US General Election 2016

ABC News not doing much to assuage the label of fake news.

https://www.mediaite.com/online/abc-news-slammed-for-hours-later-clarification-on-major-flynn-report-huge-effing-difference/

ABC News’ major report on Michael Flynn and President Trump‘s direction on reaching out to the Russians has been corrected. Hours later. And Twitter is ripping the network over it.

Per multiple reports earlier, Brian Ross‘ report that Flynn is expected to testify Trump directed him to meet with Russians “as a candidate” was followed minutes later by a drop in the stock market.

But as Ross clarified on World News Tonight (video here), it was as President-elect, not as a candidate, and that is kind of a major difference.

ABC News also tweeted out a clarification and deleted its earlier tweet:

CLARIFICATION of ABC News Special Report: Flynn prepared to testify that President-elect Donald Trump directed him to make contact with the Russians *during the transition* — initially as a way to work together to fight ISIS in Syria, confidant now says. https://t.co/ewrkVZBTbc pic.twitter.com/GQAKwT1Eda

— ABC News (@ABC) December 2, 2017

And here I hear that the Obama administration was aware and ok with people in the transition team communicating with dignitaries from any country they wished to be in contact with.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2vO3GNexHYI&t=28m25s

And we know Flynn was unmasked by Obama administration officials in that call with the Russian ambassador, so if anything was improper about the call, we would have known by now.

https://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2017/12/01/dont-forget-what-the-washington-post-reported-about-flynn-and-the-russian-ambassador/

The Washington Post published a story which said that the phone calls between Flynn and the Russian ambassador had been listened to and transcribed and there was nothing illicit on them. We don’t know what Flynn lied about, but whatever it was he said to the Russian ambassador was nothing worthy of pursuing criminal charges or anything else! And we wouldn’t even know that happened if it weren’t for the Russian ambassador having been surveilled, which was fine and dandy; that’s legal. He’s a Russian agent.

But we had to unmask Flynn! It was the Obama administration still in power during the transition. They unmasked Flynn and made it public that Flynn was talking to the Russian ambassador and thereby created this impression that something illegal might have been going on regarding stealing the election. And right around the Trump inauguration, the Washington Post publishes a story saying that the details of the call had been listened to, tapes of the call, transcriptions of the call, and there was nothing illicit said.

A president-elect should be allowed to meet with anyone for informational purposes so long as they don't discuss policy changes. At this moment I'm not sure if Flynn is actually in a plea bargain, or if he just admitted to lying about contacts with the Russian ambassador in order to diminish the heat and others have inferred he made a plea bargain.

This thread has been blessed by Eru. The 2016 election winner, however, has not.

Eru wrote:This thread has been blessed by Eru.  The 2016 election winner, however, has not.

Praise (sorta) be!

I think we may have to open a Grand Jury investigation

Hard to know if this was some put-on at multiple levels, but this is the kind of thing I thought Mueller would be spending more time investigating.

http://ew.com/tv/2016/12/16/best-2016-full-frontal-samantha-bee-russia-trolls/

I hear that the Obama administration was aware and ok with people in the transition team communicating with dignitaries from any country they wished to be in contact with.- Bungo

{{As far as I can tell its one of those 'technically' illegal things to do that every incoming admin in fact does.
However Flynn's problems seem to be 1. He lied about the contact and what was discussed to the FBI - a crime in itself. 2. He was a private citizen at the time and the Logan Act clearly states as a private citizen he cant work with a foreign government in contradiction of US policy- so the Israel vote at the UN is the big problem for him there as he was not only trying to persuade a foreign power to vote a certain way, he was trying to persuade them to vote against the US admin of the time and against official US government policy, making it potentially traitorous.

