Not to be a stickler for details but the “Gun walking” programs started under Bush’s ATF and continued into Obama’s. To say Obama or Holder started these investigations is simply not true.
Impeachment
- Thread starter Mikkel
- Start date
- Status
- Joined
- Sep 17, 2016
- Messages
- 778
- Reaction score
- 1,251
So we are defending Citizens United now?
- Joined
- Nov 21, 2019
- Messages
- 792
- Reaction score
- 1,563
It’s hard for me to call Fast and Furious (FAF) a continuation of the early investigation as these were gun tracking investigations that involved smaller numbers of guns, specific investigative targets, and often employed direct or electronic surveillance of the weapons (i.e. Operation Wide Receiver 2006-2007). Granted a couple of pre-FAF cases overseen by a particular ATF SAC managed to let a handful of guns cross the border, but nothing on the scale of FAF which was the DOJ’s best and brightest hatching a scheme that would supposedly take down cartel leadership.
Specifically, FAF was a distinct gun walking operation spun-up in 2009 in by the Obama DOJ that was much larger in volume of trafficked guns and employed questionable investigative techniques. Specifically, there was no attempts at electronic or direct surveillance of the guns with FAF, nor were there specific targets for the investigation. This was rather inexplicable given the difficulties tracking smaller numbers of guns in previous operations. The lack of surveillance and sheer volume of guns (~2000) were key safety failures with FAF that contributed to the body count. Guns in FAF just disappeared into the black market ether only to re-appear at crime scenes across N. America - including the murders of 2 CBP agents.
Most importantly, nobody from the Bush DOJ tried to lie about the pre-FAF investigations, cover up the lack of accountability with claims of executive privilege, or draw false equivalency with fundamentally different (and arguably safer) investigations.
Anywho, that is probably more detail than you care to know. FWIW, the Phoenix SAC who oversaw the pre and post FAF operations was still employed when I left the DOJ back in 2013. How about dem apples?
Last edited:
- Joined
- Dec 26, 2006
- Messages
- 7,313
- Reaction score
- 20,116
Cool whataboutism (and also totally unrelated to what pgg was talking about wrt to conservative voting motivations). But anyway, since you feel so strongly, my advice is don't vote for Obama in 2020 then.
- Joined
- Dec 26, 2006
- Messages
- 7,313
- Reaction score
- 20,116
----
GAO finds Trump administration broke law by withholding Ukraine aid
The Trump administration's decision to freeze the release of security assistance to Ukraine violated the law, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) said in a new report.
The independent watchdog said in an opinion issued Thursday that the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) withheld the appropriated funds last summer not as a programmatic delay but in order to advance the president's own agenda.
By doing so, the watchdog concluded, the White House violated what's known as the Impoundment Control Act (ICA).
"Faithful execution of the law does not permit the President to substitute his own policy priorities for those that Congress has enacted into law," the report said. "OMB withheld funds for a policy reason, which is not permitted under the Impoundment Control Act (ICA)...Therefore, we conclude that OMB violated the ICA."
The GAO opinion touched on a matter at the center of impeachment proceedings against President Trump: The decision by the White House to withhold nearly $400 million in U.S. aid to Kyiv as it fights off pro-Russian separatists.
Democrats allege Trump dangled the promise of aid and a White House meeting as leverage to get Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to open investigations into a 2020 political rival. They argue the White House then sought to obstruct their impeachment inquiry by blocking the testimony of current and former White House officials, while asserting absolute immunity over their testimony.
The OMB, however, pushed back against the GAO opinion, arguing that the White House office used the “apportionment authority to ensure taxpayer dollars are properly spent consistent with the President's priorities and with the law."
Acting OMB Director Russ Vought tweeted that the GAO report "comes from the same people who said we couldn’t keep National Parks open during the shutdown."
Administration officials have argued they were seeking to ensure Ukraine was properly fighting widespread corruption, despite the Pentagon already certifying at the time of the delay that Ukraine had met the requirements set by Congress and after notifying Congress of its intent to release the funds.
A senior administration official on Thursday characterized the GAO report as an “overreach” and blasted the independent watchdog for getting involved “in the media's controversy of the day.”
“In their rush to insert themselves in the impeachment narrative, maybe they'll have to reverse their opinion again," the senior administration official said, pointing to changes to earlier GAO opinions.
Still, the timing of the report’s release could not be more inconvenient for Republicans.
The GOP-controlled Senate on Thursday is expected to set a time for the House impeachment managers — who will be arguing the case on the Senate floor to remove Trump from office — to exhibit the articles of impeachment charging Trump with high crimes and misdemeanors.
The Senate procedure comes one day after the Democratic managers silently marched the two charges — abuse of power and obstruction of Congress — over to the upper chamber, setting the stage for the impeachment trial over Trump’s contacts with Ukraine.
Democrats, who have pushed Senate Republicans to allow new witnesses and testimony, are seizing on the GAO report as reinforcing their argument that the president abused his authority for politically motivated purposes.
“This bombshell legal opinion from the independent Government Accountability Office demonstrates, without a doubt, that the Trump Administration illegally withheld security assistance from Ukraine,” Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.), who requested the GAO to review the hold, said in a statement. “The GAO’s independent findings reinforce the need for the Senate to obtain all relevant documents and hear from key fact witnesses in order to have a fair trial.”
House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) in a statement said the GAO opinion “demonstrates once again that the President violated his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed as he put his personal and political interests above the interests of the nation and its security.”
Pointing to the GAO opinion that federal employees and officials take oaths to protect the law of the land, Schiff said: “Now, the Senate will have the opportunity to act on its oath.”
The GAO report said Trump overstepped his authority. Congress has the power of the purse, the watchdog said, while the president has the power to accept or veto legislation passed by both chambers. But the president does not have the authority to then bend or ignore a law once it is enacted, the report said.
