Why does he insist on calling out for a division of the parties every time he gets the mic in front of his piehole?  That does NOTHING productive.  Until he begins to act presidential and work to unite this country vs pulling us apart, I will have ZERO respect for him and his so called accomplishments.

 R_P wrote: 

“We fell in love. No really. He wrote me beautiful letters. They were great letters. And then we fell in love."

 Red_Dragon wrote: 
Fake News! Winning!

c.

More US corporate giants warn tariffs will mean price hikes

 cc_rider wrote: 
I like the suggestion that Apple, with all is capital, should just buy FOX. That would be weird.

 R_P wrote: 

 R_P wrote: 
I wonder what kinds of jobs these people can hold after this. I mean, who would hire someone who has abdicated all moral and ethical principles? Well, okay yeah, but Fox 'News' can only hire so many of them.
c.

... and dumber.

 Red_Dragon wrote: 
I like to imagine the members of the UN understand the president* does not represent the majority of the US. Sure, laughing in his face means one thing, but I like to think they understand this guy is an aberration.

I am reminded of US citizens visiting, say, Iran, since I met a guy who'd been there. He was uniformly treated with respect, even fun. Folks fell over themselves to invite him home for dinner, for example. No flag burning, no death threats, just regular people. Despite the 'Death to America' chants we see on the news, the day-to-day personal interactions had nothing to do with either country's saber-rattling government.

That said, Iran's government has every reason to be wary of the US. CIA, 1953 ring a bell? Talk about election interference! The Ruskies got nuthin' on the good ol' USofA.

I think they know he's a buffoon. Heck, the US is still the young upstart among most countries. They have thousands of years under their belts. This Too Shall Pass.

c.

Trump’s own federal prosecutors want his comments about ‘flippers’ barred from El Chapo’s trial

 NoEnzLefttoSplit wrote: 

In mah belly! 

A+ for diligence.

now, where's the whiskey?

kurtster wrote:

"Wow, you outright ignore what I write."


Oh Kurt, I assure you: I would do NEVER DO THAT ...because it would prolong our pointless political conversations. 
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

kurster wrote on 9/25/18 @ 4:51pm 
"So Mueller already knew he was going to be the special counsel when he was interviewed by Trump."
I wrote:

However, the CNN piece does not say that. The CNN piece says this: 

"If Mueller knew he was going to be named special counsel, it is unlikely he divulged that information to Trump." 

I write:
Again, as I wrote before: As of 6/13/17 when the piece ran, CNN couldn't say whether Mueller knew at the time of his interview with Trump that he was going to be named special counsel. As I posted earlier, the White House didn't know about Mueller's appointment as special counsel until about 1 hour before it was announced. 
You never did back up your assertion of 9/25/18 @2:03pm that Trump rejected Mueller for the job as FBI Director. 

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I wrote:

At the time of Mueller's interview, was Trump himself even a focus of an FBI investigation into Russia's involvement into the 2016 campaign? 


kurtster wrote:

Yes, he was.  We have the timeline to support that


I write: 
Golly, such a shame you couldn't share that magical timeline with us. The timeline that tells us when Trump himself became the focus of the FBI investigation into Russia's meddling in the 2016 election. 
The Chicago Tribune sure could have used that magical timeline when it wrote on 2/24/18

Q. Is Donald Trump directly under investigation?

A. He says he was assured by James Comey, then FBI director, that he was not under investigation. But the last assurance came March 30, 2017, and it’s unclear whether that’s still true.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
kurtster wrote:

"Or in the off chance that Mueller did not know until the choice was announced the next day, which seems totally not possible, "


I wrote:

Do you have any evidence to support your claim that it's "totally not possible" that Mueller was ignorant about his imminent appointment as special counsel? 



kurtster wrote:

By deliberately leaving out the disqualifier, "seems", you totally skew my statement.

I write:
Do you have any evidence to support your claim that it "seems totally not possible" that Mueller was ignorant about his imminent appointment as special counsel? Personally, I don't see the skew. I do get the sense that tonight you're foaming at the mouth more than you normally do. 

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++


I wrote:

As for what Rosenstein should have done in terms of any ethical/legal concerns about Mueller's interview with Trump, I'll leave that to ethicists and lawyers. 

kurtster wrote: 


Gee, how convenient of you.  You've had little trouble expounding the same in other circumstances ...  Here, I'll save you the trouble, it is totally unethical based upon what I learned in my Ethics course in the curriculum for my BBA that I finished in 2007 (but only magna cum laude, so I'm not the sharpest tool in the shed) ... or  D U H ... 


