His resignation letter makes it sound like he was doing it because he couldn’t follow an order he believed to be illegal, the Pentagon chief says it was because he went outside his chain of command by going to the President to try to set up a deal that would let Gallagher keep his status as a SEAL.
https://www.cnn.com/2019/11/24/politics/pentagon-mark-esper-richard-spencer/index.html
Yeah, with people like that you don’t need blackmail. You just need to look up at them reverently enough and they turn to putty.
Senator John Kennedy (R-LA) was being interviewed by Chris Wallace on Fox News.
Wallace: “Senator Kennedy, who do you believe was responsible for hacking the DNC and Clinton campaign computers - their emails? Was it Russia or Ukraine?”
Kennedy: “I don’t know. Nor do you. Nor do any of us.”
Wallace: “Let me just interrupt to say that the entire intelligence community says it was Russia.”
Kennedy: “Right, but it could also be Ukraine. I’m not saying that I know one way or the other.”
Here you have a top Republican seemingly proud of his ignorance. Sure, you can - with enough effort - put facts into his head. But you will never be able to force him to learn anything from those facts.
It’s entirely possible that there’s no kompromat.
Granted, I can’t think of any reason for Trump to do things like continue to try and clear Russia of involvement in 2016, if it’s just his personal conspiracy theory. As example, he thought the Saudis ran 9/11 and he’s not hounding them, nor is he telling people to dig up Obama’s Kenyan birth certificate. Before he was “exonerated” by Mueller, maybe, but now…? His activities look very similar to how Zelenskyy would look, operating investigations of an American politician. Clearly they serve no purpose to Zelenskyy’s political nor personal aims so, if he’s investigating Biden, it’s safe to ask the question, “Who would want Zelenskyy to investigate Biden, and are there any conceivable ways that that individual might have leverage of some form to have pushed Zelenskyy into taking on this very peculiar hobby?”
But, saying that Putin doesn’t have anything on Trump, that’s a guess. Just like it is a guess to say that Putin does have something on Trump. Neither of these is a factual statement and acting on either of them would be silly and acting like either of them is anything more than an opinion would be silly.
But, it is provable that Trump would fail even the smallest of security clearance reviews. And it is provable that he is the sort of person to do the sorts of things in the sorts of places where kompromat could and would be made. Yes, that doesn’t mean that it was. But again, acting like you know that there’s no kompromat against him is silly.
We can prove that he’s been to Russia many times.
We can prove that he has a habit of procuring women from Eastern European countries.
We can prove that he’s a sex fiend.
We can prove that several of his friends are sex fiends.
We can prove that on at least one occasion girls were sent to his room, in Russia. We do not know about the other occasions.
We can prove that he doesn’t mind too much that a girl is strictly 18, before considering her a sex object.
We can prove that he has had relationships with at least four child sex traffickers.
We can prove that one of his child sex trafficking acquittances has a habit of procuring girls from Eastern European countries.
We can prove that he’s stupid enough to commit a crime even while having twelve random people listening to his phone call.
None of that is proof that he has done something that he shouldn’t, and it’s even less proof that someone has documented that.
But that’s a really hard list of facts to attain as a normal, well-behaved citizen of the sort to not generate blackmail material. Like, I appreciate that, reading it, your brain runs to “this is a conspiracy theory and, ergo, Trump is clear of all crimes”.
But, what do you want me to do? Epstein was just as much a giant, living conspiracy theory if you just laid all of that out there. It’s real though. When I say that the above are all provable, I mean they’re on-the-record slam dunks.
And with Trump you’re also dealing with the issue that, like, would you be willing to play two rounds of Russian Roulette on a bet, with an all-knowing genie who could state conclusively one way or another, that Trump has never committed a major financial crime on foreign soil?
We have no proof that he has done something.
But the fact that no foreign government has accused Trump of a single thing, when none of them have anywhere near the limits that the US government does in researching his activities - they don’t have a Bill of Rights, he’s not immune against their crimes, and he’s not a citizen. And yet here, where we do have those limitations, he’s been proven to have committed fraud via his University, he’s been proven to have been practicing self-dealing with his charity for US veterans, he’s been proven to have “casting couched” a woman, paid her off, engaged in campaign finance violations in regard to said woman, engaged in campaign finance violations in regard to his charity, committed obstruction of justice, and solicited a bribe from a foreign head of state. So what are the odds that no one, no other country that Trump has ever had major business dealings in just happens to have discovered that the guy was always completely honorable and above board while he was going about his business?
To be certain, Trump spends most of his time in the US and so we would expect the majority of his shenanigans to have taken place here. But none? Zero crimes in Turkey? Zero crimes in the Philippines? Why are there no allegations from foreign nations? Ukraine barely even mentioned Manafort and then they went quiet on the subject.
There’s no proof but the sheer quantity of risk makes it a very foolish game to let the man control any portion of our foreign policy - and foreign policy is really the key focus of the Federal government, despite the average American’s understanding of the topic.
As a prosecutor, Ghouliani appeared, at that time, as competent and tough. While he loved the camera more than most prosecutors, I don’t recall him showing the negative traits that would begin appearing about halfway into his first term as mayor and would keep amplifying going forward.
Bloomberg, while nowhere near as bad, also quickly became much more autocratic as his terms progressed. I don’t want 3rd term Bloomberg as president, and nothing he has done nor said had convinced me that he is no longer that man.