“The President is not vested with the power to ignore or amend any such duly enacted law,” the GAO said. “The Constitution grants the President no unilateral authority to withhold funds from obligation... Instead, Congress has vested the President with strictly circumscribed authority to impound, or withhold, budget authority only in limited circumstances as expressly provided in the ICA.”
The GAO noted that the White House could have provided a detailed and specific reasoning to justify the withholding under the Impoundment Control Act at the time, but the OMB did not do so.
“Not only did OMB not submit a special message with such a proposal, the footnotes in the apportionment schedules, by their very terms, established dates for the release of amounts withheld,” the GAO wrote.
The only other authority to put a freeze on the aid, the GAO said, is to withhold the funds through a deferral, a decision that would be justified if the administration had recognized “savings or efficiencies that would result from a withholding, or any law specifically authorizing the withholding.”
“In its response to us, OMB described the withholding as necessary to ensure that the funds were not spent ‘in a manner that could conflict with the President’s foreign policy,’” the report said. “The ICA does not permit deferrals for policy reasons...OMB’s justification for the withholding falls squarely within the scope of an impermissible policy deferral.”
Mark Sandy, a senior OMB official, told House investigators during a closed-door deposition in late November that Trump's delay rankled agency staffers, leading two employees to resign in part because of their frustration.
“This person expressed to me concerns about actions vis-à-vis the Impoundment Control Act,” Sandy testified, referring to an OMB lawyer who had resigned.
The GAO report comes shortly after the House acquired new evidence from Lev Parnas, an associate of Trump’s personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani, who has claimed the president was aware of a scheme to seek the removal of U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch and to create conditions to push Zelensky to announce investigations into former Vice President Joe Biden and his son Hunter Biden in order to help Trump’s 2020 reelection chances.
The White House has denied the claims of wrongdoing, attacking the credibility of Parnas, who is under indictment.
Democrats also received ammunition from former national security adviser John Bolton after he said in a statement earlier this month that he would be willing to testify if the GOP-controlled Senate chose to subpoena him for testimony.
It is unclear whether witnesses will be allowed in the trial.
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) has been cold to the idea of calling any witnesses, but Democrats won a near-term victory on Wednesday when the GOP leader agreed to a rules package that leaves open the potential for new witnesses to appear.
Anything less, Democrats have charged, would be a dereliction of the Senate’s duty.
thehill.com
-----
GAO finds Trump administration broke law by withholding Ukraine aid
The Trump administration's decision to freeze the release of security assistance to Ukraine violated the law, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) said in a new report.
The independent watchdog said in an opinion issued Thursday that the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) withheld the appropriated funds last summer not as a programmatic delay but in order to advance the president's own agenda.
By doing so, the watchdog concluded, the White House violated what's known as the Impoundment Control Act (ICA).
"Faithful execution of the law does not permit the President to substitute his own policy priorities for those that Congress has enacted into law," the report said. "OMB withheld funds for a policy reason, which is not permitted under the Impoundment Control Act (ICA)...Therefore, we conclude that OMB violated the ICA."
The GAO opinion touched on a matter at the center of impeachment proceedings against President Trump: The decision by the White House to withhold nearly $400 million in U.S. aid to Kyiv as it fights off pro-Russian separatists.
Democrats allege Trump dangled the promise of aid and a White House meeting as leverage to get Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to open investigations into a 2020 political rival. They argue the White House then sought to obstruct their impeachment inquiry by blocking the testimony of current and former White House officials, while asserting absolute immunity over their testimony.
The OMB, however, pushed back against the GAO opinion, arguing that the White House office used the “apportionment authority to ensure taxpayer dollars are properly spent consistent with the President's priorities and with the law."
Acting OMB Director Russ Vought tweeted that the GAO report "comes from the same people who said we couldn’t keep National Parks open during the shutdown."
Administration officials have argued they were seeking to ensure Ukraine was properly fighting widespread corruption, despite the Pentagon already certifying at the time of the delay that Ukraine had met the requirements set by Congress and after notifying Congress of its intent to release the funds.
A senior administration official on Thursday characterized the GAO report as an “overreach” and blasted the independent watchdog for getting involved “in the media's controversy of the day.”
“In their rush to insert themselves in the impeachment narrative, maybe they'll have to reverse their opinion again," the senior administration official said, pointing to changes to earlier GAO opinions.
Still, the timing of the report’s release could not be more inconvenient for Republicans.
The GOP-controlled Senate on Thursday is expected to set a time for the House impeachment managers — who will be arguing the case on the Senate floor to remove Trump from office — to exhibit the articles of impeachment charging Trump with high crimes and misdemeanors.
The Senate procedure comes one day after the Democratic managers silently marched the two charges — abuse of power and obstruction of Congress — over to the upper chamber, setting the stage for the impeachment trial over Trump’s contacts with Ukraine.
Democrats, who have pushed Senate Republicans to allow new witnesses and testimony, are seizing on the GAO report as reinforcing their argument that the president abused his authority for politically motivated purposes.
“This bombshell legal opinion from the independent Government Accountability Office demonstrates, without a doubt, that the Trump Administration illegally withheld security assistance from Ukraine,” Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.), who requested the GAO to review the hold, said in a statement. “The GAO’s independent findings reinforce the need for the Senate to obtain all relevant documents and hear from key fact witnesses in order to have a fair trial.”
House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) in a statement said the GAO opinion “demonstrates once again that the President violated his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed as he put his personal and political interests above the interests of the nation and its security.”
Pointing to the GAO opinion that federal employees and officials take oaths to protect the law of the land, Schiff said: “Now, the Senate will have the opportunity to act on its oath.”
The GAO report said Trump overstepped his authority. Congress has the power of the purse, the watchdog said, while the president has the power to accept or veto legislation passed by both chambers. But the president does not have the authority to then bend or ignore a law once it is enacted, the report said.