I wrote: 

Well done on the BBA magna cum laude. A shame that you couldn't explain in any detail why you think Rosenstein was being "totally unethical" about Mueller's interview with Trump (no no, for God's sake don't expound.    I am so desperately eager to get away from this idiotic exchange ). Seriously, google around for opinions from lawyers and ethicists on the matter—I'm sure you'll find someone who'll back you up. Just don't feel obligated to share your findings with me...cause I don't care at this point. 


You want me to have an opinion on this? I'll try because it seems to be at the heart of your ranting objection to Mueller interviewing with Trump the day before Rosenstein appointed Mueller as special counsel: 

This was a job interview between Trump and Mueller. During that interview, Mueller had no legal right or reasonable expectation to interrogate Trump, and receive answers bound by an oath from Trump, about the Trump's campaign involvement with Russia. TRump had no obligation to give any answer to any questions from Mueller on the subject. 


Furthermore, Trump was interviewing Mueller to be FBI Director. As I wrote before, Trump knew that the FBI was going to be heavily involved in helping any special counsel that Rosenstein appointed to dig into possible Russia/Trump campaign "collusion." It's reasonable to believe that Trump knew that as FBI Director, Mueller would be able to share any information he learned about possible Russia/Trump campaign "collusion" with the special counsel, whether Mueller got that from talking to Trump or from other sources. There is no information firewall between the FBI Director and the special counsel. 


In short: Trump was aware during that interview with Mueller that if Trump said something self-incriminating about Russia/Trump campaign "collusion", those words could be used against him by the special counsel, whoever that turned out to be. Trump was not an innocent undergoing an interrogation disguised as a job interview. To believe anything like that idea is to live in a Pink Panther movie. 

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I wrote:

AFAICT, Rosenstein's apparent willingness to "wear a wire" centered on his concern that Trump was not fit to be president (hence his mentioning the 25th Amendment and not articles of impeachment). I don't think you can assume that Rosenstein was trying to use the Mueller/Trump interview to catch Trump in an self-incriminating statement involving Russia and the Trump campaign. 


kurtster wrote:
No, Rosenstein could use Mueller's observations based on the face to face encounter with Trump to make a case for the 25th if Mueller had what Rosenstein needed.  Mueller, as a former FBI Director has immediate cred and quite frankly say anything he wanted and would be 100% believed just based upon his word ...

I write:
Oh buddy. Are you taking any meds we should know about? Anything that might impair your ability to think logically or comprehend reality? I'm beginning to think this issue might be driving your recent posts. That, or you just really want to waste my time. 
Section 4 of the 25th Amendment requires that a majority of the President's cabinet AND the Vice President tell Congress that the president is unfit to serve. The idea that Mike "Super Jesus Freak" Pence would turn against his beloved Donald like some Judas is crazier than Crazytown. Even if Rosenstein or whoever could get a majority of the flunkies and incompetents in Trump's cabinet to call Trump unfit, he would also have to get 2/3 of each chamber of Congress to agree that Trump was unfit. Because Trump would surely contest any declaration of his unfitness coming from Pence and Cabinet, and such a disagreement from Trump triggers the 2/3 requirement. 

And that's just the logistical issue of invoking the 25th Amendment. 


Do you seriously think that Rosenstein and Mueller were trying to ambush Trump via a job interview so that Mueller could pronounce Trump unfit to the world? Doesn't that strike you as cray cray? Please say yes. I'm really worried about you. 



Why would Washington and especially the GOP magically fall into line with any such Mueller declaration about Trump's unfitness? An ex-FBI Director is not a psychiatrist. According to Woodward, members of Trump's cabinet already talked about the 25th Amendment, so concern about the president's fitness was already active before Mueller interviewed. You might argue that Mueller's sterling personal reputation would carry weight to push such removal along, but Mueller has that reputation because he is deeply honest and ethical. He wouldn't take part in any weird attempt via interviewing for a job to remove the president. 


And for the love of God: how would a guy interviewing for a job turn use that situation to probe the president's mind and determine his fitness for the job? How far do you seriously think Mueller or anyone would have gotten into plumbing Trump's mind by talking to Trump about taking a job with the administration? Don't you think Trump would have smelled a rat? Who would take such a harsh assessment seriously from Mueller? 

Frankly, though, I'll say this: if you really think Rosenstein and Mueller posed such a serious threat to Trump's hold on power because of Mueller's job interview, deep down you don't think much about Trump's stability or fitness. 