Hey, according to some folks, it could be some 400-pound guy in his mother’s basement. But really:
“Horse, here’s some water. What you do with it is entirely up to you.”
You can lead a horse’s arse to water, but you can’t make him think.
At this point, even if they dragged Trump out of the White House and lynched him, it wouldn’t matter much because there is SO MUCH rot, in the “Republican” party.
That lying toady traitor Kennedy makes my stomach churn too.
Bloomberg sucks ass too.
Another self entitled zillionaire autocrat, who thinks he can buy the presidency. Wasn’t he the asswipe who wanted to control peoples’ eating habits? Because he knows best for everyfuckingbody?
https://en.wikipedia.org › wiki › Sugary_Drinks_Portion_Cap_Rule
“On May 30, 2012, Mayor Michael Bloomberg announced the Portion Cap Rule, a proposed amendment to article 81 of the New York City Health Code, that would require “food service establishments” (FSEs) to cap at 16 ounces (475 mL) the size of cups and containers used to offer, provide and sell sugary beverages.”
The Complete List of Everything Banned by Mayor Michael Bloomberg
Smoking in commercial establishments like bars and restaurants (2003)
Smoking in public spaces (2011)
Cigarette sales to those under 21 (2013)
Sales of “flavored” tobacco products (2009)
Smoking e-cigarettes in public spaces (2013) ***
Cigarette in-store displays (2013)
Cars in Times Square (2009)
Cars from driving in newly created bike lanes (2007-2013)
Cars causing congestion below 60th Street in Manhattan (2007) *
Speeding on residential “slow zones” (2013)
Illegal guns (2006-2013) **
Sodium levels in processed foods (2010) **
Trans-fats in restaurants (2006)
Loud headphones (2013) **
Styrofoam packaging in single-service food items (2013)
Sodas larger than 16 ounces (2012) *
Collection of yard waste and grass clippings during certain times of year (2003-2013)
Organic food waste from landfills (2013) **
Commercial music over 45 decibels (2013)
Chain restaurant menus without calorie counts (2008)
The posting of signs in “city-owned grassy areas” (2013)
Non-fuel-efficient cabs (2007)
New cabs that aren’t Nissan NV200s (2013) *
Greenhouse gas emissions (2007)
Government buildings that aren’t LEED-certified (2005)
Non-hurricane-proof buildings in coastal areas (2013)
Black roofs (2009) **
Construction cranes over 25 years old (2013)
No. 6 and No. 4 “heavy” heating oils (2011)
Less than a 2-1 ratio of female and male restrooms in new public buildings (2005)
Cell phones in schools (2006)
Two-term limits for city elected officials (2008) *
And people think the DEMS are the Nanny State guys?
Fuck me running.
Bloomberg is a DEM, always has been. He ran on the republican ticket for mayor because the dems wouldn’t let him on their ticket, and the reps had no one else (especially after Ghouliani). That (R) after his name for the first two terms, and the (I) during the third, were meaningless distinctions and just there for expediency’s sake.
The over-sized soda bans and many other food regulations, though well-intentioned, were nearly Trump-stupid ideas (which are never well-intentioned). Most of the car/traffic ‘bans’, which continue to occur, are actually to ease congestion, enhance safety, and promote business. And really, calling Speeding on residential “slow zones” a ban is idiotic and like several other items, filler. First, speeding has always been banned. :smack: Implementing slow zones in the US’ most pedestrian-heavy city is a safety measure, not some heavy-handed nanny state initiative. Also, stating a requirement of having calorie-counts on menus is a ban on not having calorie-counts on menus is another back-assward way of padding the hit-piece list. And I say this as someone who already stated I don’t like Bloomberg.
He’s not wrong. *** I ***certainly can’t understand how Trump has the nerve to show his face in public, let alone spout even more bullshit every day.
Another New Yorker who hates Bloomberg here. And I have to say that pretty much every ban on SteveG1’s list has made this city of 8,000,000 plus human beings a better and safer place to live.
I still smoke cigarettes, but I enjoy dining out without someone else’s smoke wafting over my table. It would be nice to still be able to light up in a dive bar, though.
I laughed at the first Bloomberg ad I saw. All of this time, he’s been Michael, and now he’s Mike? Just one of the guys, I guess.
The “hero dog” was at the White House and individual 1 threatened to sic him on reporters.
And I’m the one stating an opinion as fact? All the possibles are not proof.
Exactly. Kim, bin Salman, and the rest don’t need blackmail. They just need to stroke that ego.
If that’s not love, what is? (God, now I’ve blasphemed against Fiddler on the Roof.)
This follows the statement before it even less than your other evidence.
Yeah, I felt dirty typing it and dirtier reading it.
On that we vociferously agree.
Erdogan never did.
I am unaware of Putin ever doing much to suck up to Trump. At last call of the two of them together, Trump looked like he’d just been reamed in the back room before coming out to the podium.
There’s always One Who Loves Too Much, and in this case it’s Donald.
If he gets indicted, Rudy’s going to be Coffee Boy Number 9.
Rudy was a prosecutor, wasn’t he? How on earth could he have done that, then turn around and act like the sort of person he once prosecuted? He’s so open about it, too. Though I suppose his association with Kerik was a hint.
That’s because Trump is Putin’s #1 fanboy. Seriously, Trump seems to idolize him. Wants to be just like him when he grows up.