“The President is not vested with the power to ignore or amend any such duly enacted law,” the GAO said. “The Constitution grants the President no unilateral authority to withhold funds from obligation... Instead, Congress has vested the President with strictly circumscribed authority to impound, or withhold, budget authority only in limited circumstances as expressly provided in the ICA.”
The GAO noted that the White House could have provided a detailed and specific reasoning to justify the withholding under the Impoundment Control Act at the time, but the OMB did not do so.
“Not only did OMB not submit a special message with such a proposal, the footnotes in the apportionment schedules, by their very terms, established dates for the release of amounts withheld,” the GAO wrote.
The only other authority to put a freeze on the aid, the GAO said, is to withhold the funds through a deferral, a decision that would be justified if the administration had recognized “savings or efficiencies that would result from a withholding, or any law specifically authorizing the withholding.”
“In its response to us, OMB described the withholding as necessary to ensure that the funds were not spent ‘in a manner that could conflict with the President’s foreign policy,’” the report said. “The ICA does not permit deferrals for policy reasons...OMB’s justification for the withholding falls squarely within the scope of an impermissible policy deferral.”
Mark Sandy, a senior OMB official, told House investigators during a closed-door deposition in late November that Trump's delay rankled agency staffers, leading two employees to resign in part because of their frustration.
“This person expressed to me concerns about actions vis-à-vis the Impoundment Control Act,” Sandy testified, referring to an OMB lawyer who had resigned.
The GAO report comes shortly after the House acquired new evidence from Lev Parnas, an associate of Trump’s personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani, who has claimed the president was aware of a scheme to seek the removal of U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch and to create conditions to push Zelensky to announce investigations into former Vice President Joe Biden and his son Hunter Biden in order to help Trump’s 2020 reelection chances.
The White House has denied the claims of wrongdoing, attacking the credibility of Parnas, who is under indictment.
Democrats also received ammunition from former national security adviser John Bolton after he said in a statement earlier this month that he would be willing to testify if the GOP-controlled Senate chose to subpoena him for testimony.
It is unclear whether witnesses will be allowed in the trial.
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) has been cold to the idea of calling any witnesses, but Democrats won a near-term victory on Wednesday when the GOP leader agreed to a rules package that leaves open the potential for new witnesses to appear.
Anything less, Democrats have charged, would be a dereliction of the Senate’s duty.
GAO finds Trump administration broke law by withholding Ukraine aid
The Trump administration’s decision to freeze the release of security assistance to Ukraine violated the law, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) said in a new report.The inde…
thehill.com
- Joined
- Dec 26, 2006
- Messages
- 7,313
- Reaction score
- 20,116
Your point is taken, but even still, remember that time when Obama and Clinton stonewalled Congress, refused to comply with lawful subpoenas, and then failed to provide requested documents so investigations could take place?
Yeah, me neither. Holder testified 9 times and provided 7600 documents and the clowns still went ahead with a contempt hearing.
- Joined
- Nov 24, 2002
- Messages
- 24,413
- Reaction score
- 17,616
That is the 6th time you have used the term "whataboutism". Did you study philosophy in college (less likely, as, if you had, you would not say that, but tu quoque), or Soviet history?
- Joined
- Dec 26, 2006
- Messages
- 7,313
- Reaction score
- 20,116
This is the 10th time you've come into a politics thread not to contribute anything of substance but merely critique word choices. Presumably everyone here is more than capable of using Latin debate terminology, but perhaps we all don't feel like being as obnoxiously pretentious as you when another more current, plainly apparent term works just fine.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Nov 24, 2002
- Messages
- 24,413
- Reaction score
- 17,616
Twice, dude, for your redundancy. But, you're into hyperbole, too. Ok!
- Joined
- Dec 26, 2006
- Messages
- 7,313
- Reaction score
- 20,116
More to the point, why don't you save your complaining for the actual, currently occurring whataboutism which you haven't disputed....instead of whatever it is you're doing now?
- Joined
- Nov 24, 2002
- Messages
- 24,413
- Reaction score
- 17,616
All I was doing was challenging you to be a little more creative, instead of you sounding repetitive. I try to follow each person's point, but lose it in the weeds often, so, I don't go further than spectator, usually, mostly.
- Joined
- Dec 26, 2006
- Messages
- 7,313
- Reaction score
- 20,116
Sorry, this is a politics thread, not your creative writing workshop. Regardless, even though I took philosophy in college, I still paid attention to my 6th grade English teacher who told us not to use a two dollar word when a ten cent one will work just fine.
- Joined
- Nov 24, 2002
- Messages
- 24,413
- Reaction score
- 17,616
I'm trying to be affable. You be you. Good luck!
- Joined
- Aug 3, 2018
- Messages
- 3,611
- Reaction score
- 9,016
I know people who voted for Trump and admitted it was the first time they voted in a presidential election. I haven't run into anybody that sat out becauseTrump was on the ticket or lack of interest.
- Joined
- Dec 6, 2004
- Messages
- 195
- Reaction score
- 35
I guarantee you a lot of people who voted Obama decided to sit out 2016 and it had nothing to do with Clinton being female. Trump will still win the electoral vote Biden will win the popular vote. Biden is actually the perfect person for the Democrats. I can’t wait. The debates will be better than the Super Bowl! Go Sleepy Joe!
- Joined
- Aug 3, 2018
- Messages
- 3,611
- Reaction score
- 9,016
For sure. I remember when Hilary ran against Obama in the primary and lost, a lady orthopedist I know sat out the presidential election , a member of PUMA, Party Unity My A$$, as she called it.
- Joined
- Jan 14, 2006
- Messages
- 13,892
- Reaction score
- 24,434
I know a lot of people (myself included) who sat out in 2016 because of the mistaken belief that Trump couldn’t win. 2020 will be a more fiercely contested election.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jan 14, 2006
- Messages
- 13,892
- Reaction score
- 24,434
Got to hand it to him, he was certainly able to mobilize unexpected voters.