Look, if you want to huff and puff about the ethics of people working for Trump, look at former White House counsel John Dowd and Trump's lawyer Jay Sekulow. They went to see special counsel Mueller in person and told Mueller that Trump couldn't answer Mueller's questions under oath because they believed Trump couldn't help but perjure himself. They re-enacted a mock interview session they'd held with Trump to show Mueller that Trump would repeatedly lie and go off tangent and not answer questions. TRUMP'S OWN LAWYERS LAID OUT A PRETTY DAMNED GOOD CASE FOR TRUMP'S REMOVAL VIA THE 25TH AMENDMENT FOR BOB MUELLER. They claimed they were trying to protect Trump's best interests but I don't know...A shame that neither the special counsel nor the FBI Director is a cabinet position. 



++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I wrote: 
You think Mueller and/or Rosenstein performed acts of sedition? You'll have to spell that out for the rest of us. Do supply evidence and links to support your conclusion—that'll be a welcome change.


kurtster wrote: 
Get back to me on what I've mentioned above and then we can talk about this ...

I write: 



FFS. Like you ever will. Are you afraid of research and backing up your assertions? Why should I take you seriously if you can't back up your assertions? Why should you stoop down to Trump's level of just saying sh*^ and not bothering with supporting evidence? 

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I wrote:
A president is not entitled to blind, unwavering loyalty, especially when the assessment of his immediate subordinates is that he's not fit to serve. 


kurtster wrote:
Show me this assessment !!


I write:

Here's a hint: Amazon has it on deep discount.
https://tinyurl.com/yan9yjhs


++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++=

 kcar wrote: 

 kurtster wrote: 
I previously highlighted this sentence from the excerpt of the CNN article that I posted. The CNN article does not state that Mueller knew that the time of his interview with Trump for the FBI directorship that he was going to be named special counsel. Please read the sentence again: 

If Mueller knew he was going to be named special counsel, it is unlikely he divulged that information to Trump. 



As of 6/13/17, CNN couldn't say whether Mueller knew at the time of his interview with Trump that he was going to be named special counsel. 

Also, you assume that Trump during the course of interviewing Mueller risked incriminating himself about some matter touching on the Russia investigation. That's a pretty big assumption. Trump was under no obligation during Mueller's job interview to talk about the Russia investigation and/or his campaign's involvement with Russians. At the time of Mueller's interview, was Trump himself even a focus of an FBI investigation into Russia's involvement into the 2016 campaign? 

Also, Trump knew that the FBI, as well as any special counsel appointed after the interview, was going to be involved with the Russia investigation (it may have been already by the time of the interview). If Trump thought during the interview that he might appoint Mueller as FBI Director and he said something self-incriminating about Russia during the interview, that's not Mueller's problem. It's not as if Mueller (or anyone else) as FBI Director was going to be walled off from the Russia investigation. 


"Or in the off chance that Mueller did not know until the choice was announced the next day, which seems totally not possible, "


Do you have any evidence to support your claim that it's "totally not possible" that Mueller was ignorant about his imminent appointment as special counsel? 

As for what Rosenstein should have done in terms of any ethical/legal concerns about Mueller's interview with Trump, I'll leave that to ethicists and lawyers. AFAICT, Rosenstein's apparent willingness to "wear a wire" centered on his concern that Trump was not fit to be president (hence his mentioning the 25th Amendment and not articles of impeachment). I don't think you can assume that Rosenstein was trying to use the Mueller/Trump interview to catch Trump in an self-incriminating statement involving Russia and the Trump campaign. 

You think Mueller and/or Rosenstein performed acts of sedition? You'll have to spell that out for the rest of us. Do supply evidence and links to support your conclusion—that'll be a welcome change.

All of this is very messy. But these stories beg the question: what would you do as a high-level member of the federal government if you and apparently even members of the cabinet thought that the President was unfit to lead, even dangerous to the country? Rosenstein was not alone in thinking this. SecDef Mathis ignored his CiC's instructions about Syria and IIRC South Korea. Chief of Staff Kelly had lost faith in Trump's competence early on. SoS Tillerson and economic adviser Gary Cohn had as well. 

A president is not entitled to blind, unwavering loyalty, especially when the assessment of his immediate subordinates is that he's not fit to serve. 

For the few who didn't already know...

He's a goddam atrocity.

 kcar wrote: 
I assumed you were not really cherry-picking there or implying something else; it's just that we all see or hear so much out-of-context, or cherry-picked "quotes" these days (from all political persuasions) that it's made me more irked about it possibly surfacing when it shouldn't.  It makes me feel a need to maintain some sort of clarity in discussions like we have here.  I can't tell what to believe from Rosenstein - the guy was nominated by Trump, so for some reason I have a nagging distrust for him - justified or not.