POTUS 45.10 - Stage Two in Perpetuity

[French Rage]

Re: POTUS 45.10 - Stage Two in Perpetuity

I for one don't think he curtsied. He's just such a fat sack of crap he has to double-start to straighten himself up.

[rufus]

Re: POTUS 45.10 - Stage Two in Perpetuity

In that article, Melania has the look of a woman that would rather be anywhere than where she is at that moment.

[Wisko McBadgerton]

Re: POTUS 45.10 - Stage Two in Perpetuity

Isn't there a process, though? Like, he can't invite Nikki Haley into the Oval office and tell her he'd like to grab her pu$$y, and then say, "Oh, but that's classified".

Information cannot be classified in order to conceal a crime, or even just to prevent embarrassment. An oval office meeting with the Russian foreign minister for example, does fall under the category of foreign relations or foreign activities of the United States and also the category of foreign government information though. Which are acceptable reasons for classifying information.

Again, I myself don't know this. I'm just telling you what a guy told me he was was told by another guy who knows a guy that works in an office, the head of which used to work in another office that had a guy who was married to a girl that went to college with another girl who's dad used to deal with this kind of stuff. So it's pretty solid.

[Kepler]

Re: POTUS 45.10 - Stage Two in Perpetuity

Information cannot be classified in order to conceal a crime, or even just to prevent embarrassment.

...

Again, I myself don't know this.

I do know it and you are absolutely correct.

[alfablue]

Re: POTUS 45.10 - Stage Two in Perpetuity

Information cannot be classified in order to conceal a crime, or even just to prevent embarrassment. An oval office meeting with the Russian foreign minister for example, does fall under the category of foreign relations or foreign activities of the United States and also the category of foreign government information though. Which are acceptable reasons for classifying information.

Again, I myself don't know this. I'm just telling you what a guy told me he was was told by another guy who knows a guy that works in an office, the head of which used to work in another office that had a guy who was married to a girl that went to college with another girl who's dad used to deal with this kind of stuff. So it's pretty solid.

So more excuses hiding behind the letter of the law.

Awesome.

I'm glad you are ok with Russia and Putin being our lords. I'm not.

Give it up, don gave secretes to the Russians, Syrians, and Iranis. Congratulations. Exactly the people we want knowing stuff from Israel.

[Handyman]

Re: POTUS 45.10 - Stage Two in Perpetuity

I dont think Wisko in that post was defending Trump just discussing why that conversation could be classified.

[Slap Shot]

Re: POTUS 45.10 - Stage Two in Perpetuity

While it's true the POTUS can technically declassify just about anything they choose, I'd like to hear if he followed the required process in attempting to do so. Something tells me this particular POTUS couldn't name step 1 of said process.

[WeAreNDHockey]

Re: POTUS 45.10 - Stage Two in Perpetuity

While it's true the POTUS can technically declassify just about anything they choose, I'd like to hear if he followed the required process in attempting to do so. Something tells me this particular POTUS couldn't name step 1 of said process.

Trump makes George W. Bush look like a Rhodes Scholar. I don't know that he knows that you need to unzip your fly before you take a p!22.

[mookie1995]

Re: POTUS 45.10 - Stage Two in Perpetuity

beautiful military weapons
no one makes them like the united states

[WeAreNDHockey]

Re: POTUS 45.10 - Stage Two in Perpetuity

trump's presidency is pretty easy to sum up so far. "Everything was really terrible before I was elected. Now, everything is tremendous, everything is beautiful, everything is wonderful, everything is great. And all of it is because of me. I can do anything and everything I want, because I'm me." Every day with trump it's the same thing. It's almost like the round of golf that the North Korean leader Kim Jong-Il was alleged to have played where he fired off a round of 34, including 5 holes-in-one, and that was the first time he had ever played golf. trump voters and supporters may not all be deplorable, but they are dupes and rubes of the highest order if they believe he is fit for elected office, or is not mentally ill.

[alfablue]

Re: POTUS 45.10 - Stage Two in Perpetuity

I dont think Wisko in that post was defending Trump just discussing why that conversation could be classified.

Could be, but it sounds like excuses to me.

I've not been following for a few pages, but while my post may be misplaced, I also stand behind it.

One wonders if there will be information withheld from don because he's liable to blab and brag about information he has.

Of the stereotypical criminal who admits the crime, don's the first person who seems like he will actually do that.

[Wisko McBadgerton]

Re: POTUS 45.10 - Stage Two in Perpetuity

While it's true the POTUS can technically declassify just about anything they choose, I'd like to hear if he followed the required process in attempting to do so. Something tells me this particular POTUS couldn't name step 1 of said process.

Ugh. There is no "required process" if it's the President. The President has control of information, period.

Congress could pass a law tomorrow that seeks to define what should or shouldn't be classified or declassified or how it should be done. But that law would be struck down as it would seek to usurp the authority of the Executive branch granted by the Constitution. You can try to slice it 20 different ways but it is NOT illegal for the President to come to your house or Putin's and divulge that aliens crashed landed at Roswell. It is just not. When it comes to information, the President decides.

The correct question to ask is should he have done so in this case? Was it sensible? Not -- was it legal? If everyone wasn't so focused on whether any particular action Trump takes is impeachable or not, perhaps that argument would have a better chance of gaining more traction outside the left. At this point though the left is crying wolf every other day and exactly like the parable, the louder the left shouts about impeachment, certainly the right is, but even the middle tunes it out and grows skeptical.