- Joined
- Jan 14, 2006
- Messages
- 13,892
- Reaction score
- 24,434
The country is so polarized that the presidential debates will be largely irrelevant.
- Joined
- Oct 2, 2007
- Messages
- 1,704
- Reaction score
- 509
I disagree. Well, depending on the candidate. If it’s Biden Trump, perhaps it will be irrelevant. But if it’s Warren or Sanders, it will give all the people who aren’t familiar with how liberal/socialistic they are to get a clear picture of where they want to take this country. There are still plenty of people who don’t tune in until after the primaries. And there are plenty of people who might be looking for an alternative to Trump, so they’ll be watching to see if the Dems have produced an acceptable alternative.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
- Joined
- Jun 3, 2014
- Messages
- 851
- Reaction score
- 653
Here are some inconvenient facts regarding Trumps economic policy decisions. In the trade wars US farmers got crushed and likely will take years to recover. Farm foreclosures and bankruptcy rates are highest levels since the Great Recession. China has gone elsewhere for its soy and corn and this places a burden on US farmers to get back into that market. The recent phase 1 deal signed with China has no teeth and China has made similar promises in the past without following through. US consumers are paying for Trump’s tariffs as the cost is being passed on to the “common man”. The US manufacturing index hit its lowest point in a decade last week, a result of the trade war and signaling a significant downturn may be coming. But hey, you keep telling yourself there is so much “winning“ you are getting tired of the endless “winning.”
Amid Trump Tariffs, Farm Bankruptcies And Suicides Rise
Farmers have seen their incomes slashed due to factors outside of their control. However, tariffs imposed by Trump and China’s retaliation are making their situation even direr. This has led to a rise in farm bankruptcies and multiple people warning about the increased stress leading to suicides.www.google.com
Post WWII, the U.S. was the worlds largest manufacturer and one of the only, if not the only intact world power not devastated by war. The U.S., in order to help rebuild the economies of the other European and Asian powers, allowed for completely one-sided trade agreements. This was intentional and with a certain acceptance of collateral damage to U.S. companies and workers. These lopsided agreements, largely, have been allowed to persist.
Trump is saying enough is enough and is using access to the U.S. consumer market as a bargaining chip to encourage other countries to lower or drop tariff's on U.S. goods and services. This process will take time to settle out and there will be a lot of noise in the meantime. This upsets the status quo, and we all know that existing power structures like the status quo. Yes, there will be short term losers with the hope that as time goes on and things level off, it will be, as a whole, better for the U.S. More balanced....
The alternative is to do nothing about lopsided trade deals which would suit the beneficiaries of such a system just fine, but do nothing to address the further deindustrialization of the U.S.
Are you planning to vote this year?
Was 2016 the first presidential election you didn’t vote?
- Joined
- Jan 14, 2006
- Messages
- 13,892
- Reaction score
- 24,434
I am voting this year. I’ve voted in most presidential elections since 1992.
For those that might’ve taken some time out this weekend/today to remember Dr. King, a reminder that you really should have been remembering 3 years ago that Trump got elected and all his winning!
Tweet from Trump:
“It was exactly three years ago today, January 20, 2017, that I was sworn into office. So appropriate that today is also MLK jr DAY. African-American Unemployment is the LOWEST in the history of our Country, by far. Also, best Poverty, Youth, and Employment numbers, ever. Great!”
Tweet from Trump:
“It was exactly three years ago today, January 20, 2017, that I was sworn into office. So appropriate that today is also MLK jr DAY. African-American Unemployment is the LOWEST in the history of our Country, by far. Also, best Poverty, Youth, and Employment numbers, ever. Great!”
That is a quaint explanation that had some validity back in the 1980s when talking about Japanese cars; it has little to no bearing on the fact that labor in Asian and South American countries is absurdly cheap and there are no regulations to speak of. A multinational corporation can set up shop in Vietnam and employ anyone with a pulse for approximately $2.75 an hour (Look it up). Meanwhile, the same job in the US would pay roughly 10-15 dollars per hour and may require the employer to cover benefits. Now tell me how Trump is going to solve this problem with tariffs and the retaliation that ensues? Those retaliatory tariffs are going to hurt the lower and middle class with no real benefit on the actual change in labor costs. Trump isn’t bringing back jobs with this approach; only thing that will do that is a time machine. Also, the consumer is paying for those tariffs by increased costs on goods.
- Joined
- Dec 26, 2006
- Messages
- 7,313
- Reaction score
- 20,116
- Joined
- Oct 2, 2007
- Messages
- 1,704
- Reaction score
- 509
What kind of poll asks a question like “Does Trump deserve some or hardly any credit for XYZ?”
It’s also kind of a silly point to even make cause it simply mimics the percent of Democrats who think he’s racist. And news flash, that’s about the same percent of blacks that are democrats. So I think you could just as easily posted a headline saying “ Vast majority of blacks are democrats!”
Shocker.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
- Joined
- Dec 6, 2004
- Messages
- 195
- Reaction score
- 35
Have the cost of goods really gone up? Do you notice clothes are more expensive, TV’s, phones. Man I thought the stock market would crash with this trade war. Why hasn’t that happened yet? How about unemployment? I would think this would force China to negotiate and buy more US products otherwise manufacturers will be forced to move to other countries with cheap labor. China’s not the only country with cheap labor.
- Joined
- Dec 26, 2006
- Messages
- 7,313
- Reaction score
- 20,116
LMAO, do you think the majority of black people only think Trump is racist because they're Democrats, instead of perhaps the fact they've had to deal with people like him for 200+ years? You need a history lesson so you can reevaluate which way the causality goes in regard to why blacks in America overwhelmingly chose to side with progressives/liberals vs conservatives.
Who is over 200 years old? I want to be THAT guy, hook me up bro! What's their secret??