It also looks fairly likely he has been given these lesser charges as a trade off for handing over info about bigger fish in the Admin. }}}

So an investigation into "collusion" (which doesn't exist and no evidence has been shown to exist) creates process crimes which wouldn't have existed in the first place without the phony investigation. Which was, by the way, propagated by the DNC and their fake Trump/Russia dossier that they funded Fusion GPS to "compile". And now Mueller is trying to find ANYTHING to take down Trump, it doesn't matter if it had anything to do with the 2016 election or not.

And all you liberals on here will cream your pants the day he's impeached, arrested, or worse. And that fucking sickens me to no end. I sat quite and was patient when Obama was president for 8 years. I didn't come on here and complain about him while he was running rough shod over the country and start calling him names. This isn't because I liked Obama, or that I thought he was a decent person; no, it was because he was duly elected and just because I disagreed with him and didn't like him isn't a good enough excuse to make up shit about him and try to get him out of office. But when it came around to someone that I voted for president finally wins? You lot think it's the end of the fucking world and will do anything to get rid of him. You want my voice, my vote, to be silenced. If the left doesn't get its way, I guess no one can be happy.

you can all fuck off

I'm not sure where you're coming from Bungo. I've seen a lot of presidents come and go, and they've all gotten a hard time at some point, most often in their first term (which is sometimes their last). I believe that's exactly what's supposed to happen in a democracy - a president needs to be accountable, right?

I've got no particular love for the left or the right, but I'm not buying the theory that Trump's current problems are a conspiracy of the other side. Trump appointed his own people, Sessions and Rosenstein, to handle things.

Trump fired Comey at least partly based on Rosenstein's recommendation. Sessions recused himself. Rosenstein appointed Mueller.

Trump is no newbie when it comes to putting together a team, so what went wrong here? From where I sit (on the west coast as far away from DC as possible) this whole mess looks entirely self-inflicted.

Personally I'd like to see Trump be a bit more transparent (releasing his tax returns like every other president before him would be a good start), testify occasionally when an important question comes up, and then get on with governing the USA like most other presidents have tried to do. He's still got a chance to pull this thing out of the gutter if he'll just stop tweeting and start governing.

I've been trying to say (though perhaps not very clearly) that I don't think Mueller should be investigating the President when he's supposed to be investigating the Russians.

But as to the attacks Trump gets, some of it is sore losers, but I'd estimate 71.38% of it is because he's a bully who brings it on himself.  His first instinct is to denigrate anybody who doesn't say something nice about him and guess what?  They're gonna hit right back. Most presidents either ignore attacks or put out a carefully worded defence (at least in public).

If you took his playground personality out of the equation I think you'd find him being attacked about as much (okay a bit more given the media's liberal slant) as any other president.  

Though things like stopping immigrants enroute instead of placing immigration policies only on new visas deservedly earns backlash.  That's just being nasty for no good reason.

Bungo - I'm rather puzzled. Originally you wanted to vote for Bernie Sanders, who if anything is far more liberal than Obama. This seems to indicate you'd be unhappy that Obama wasn't doing enough rather than he was doing the wrong things. Now you strongly identify as a Trump style conservative. I can understand switching, but I don't understand the strong identification with either side after such a switch. I'd expect a more analytical response rather than a passionate response.

So an investigation into "collusion" (which doesn't exist and no evidence has been shown to exist) creates process crimes which wouldn't have existed in the first place without the phony investigation.- Bungo

{{Seems to me this is just how your system works- I dont remember cues of Republicans and conservatives demanding Starr drop his investigations into Bill Clinton when he had expanded the original investigations into studying cum stains. If not wanting to admit in public an affair you haven't admitted to yur wife yet can lead to a President being impeached for obstruction of justice how is sacking the man investigating you because he wont drop the investigation not count?
I dont make the rules,not my country, just observing how they seem to operate.
If Republicans and their supporters had demanded Starr drop his investigation- instead of throwing fuel n the fire with conspiracy theories of murders and cover ups, they might have a moral leg to stand on when complaining about Trump's investigation.