But that is obviously the strategy. The same one employed by Mrs. Clinton and pretty much all R challengers for the last two years. Be unrelentingly negative on Trump, period. Continuing on with the same strategy that gave the right control of the House, the Senate, and the Presidency is a bold move Cotton. We'll see if it pays off.

Lastly, to the relevant question of whether or not Trump should have said whatever he said to the Russian foreign minister-- I don't actually know, mainly because we have so little knowledge of context. On one side we have WaPo, The NYT, CNN, (etc.) and anonymous sources (presumably) in the intelligence community parsing out selected bits of information that undermine Trump for giving out this highly secret information.

Of course, I myself, sitting in my living room now know that the info was related to ISIS developing bombs in electronic devices and plotting to use them on airliners; that the info was developed by the Israelis; that it was developed from a source in a Syrian city controlled by ISIS. (so Dabiq or Raqqa, 95% it's Raqqa.) A portion of this info was apparently given to Russia, and presumably by proxy to Assad, and the Ayatollah. Surprisingly, Trump didn't tell me, or ISIS, or the rest of the world any of that. So is it really a secret and someone leaking has committed a felony? Or was it not really so secret at the point Trump discussed it?

At any rate, on the other side we have McMasters, who unequivocally denies anything said was improper. If it was indeed improper as the press and Dems insist, then McMasters is incompetent, a liar, or both. I don't see any way around that. At this point, I myself don't feel inclined to doubt McMasters, but opinions will naturally vary.

[WeAreNDHockey]

Re: POTUS 45.10 - Stage Two in Perpetuity

It's legal to kill innocent children in a war. Is it right? Certainly human beings have evolved to the point where we can rise above claiming something is legal gives it any sort of precedence over doing what is right. Or I suppose we can remain un-evolved (or de-evolved?) and continue to bend ourselves into more shapes than a bag full of pretzels and find yet another way to defend trump.

In other news, Twitter's co-founder apologizes.

[WeAreNDHockey]

Re: POTUS 45.10 - Stage Two in Perpetuity

If these kinds of things happen to a politician on the right, they are reprehensible and troubling. But it sure seems like they happen more often to pols on the left.

[Handyman]

Re: POTUS 45.10 - Stage Two in Perpetuity

Ugh. There is no "required process" if it's the President. The President has control of information, period.

Congress could pass a law tomorrow that seeks to define what should or shouldn't be classified or declassified or how it should be done. But that law would be struck down as it would seek to usurp the authority of the Executive branch granted by the Constitution. You can try to slice it 20 different ways but it is NOT illegal for the President to come to your house or Putin's and divulge that aliens crashed landed at Roswell. It is just not. When it comes to information, the President decides.

The correct question to ask is should he have done so in this case? Was it sensible? Not -- was it legal? If everyone wasn't so focused on whether any particular action Trump takes is impeachable or not, perhaps that argument would have a better chance of gaining more traction outside the left. At this point though the left is crying wolf every other day and exactly like the parable, the louder the left shouts about impeachment, certainly the right is, but even the middle tunes it out and grows skeptical.

But that is obviously the strategy. The same one employed by Mrs. Clinton and pretty much all R challengers for the last two years. Be unrelentingly negative on Trump, period. Continuing on with the same strategy that gave the right control of the House, the Senate, and the Presidency is a bold move Cotton. We'll see if it pays off.

Lastly, to the relevant question of whether or not Trump should have said whatever he said to the Russian foreign minister-- I don't actually know, mainly because we have so little knowledge of context. On one side we have WaPo, The NYT, CNN, (etc.) and anonymous sources (presumably) in the intelligence community parsing out selected bits of information that undermine Trump for giving out this highly secret information.

Of course, I myself, sitting in my living room now know that the info was related to ISIS developing bombs in electronic devices and plotting to use them on airliners; that the info was developed by the Israelis; that it was developed from a source in a Syrian city controlled by ISIS. (so Dabiq or Raqqa, 95% it's Raqqa.) A portion of this info was apparently given to Russia, and presumably by proxy to Assad, and the Ayatollah. Surprisingly, Trump didn't tell me, or ISIS, or the rest of the world any of that. So is it really a secret and someone leaking has committed a felony? Or was it not really so secret at the point Trump discussed it?

At any rate, on the other side we have McMasters, who unequivocally denies anything said was improper. If it was indeed improper as the press and Dems insist, then McMasters is incompetent, a liar, or both. I don't see any way around that. At this point, I myself don't feel inclined to doubt McMasters, but opinions will naturally vary.

Well most of us werent asking if it was legal...that was a way for Righties to justify it. We said it was wrong to do. I am about 95% sure the first one to bring up legality in here was Sicatoka when I asked him what he thought about it. He was dodging the question...

I have never cared about the legality of it because that crap is defined well above my pay grade. My problem is that he did it period. I dont want any President passing on that intel to another country...especially one who is not exactly our bestest good friend. That he was ALLOWED to doesnt mean he should do it. And I find the hypocrisy of some who use the law to defend it ridiculous when even AFTER the FBI said Hillary did not mishandle classified intel (and the intel wasnt even classified when she supposedly did it) it proved she wasnt fit. Well what is good for the gander is good for the goose.

And yes...if you find examples that Obama did the same thing I will say it is wrong.