- Joined
- Oct 2, 2007
- Messages
- 1,704
- Reaction score
- 509
A few questions for ya....
So how come conservative blacks don't think he's racist?
How come Trump has accomplished more for black americans than our first black president? Namely, the lowest black unemployment ever, prison reform, and funding for HBCUs....
And how come WAY LESS Hispanics think Trump is racist compared to blacks? Hasn't Trump been WAY WORSE towards Hispanics than black people? What, with the kids in cages, and deportations, etc etc... You'd think how racist he's been to illegal immigrants would be way more impactful than anything he has done to the black community, like.....well, I don't actually know how he has hurt black people as president.
How come only 55% percent of Hispanics (according to your same poll) think he's racist compared to 80% of blacks? A 25% difference.
On a COMPLETELY UNRELATED NOTE, 62% of Hispanics identify as democrats compared to 87% of blacks. A 25% difference.
🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄
Nothing to see here...
- Joined
- Dec 6, 2004
- Messages
- 195
- Reaction score
- 35
I bet 100% of Caucasian Democrats think Trump is racist. I bet 100% of democrats think trump should be impeached. I was surprised to see 77% gave trump some or hardly any credit for the unemployment rate. I would have guessed that would have been a no credit number. So he’s actually doing pretty good there.
Yes according to the data the price for most things has gone up and have done so more than in recent years.
Consumer Price Index: 2019 in review
From 2018 to 2019, consumer prices for all items rose 2.3 percent. Over that period, food prices increased 1.8 percent, a slightly larger percentage increase than the 12-month increase of 1.6 percent in 2018. Food at home prices increased 0.7 percent in 2019, continuing a trend of modest...
www.bls.gov
ETA:
The unemployment rate is also low. It's been falling for the past 10 years. It fell pretty quickly from 2012 to 2016 and has been gradually falling since then at similar rates.
- Joined
- Dec 26, 2006
- Messages
- 7,313
- Reaction score
- 20,116
I didn't say party, race, and opinion of Trump aren't correlated, I said you've got the direction of causation wrong.
As for why the trump's unfavorable are so high with blacks, how about consider for a moment that trump is actually racist? Case in point (to which @Mikkel still hasn't said yes or no): He still hadn't fired the confirmed white supremacist / neo-nazi who works just down the hallway from him..
Further, GWB was reviled by dems toward the end of his term, yet even after the Katrina debacle it's not like he was polling as racist by >50% of all respondents like trump is.
All I can say is that it's sad that you're so dimwittedly unimaginative as to not be able to imagine what millions of black Americans must've felt as trump went on for years with a racist birther conspiracy against America's first black president.
---
1973: The US Department of Justice — under the Nixon administration, out of all administrations — sued the Trump Management Corporation for violating the Fair Housing Act. Federal officials found evidence that Trump had refused to rent to black tenants and lied to black applicants about whether apartments were available, among other accusations. Trump said the federal government was trying to get him to rent to welfare recipients. In the aftermath, he signed an agreement in 1975 agreeing not to discriminate to renters of color without admitting to discriminating before.
1980s: Kip Brown, a former employee at Trump’s Castle, accused another one of Trump’s businesses of discrimination. “When Donald and Ivana came to the casino, the bosses would order all the black people off the floor,” Brown said. “It was the eighties, I was a teenager, but I remember it: They put us all in the back.”
1988: In a commencement speech at Lehigh University, Trump spent much of his speech accusing countries like Japan of “stripping the United States of economic dignity.” This matches much of his current rhetoric on China.
1989: In a controversial case that’s been characterized as a modern-day lynching, four black teenagers and one Latino teenager — the “Central Park Five” — were accused of attacking and raping a jogger in New York City. Trump immediately took charge in the case, running an ad in local papers demanding, “BRING BACK THE DEATH PENALTY. BRING BACK OUR POLICE!” The teens’ convictions were later vacated after they spent seven to 13 years in prison, and the city paid $41 million in a settlement to the teens. But Trump in October 2016 said he still believes they’re guilty, despite the DNA evidence to the contrary.
1991: A book by John O’Donnell, former president of Trump Plaza Hotel and Casino in Atlantic City, quoted Trump’s criticism of a black accountant: “Black guys counting my money! I hate it. The only kind of people I want counting my money are short guys that wear yarmulkes every day. … I think that the guy is lazy. And it’s probably not his fault, because laziness is a trait in blacks. It really is, I believe that. It’s not anything they can control.” Trump at first denied the remarks, but later said in a 1997 Playboy interview that “the stuff O’Donnell wrote about me is probably true.”
1992: The Trump Plaza Hotel and Casino had to pay a $200,000 fine because it transferred black and women dealers off tables to accommodate a big-time gambler’s prejudices.
1993: In congressional testimony, Trump said that some Native American reservations operating casinos shouldn’t be allowed because “they don’t look like Indians to me.”
2000: In opposition to a casino proposed by the St. Regis Mohawk tribe, which he saw as a financial threat to his casinos in Atlantic City, Trump secretly ran a series of ads suggesting the tribe had a “record of criminal activity [that] is well documented.”
2004: In season two of The Apprentice, Trump fired Kevin Allen, a black contestant, for being overeducated. “You’re an unbelievably talented guy in terms of education, and you haven’t done anything,” Trump said on the show. “At some point you have to say, ‘That’s enough.’”
2005: Trump publicly pitched what was essentially The Apprentice: White People vs. Black People. He said he “wasn’t particularly happy” with the most recent season of his show, so he was considering “an idea that is fairly controversial — creating a team of successful African Americans versus a team of successful whites. Whether people like that idea or not, it is somewhat reflective of our very vicious world.”