Personally I dont like Trump- I knew almost nothing about him before he became President save where his golf course lies had affected Scottish politics, I dont watch reality TV. So I knew almost nothing about him personally- what I have seen is narcissism and ego, knee-jerk reactions, reactionary policies, a further deterioration of the already appalling US health care system in terms of coverage and quality and massive tax breaks for the very wealthiest.

And he does stuff like retweeting the Britain First videos- without verification of content and ignoring the fact they are a fringe right wing group of nutters with, until Trump tweeted them, almost no public face outside of youtube.
Britains First tactics in creating videos- no verification of content, removal of all surrounding context, villainous depiction of only one religous or ethic group and ignoring atrocities by the other side ect are the exact same recruitment video tactics employed by IS. Would it be therefore acceptable for Trump to retweet IS? Its the same thing in terms of promoting hate groups. The President of the US is acting as a propaganda mouth piece for a disgustingly vile group-so vile even Piers Morgan and Nigel Farage condemned the tweets and they are his two biggest UK allies and mouth pierces.
And when the UK PM made a formal rebuke Trump instead alienated an ally by her attacking her for daring to criticise him.

This sort of thing is just stupid- not only the irresponsible nature of the tweets but he has offended most of his European allies now at some point- and when as is happening now, Mueller asks countries like Germany to release bank records pertinent to the investigation, Trump will find some of these countries will be falling over themselves to help Mueller out.
America might actually be arrogant enough to believable it can lead the world all alone, America First! and without allies- but it really cant.
Imagine 9/11 happened now- do you really thing all the countries which immediately backed the US up and sent their own soldiers, their own children to die on a foreign battlefield for a US cause would do so now for Trump's America? }}}

Trump needs to retire to the golf course.

he also needs to be impeached before he starts WW3.

{{{ Been mulling over Trumps decision regards Jerusalem.
I am going to put aside what motivated it, the politics of it seems more clear at the moment viewed in a home base context than an international one but until we see what the 'peace plan' Trumps son and law comes up with we cant be certain what motivates it entirely and if its part of some greater scheme.

No rather I have noted some comments in the press (and indeed some hints perhaps of despair it has not transpired) at the lack of violence, uprising and general gnashing of teeth and exploding of bombs in response to it.
Certainly there have been protests, but not (yet at least) on the seemingly expected scale. And there have been some rockets fired, and retaliatory strikes in response killing 2 Palestinians. But still not a huge uprising.

But this does not in the slightest surprise me- there is truth for once in what Trump says when he says he is recognizing a physical reality- that Israel holds most of Jerusalem (partly through illegal occupation) and that its governmental buildings are located there. It is the capital of Jerusalem.

Thing is though whilst its true the Palestinians are hearing it differently- what they hear is America true voice. America backs Israel, America will ignore the illegal occupation and even accept it and legitimize it- and despite former Presidents words it always has done- America is anti-Arab, anti-Muslim, all thats changed is its finally openly admitting it. Trump has confirmed what is, to a Palestinian a self evident daily truth. Their problem now is what to do about it.

A lot of Palestinians dont like their leaders, they think they are weak and ineffectual. That they have thrown away chances to negotiate for a settled peace. But what is that peace now? The dividing of the city to be shared among all religions and none was fundamental to the very existence of the peace plan.
So the question becomes will the Palestinians let go of that claim, of that dream in favour of a state that does not include Jerusalem? Or will they turn as they have in the past to groups like Hamas (and naive to think Iran will not be taking whatever advantage they can find here) to fight against Israel- I dont sense the stomach for an uprising in the interviews with Palestinians I have seen.

By effectively declaring Israel the winners of the peace process-ionly they get all the peace and all the land they want- Trump has effectively wiped out the entire existing status quo of the past few decades- the quesiton is now what will replace it- there is chance of some sort of talks to arise from all this, there is a moment here created in the vacuum of Trumps decision. Or there is the equally, the possibly greater chance given the history, that it will set new flames to old feuds.

