaign, and he gets another 90 days. This SCOTUS will defer to the commander in chief on that.
As for whether Trump will blame the Democrats for his own failures, while this may occur, there are enough actual horrors for there to be no need to speculate about further horrors that may not occur.
But couldn’t congress use its power of the purse to stop the war? something like passing a bill “Starting on such and such date no money can be used to fund military operations against Iran” or something better worded?
I seem to recall that that didn’t work out so well the, I think, last time Congress tried that,