2010: In 2010, there was a huge national controversy over the “Ground Zero Mosque” — a proposal to build a Muslim community center in Lower Manhattan, near the site of the 9/11 attacks. Trump opposed the project, calling it “insensitive,” and offered to buy out one of the investors in the project. On The Late Show With David Letterman, Trump argued, referring to Muslims, “Well, somebody’s blowing us up. Somebody’s blowing up buildings, and somebody’s doing lots of bad stuff.”
2011: Trump played a big role in pushing false rumors that Obama — the country’s first black president — was not born in the US. He even sent investigators to Hawaii to look into Obama’s birth certificate. Obama later released his birth certificate, calling Trump a ”carnival barker.” (The research has found a strong correlation between “birtherism,” as this conspiracy theory is called, and racism.) Trump has reportedly continued pushing this conspiracy theory in private.
2011: While Trump suggested that Obama wasn’t born in the US, he also argued that maybe Obama wasn’t a good enough student to have gotten into Columbia or Harvard Law School, and demanded Obama release his university transcripts. Trump claimed, “I heard he was a terrible student. Terrible. How does a bad student go to Columbia and then to Harvard?”
Trump launched his campaign in 2015 by calling Mexican immigrants “rapists” who are “bringing crime” and “bringing drugs” to the US. His campaign was largely built on building a wall to keep these immigrants out of the US.
As a candidate in 2015, Trump called for a ban on all Muslims coming into the US. His administration eventually implemented a significantly watered-down version of the policy.
When asked at a 2016 Republican debate whether all 1.6 billion Muslims hate the US, Trump said, “I mean a lot of them. I mean a lot of them.”
He argued in 2016 that Judge Gonzalo Curiel — who was overseeing the Trump University lawsuit — should recuse himself from the case because of his Mexican heritage and membership in a Latino lawyers association. House Speaker Paul Ryan, who endorsed Trump, later called such comments “the textbook definition of a racist comment.”
Trump has been repeatedly slow to condemn white supremacists who endorse him, and he regularly retweeted messages from white supremacists and neo-Nazis during his presidential campaign.
He tweeted and later deleted an image that showed Hillary Clinton in front of a pile of money and by a Jewish Star of David that said, “Most Corrupt Candidate Ever!” The tweet had some very obvious anti-Semitic imagery, but Trump insisted that the star was a sheriff’s badge, and said his campaign shouldn’t have deleted it.
Trump has repeatedly referred to Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) as “Pocahontas,” using her controversial — and later walked-back — claims to Native American heritage as a punchline.
At the 2016 Republican convention, Trump officially seized the mantle of the “law and order” candidate — an obvious dog whistle playing to white fears of black crime, even though crime in the US is historically low. His speeches, comments, and executive actions after he took office have continued this line of messaging.
In a pitch to black voters in 2016, Trump said, “You’re living in poverty, your schools are no good, you have no jobs, 58 percent of your youth is unemployed. What the hell do you have to lose?”
Trump stereotyped a black reporter at a press conference in February 2017. When April Ryan asked him if he plans to meet and work with the Congressional Black Caucus, he repeatedly asked her to set up the meeting — even as she insisted that she’s “just a reporter.”
In the week after white supremacist protests in Charlottesville, Virginia, in August 2017, Trump repeatedly said that “many sides” and “both sides” were to blame for the violence and chaos that ensued — suggesting that the white supremacist protesters were morally equivalent to counterprotesters that stood against racism. He also said that there were “some very fine people” among the white supremacists. All of this seemed like a dog whistle to white supremacists — and many of them took it as one, with white nationalist Richard Spencer praising Trump for “defending the truth.”
Throughout 2017, Trump repeatedly attacked NFL players who, by kneeling or otherwise silently protesting during the national anthem, demonstrated against systemic racism in America.
Trump reportedly said in 2017 that people who came to the US from Haiti “all have AIDS,” and he lamented that people who came to the US from Nigeria would never “go back to their huts” once they saw America. The White House denied that Trump ever made these comments.
Speaking about immigration in a bipartisan meeting in January 2018, Trump reportedly asked, in reference to Haiti and African countries, “Why are we having all these people from ****hole countries come here?” He then reportedly suggested that the US should take more people from countries like Norway. The implication: Immigrants from predominantly white countries are good, while immigrants from predominantly black countries are bad.
Trump denied making the “****hole” comments, although some senators present at the meeting said they happened. The White House, meanwhile, suggested that the comments, like Trump’s remarks about the NFL protests, will play well to his base. The only connection between Trump’s remarks about the NFL protests and his “****hole” comments is race.
Trump mocked Elizabeth Warren’s presidential campaign, again calling her “Pocahontas” in a tweet before adding, “See you on the campaign TRAIL, Liz!” The capitalized “TRAIL” is seemingly a reference to the Trail of Tears — a horrific act of ethnic cleansing in the 19th century in which Native Americans were forcibly relocated, causing thousands of deaths.
Trump tweeted that several black and brown members of Congress — Reps. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY), Ayanna Pressley (D-MA), Ilhan Omar (D-MN), and Rashida Tlaib (D-MI) — are “from countries whose governments are a complete and total catastrophe” and that they should “go back” to those countries. It’s a common racist trope to say that black and brown people, particularly immigrants, should go back to their countries of origin. Three of four of the members of Congress whom Trump targeted were born in the US.
---
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jan 14, 2006
- Messages
- 13,892
- Reaction score
- 24,434
A lot of goods have gone up. Porsche Carreras used to be $100k, now they’re $150k and 4 cylinder Caymans are going for 100k. $200 running shoes and jeans are not uncommon. Private elementary schools used to be $20k, now they’re $30k. It costs $20 to go to Five Guys. A high spec iPhone used to be $600, now it’s $1500.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Dec 26, 2006
- Messages
- 7,313
- Reaction score
- 20,116
Dershowitz on impeachment reversal: 'I am much more correct right now'
By Caroline Kelly
(CNN)Constitutional lawyer and Trump impeachment legal team member Alan Dershowitz said Monday that he is "much more correct right now" in his current views on what qualifies a president for impeachment than his near-opposite views during the Clinton impeachment.