But its one hell of a risky move that has, at least for now, distanced America from all its Arab allies in the region, and most of its European ones too and writes them out from being the negotiator in any peace deal (the Palestinians have already said they will not meet with any US representatives until Trump rescinds the decision).
Oddly enough it was welcomed by Russia..... }}}}

I think it's the same strategy as withdrawing from the Paris Climate Accord: separate from the herd at all cost, even if it means climbing out onto a shaky limb. "Multilateral" is a dirty word in Trump's world view.

We'll have to wait and see what comes of it, but it's probably going to be a lot lonelier for the US than any time since WWII. That seems to be the plan (not unlike Brexit).

{{ I find the timing among the oddest thing here. Trumps admin has been on fact finding on a way to restart the peace process- that was due to report in this week. Pence had a trip scheduled, again for this week, where he was to meet with all the major Arab players, form the Palestinians to the Egyptians and Saudi's.

But following Trumps announcement all the countries involved have withdrawn and are now saying they will not meet with Pence or any US representative.
Pretty much if Pence's trip goes ahead the only people who will talk to him are the Israeli's- and that's not going to help the perception the US has chosen sides and therefore cannot broker peace as a fair neutral element.

So of all of it the timing is weirdest to me as Trump's announcement seems to utterly undermine his Admins own legitimate efforts to bring the players together round the conference table.
I think if I was Kushner or Pence right now I be feeling pretty pissed off that, presumably, months of behind the scenes work setting up the conditions for Pences trip and to convince everyone of whatever Kushners peace plan is, has been utterly thrown out the window and was all for naught.}}}

I think this is just his last attempt at being able to say 'I did this' in his speech he boasted that while all other presidents hadn't done anything HE had, it was just hubris after his many other failures he needed a 'good one' for the history books. he will be remembered for other reasons outside his control though.

I'm trying to figure out if Kirsten Gillibrand ever actually did ask Donald Trump for campaign donations, but have no idea how to go about finding out. I'm coming up dry. Eldo I'm sure would know.

And yes, Trump did used to support democrats.

Ah, https://www.opensecrets.org/donor-lookup/results?name=Donald+Trump&cycle=&state=&zip=&employ=Trump&cand=Gillibrand

a total of $5850 in 2007 and 2010.

'Analysts from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention were reportedly told that the Trump administration is prohibiting the agency from using seven words or phrases...The report said the forbidden words are “vulnerable,” “entitlement,” “diversity,” “transgender,” “fetus,” “evidence –based” and “science-based.”- Fox News

{{ So the department whose work is all about diseases, an entirely science based process is being discouraged and banned from thinking or using the terms of science and evidence led data?

Americans!- you do know your country is being run by actual madmen- the sort that are going to be very harmful and cost actual real lives? Don't you? }}}

Pettytyrant101 wrote:'Analysts from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention were reportedly told that the Trump administration is prohibiting the agency from using seven words or phrases...The report said the forbidden words are “vulnerable,” “entitlement,” “diversity,” “transgender,” “fetus,” “evidence –based” and “science-based.”- Fox News

{{ So the department whose work is all about diseases, an entirely science based process is being discouraged and banned from thinking or using the terms of science and evidence led data?

Americans!- you do know your country is being run by actual madmen- the sort that are going to be very harmful and cost actual real lives? Don't you?   }}}

To be fair Trump probably doesn't understand half of those words

Honestly this is probably more Pence than Trump, which is arguably more worrying because that would mean it's not the action of an unstable, erratic individual and a small group of sycophants but is part of a larger political, social, and religious agenda that has been pushed for decades (with its fortunes ebbing and flowing over time).

Pettytyrant101 wrote:
Americans!- you do know your country is being run by actual madmen- the sort that are going to be very harmful and cost actual real lives? Don't you?   }}}

Though this be madness, yet there is method in't....