Dershowitz, a recent addition to President Donald Trump's team, said Sunday that the framers of the Constitution intended for impeachable conduct to mean "criminal-like conduct" and that both of Trump's charges of obstruction of Congress and abuse of power do not meet the constitutional criteria for impeachment.
But in 1998, Dershowitz said that a president could be impeached even without being accused of a crime.
"It certainly doesn't have to be a crime if you have somebody who completely corrupts the office of president and who abuses trust and who poses great danger to our liberty, you don't need a technical crime," he said on "Larry King Live" at the time.
When asked by CNN's Anderson Cooper on "Anderson Cooper 360" on Monday whether he was wrong back then, Dershowitz replied, "I was saying that I am much more correct right now having done all the research, because that's the issue."
"I didn't do research back then, I relied on what professors said ... because that issue was not presented in the Clinton impeachment," Dershowitz said. "Everybody knew that he was charged with a crime, the issue is whether it was a hard crime. Now the issue is whether a crime or criminal-like behavior is required."
He continued, "I've done the research now -- I wasn't wrong (at the time), I am just far more correct now than I was then. I said you didn't need a technical crime back then. I still don't think you need a technical crime."
On Sunday, Dershowitz told CNN's Brianna Keilar on "State of the Union" that in his defense of Trump during the Senate trial that begins on Tuesday, he would cite former Supreme Court Justice Benjamin Curtis -- the chief counsel during former President Andrew Johnson's impeachment -- in his argument that the framers meant for impeachable conduct to signify "criminal-like conduct."
The Constitution says presidents can be impeached for "Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors," but it does not define "high crimes and misdemeanors." Dershowitz's argument hinges on the Senate agreeing that neither of the charges facing Trump qualify as "criminal-like conduct."
----
LOL, it's like just being in trump's circle automatically increases your cynical, spinning, lying BS factor by 100, to the point that one will shout X is true even if one previously said "Y, not X" on tape.
By Caroline Kelly
(CNN)Constitutional lawyer and Trump impeachment legal team member Alan Dershowitz said Monday that he is "much more correct right now" in his current views on what qualifies a president for impeachment than his near-opposite views during the Clinton impeachment.
Dershowitz, a recent addition to President Donald Trump's team, said Sunday that the framers of the Constitution intended for impeachable conduct to mean "criminal-like conduct" and that both of Trump's charges of obstruction of Congress and abuse of power do not meet the constitutional criteria for impeachment.
But in 1998, Dershowitz said that a president could be impeached even without being accused of a crime.
"It certainly doesn't have to be a crime if you have somebody who completely corrupts the office of president and who abuses trust and who poses great danger to our liberty, you don't need a technical crime," he said on "Larry King Live" at the time.
When asked by CNN's Anderson Cooper on "Anderson Cooper 360" on Monday whether he was wrong back then, Dershowitz replied, "I was saying that I am much more correct right now having done all the research, because that's the issue."
"I didn't do research back then, I relied on what professors said ... because that issue was not presented in the Clinton impeachment," Dershowitz said. "Everybody knew that he was charged with a crime, the issue is whether it was a hard crime. Now the issue is whether a crime or criminal-like behavior is required."
He continued, "I've done the research now -- I wasn't wrong (at the time), I am just far more correct now than I was then. I said you didn't need a technical crime back then. I still don't think you need a technical crime."
On Sunday, Dershowitz told CNN's Brianna Keilar on "State of the Union" that in his defense of Trump during the Senate trial that begins on Tuesday, he would cite former Supreme Court Justice Benjamin Curtis -- the chief counsel during former President Andrew Johnson's impeachment -- in his argument that the framers meant for impeachable conduct to signify "criminal-like conduct."
The Constitution says presidents can be impeached for "Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors," but it does not define "high crimes and misdemeanors." Dershowitz's argument hinges on the Senate agreeing that neither of the charges facing Trump qualify as "criminal-like conduct."
----
LOL, it's like just being in trump's circle automatically increases your cynical, spinning, lying BS factor by 100, to the point that one will shout X is true even if one previously said "Y, not X" on tape.
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2001
- Messages
- 2,885
- Reaction score
- 1,883
This thread strikes me a lot like the coverage and defense of the actions that led to his impeachment. When confronted with the evidence of his wrongdoing, I see a lot of his defenders deflecting and saying, "ya know, what about Biden," (Biden might be corrupt too, but there's a mechanism for investigating that, and it doesn't include the President), or discrediting the evidence, or, in the case of this thread, deflecting to his policies or how bad the democrats might be for the country.
No one's saying he didn't do it or that it was okay.
Whether or not he's a racist or has been president during some years that the economy has improved is not germane to the question raised by the thread. It's possible he's done some things that have improved some aspects of our country (e.g., I'm not totally sure he's wrong on trade) and ALSO committed impeachable offenses (e.g., it seems blatantly obvious that he did).
Whether or not he leveraged taxpayer dollars to help his electoral chances isn't in question, so I think we have to decide whether we think that's okay or not. So what do you think? Is it okay that he broke the law (GAO's words, not mine) to withhold aid, which was approved by a bipartisan group of people elected by us, from an ally who would, without that aid, almost certainly be weakened by Russia, a known threat to so many aspects of our society, in order to improve his chances of being re-elected?
Either tell me you don't believe he did it or that you think it's morally, legally, and strategically okay. Otherwise, you kinda have to agree that the House was correct to impeach him (independent of whether he should be removed from office).
No one's saying he didn't do it or that it was okay.
Whether or not he's a racist or has been president during some years that the economy has improved is not germane to the question raised by the thread. It's possible he's done some things that have improved some aspects of our country (e.g., I'm not totally sure he's wrong on trade) and ALSO committed impeachable offenses (e.g., it seems blatantly obvious that he did).
Whether or not he leveraged taxpayer dollars to help his electoral chances isn't in question, so I think we have to decide whether we think that's okay or not. So what do you think? Is it okay that he broke the law (GAO's words, not mine) to withhold aid, which was approved by a bipartisan group of people elected by us, from an ally who would, without that aid, almost certainly be weakened by Russia, a known threat to so many aspects of our society, in order to improve his chances of being re-elected?
Either tell me you don't believe he did it or that you think it's morally, legally, and strategically okay. Otherwise, you kinda have to agree that the House was correct to impeach him (independent of whether he should be removed from office).
- Joined
- Dec 6, 2004
- Messages
- 195
- Reaction score
- 35
I don’t see anything wrong with withholding aid when it comes to corruption and making sure the aid is being used properly after all it’s our tax dollars that are being pissed away there. Millions of dollars likely being pissed away. There are a lot of favors being done for people under the table both democratic and republican. Nobody can argue that Hunter Biden wasn’t a favor for influence from Joe Biden. This happens all the time. I agree with Trump on policy. His policy has been a benefit for me mainly financially. I saved thousands of dollars from his tax cuts alone. Money that is being put to good use and is not being pissed away in the Ukraine.
1) It's an OMB/executive branch issue, not a President issue.
2) The remedy is written into the law, and it's not a criminal penalty.
3) Administrations have broken that law since it was enacted.
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2001
- Messages
- 2,885
- Reaction score
- 1,883
Right, but again, you’re saying it’s okay, but the GAO says it’s against the law. Are we to assume that your judgment is more valid than theirs? And isn’t it plausible that the aid, even if you don’t quite see how, is preventing Russian hegemony in the region (the whole point of the aid, actually)?
again, I’m less interested in whether, on balance, you favor trump because it benefits you. I’m interested in how supporters and defenders reconcile his actions in this case with the law and our country’s long term strategic priorities.
and 1) it IS a presidential issue in that the president is the one who broke the law (it’s him in the transcript) and the whole chain of command on the aid has statedthe order came from the top.
2) the House obviously disagrees with you.
3) cite, if true, but also irrelevant, in a logical sense.
again, I’m less interested in whether, on balance, you favor trump because it benefits you. I’m interested in how supporters and defenders reconcile his actions in this case with the law and our country’s long term strategic priorities.
and 1) it IS a presidential issue in that the president is the one who broke the law (it’s him in the transcript) and the whole chain of command on the aid has statedthe order came from the top.
2) the House obviously disagrees with you.
3) cite, if true, but also irrelevant, in a logical sense.
I would honestly try to save your breath and idea that you can have a constructive and logical conversation with those who will never think trump could ever do anything wrong. Like trump said he could shoot people on 5th ave and still have supporters, that’s not an exaggeration. You will continuously find yourself frustrated.
Anytime anyone brings up anything it’s always "what about Hillary or Barack or Joe??” Every single time. None of them are perfect either but only 1 person is president, but his supporters can’t seem to understand that very important fact. I can certainly discuss flaws during the Obama presidency but that’s not what we’re asking now.
Anyway, his marketing and media strategy and complete infiltration are brilliant as he seems to have a following that is unprecedented in these circumstances. I love the video of the followers who said trump didn’t do anything wrong but when asked if they read the articles of impeachment, listened to witnesses or read the evidence they said no. Lol. Critical thinking is not a strong suit. These are the times we live in!
Look up the law since you obviously haven't yet. The White House has the right to hold back funds, but it needs to inform Congress as to why. The White House released the funds anyway, but the lack of report was the problem.
I'm not saying it's not a problem, I'm just saying it's a legal requirement that is frequently broken by most administrations, and there's no criminal penalty.
It's a law in the sense of "you need to do this, if you don't, you need to say why. Since you didn't say why, we need to have a conversation."
Look up the law, you'll find out that the Democrats who are so obsessed with impeachment (which they've been since inauguration) really overplayed the significance of this.
They have literally nothing. They squandered the house inquiry and have no evidence to convict.
If one reads the actual articles of impeachment then one would see what he is being impeached for. It's not "simply" because funds were withheld. The articles of impeachment give details and outlines the reasons. If you don't agree with or believe the evidence then that's fine, but there is certainly a lot of information that is behind the specific articles of impeachment.
- Joined
- Dec 26, 2006
- Messages
- 7,313
- Reaction score
- 20,116
If the Bidens are corrupt then a formal investigation should've been instigated by the DoJ and FBI. Trying to pretend that one head of state extorting another head of state to specifically publicly announce an investigation of his political rival is the normal way an investigation works is pure nonsensical bullsht, plain and simple.
I read them. Trump didn't obstruct justice by exerting the Constitutional separation of powers and executive privilege.
Did Trump go against a court order? If so, that's news to everyone.
- Joined
- Aug 3, 2018
- Messages
- 3,611
- Reaction score
- 9,016
What you say all sounds good, but Trumps opponents would still blame him for using the DOJ or FBI to investigate his opponent in an election, even though Biden has not yet been declared his opponent. I'm guessing that by trying to get the Ukraine to do the investigation would provide cover for him.
Exactly.
Also trump recently said he'd love to have Pompeo, Mulvaney, etc testify. But now that doesn't seem to be the case and McConnell doesn't want any witnesses right now. If nothing was done wrong and none of these people have any insight then let the testify so that the american people can see the full picture.
- Joined
- Dec 26, 2006
- Messages
- 7,313
- Reaction score
- 20,116
Trump: ...we have all the material. They don’t have the material.
Good stuff, good stuff. Trump is so emboldened by the GOP senators he’s holding hostage that he doesn’t even think twice about bragging about withholding incriminating evidence.
Good stuff, good stuff. Trump is so emboldened by the GOP senators he’s holding hostage that he doesn’t even think twice about bragging about withholding incriminating evidence.
- Status