41 thoughts on “No”

  1. unless
    the miserable SOB is expected to declare his rumored state of emergency. I don’t want to get any part of said declaration second hand, via F*x.

  2. Craig… I understand how you feel.  However…  methinks it’s important for everyone to see that the emperor has no clothes.  I’ve been watching the mainstream news at 6:30pm ( sometimes NBC and sometimes ABC) just to see how they are covering the old fool lately.   I’m pleased to see they aren’t holding back.
     
    IMO, this nation elected this… and this nation needs to see what their votes have wrought.

  3. I’m part of the nation. I’m part of the electorate. And I did not elect this fuck. NO. I did not. 
    I don’t want to see his fucking picture every where I look. I don’t want to hear his fucking voice. Everything about this fuck is offensive. Every. Single. Thing.
    The only thing I’m interested in seeing or hearing about this fuck is removal from office, whether that is impeachment or evocation of the 25th or on inauguration day 2021. 

  4. Travis, turn him off and tune him out. You are not required to listen to his political  meanderings and falsehoods. But, always remember that he was elected in accordance with the laws of our country in existence during 2016. He out gamed us. He is there because we couldn’t settle on a single person to represent our left-leaning interests. We decided to be right rather than happy. Let’s not do that again. Let’s settle on a candidate and vote for her/him. No votes for the outriders in the general election. No more Trumps. Peace

  5. Flatus – I do tune out. But every once in awhile my temper rises when I feel lumped in with that part of the electorate that did vote for this fuck. That either fell for the bullshit or closed their eyes to it or actually believe in it.
    Statements like “this nation elected…” can rile me up. 
    You are a calming voice and I appreciate it.

  6. Travis… I didn’t vote for him either.  Neither did I vote for BushII or BushI or Ronald Reagan.  In fact, I’ve never voted for a republican for president.  Whether you or I like it or not… those people were in fact our presidents.  
     
    My statement stands.

  7. The only silver lining I can see to broadcasting SFB’s BS tonight is that the networks will also cover the Democratic response.
    Politics aside, what a beautiful day for a January. It’s 65° and partly cloudy and a bit breezy. I know what the wind is suggesting, and I am looking forward to that, but I will certainly take this day.

  8. So the tide got rolled!
    I’m sort of with a part of what Craig said — they should run it after the fact and with each statement fact checked.
     

  9. Yes, the Tide got rolled. Dammit. 
     
    The networks have already juggled their schedules and will broadcast the twit. Assuming that, I’d like to see fact checking on the crawl and then the Chuck and Nancy show. 

  10. travis, like you, it’s hard for me to watch the twit but flatus is right that we need to know the extent of the declaration.  if he’s wont, he can do a lot of harm with the powers available to him.

    A CRS report states, “Under the powers delegated by such statutes, the president may seize property, organize and control the means of production, seize commodities, assign military forces abroad, institute martial law, seize and control all transportation and communication, regulate the operation of private enterprise, restrict travel, and, in a variety of ways, control the lives of United States citizens.”  However, under the National Emergencies Act, the president must name the specific emergency power he is invoking.

    best to be prepared. at least read the verbatim transcript that no doubt will be published by PBS or NYT tomorrow morning.

  11. As I understand based on events of the Truman era when he tried to seize the steel plants – the powers are not as extensive — he is limited to things he can pay for -he needs Congress to authorize expenditures

  12. meanwhile
    nbc news reports: Russian lawyer at Trump Tower meeting charged with obstruction of justice

    A Russian lawyer at the center of the 2016 Trump Tower meeting between Russians and Trump campaign officials has been charged with criminal obstruction of justice in a federal civil case in Manhattan.
    Natalia Veselnitskaya, who was representing Russian-based Prevezon Holdings in a fight against forfeiture of assets and money laundering penalties, is accused of submitting an intentionally misleading statement to the court.
     
    According to prosecutors, Veselnitskaya presented what she said were investigative findings by the Russian government that exonerated her client when she had actually helped draft the findings in secret cooperation with a Russian prosecutor.
    The indictment is not directly related to the Trump Tower meeting.
    In the Prevezon case, the government accused Prevezon of laundering part of the proceeds of an alleged tax fraud scheme uncovered by Sergei Magnitsky, a Russia accountant who had helped report the fraud to Russian authorities and was later arrested.
    Magnitsky died in prison, and in 2012 President Barack Obama signed the Magnitsky Act, which sanctioned Russian officials believed responsible for his death. At the 2016 Trump Tower meeting, which was convened after a Trump associate told Donald Trump Jr. that a group of Russians had dirt on Hillary Clinton, Veselnitskaya pressed Trump campaign officials on lifting the Magnitsky sanctions.
    Prosecutors filed the Prevezon case in 2013 seeking to recover several million dollars worth of property, including New York real estate, alleging money laundering from the proceeds of the tax fraud scheme.
    In 2014, the Russian government sent a report from the Russian Prosecutor General’s Office containing investigative findings that purported to exonerate Russian government personnel. In 2014, Veselnitskaya gave the court a declaration with the report attached saying that she obtained a copy after going to great lengths, including filing a court order.
    According to prosecutors, emails show that Veselnitskaya helped draft the report. NBC News first reported the existence of the email exchange in which she was seen editing prosecutors’ responses in April 2018. The emails were obtained through the Dossier Center, a Russian opposition organization backed by Mikhail B. Khodorkovsky, one of Putin’s most fervent critics.
    In statement, U.S. Attorney Geoffrey S. Berman said, “Fabricating evidence — submitting false and deceptive declarations to a federal judge — in an attempt to affect the outcome of pending litigation not only undermines the integrity of the judicial process, but it threatens the ability of our courts and our Government to ensure that justice is done. We take seriously our responsibility to protect the integrity of the judicial proceedings in this District, and we will not stand idly by while outside influences seek to corrupt and pervert that process.”

  13. kgc, from the dod web page:  https://dod.defense.gov/News/SpecialReports/Budget2019.aspx

    FY 2019 Defense Budget
     
    Restoring and rebuilding America’s military.

    President Donald J. Trump signed a $1.3 trillion spending bill on March 23, 2018 that includes a $160 billion boost in defense spending over two years, reversing years of decline and unpredictable funding.

  14. the guardian:
    Manafort accused by Mueller of sharing 2016 poll data with Russian operative

     

     

    Donald Trump’s former campaign chairman, Paul Manafort, has been accused by special counsel Robert Mueller of sharing polling data on the 2016 election with a Russian man linked to Moscow’s intelligence agencies.
     
    Attorneys for Manafort inadvertently disclosed the allegation in a court filing on Tuesday. Sections of the filing were meant to be redacted, but the text underneath several blacked-out lines could be copied and viewed.
     
    The allegation relates to Manafort’s association with Konstantin Kilimnik, a Russian political consultant who worked for Manafort on campaigns in eastern Europe.
     
    Mueller, who is investigating Russia’s interference in the 2016 election, said in a court filing in March last year that the FBI assesses that Kilimnik “has ties to a Russian intelligence service and had such ties in 2016”.
     
    In the court document made public on Tuesday, Manafort’s attorneys state that Mueller alleges Manafort “lied about sharing polling data with Mr Kilimnik related to the 2016 presidential campaign”.
     
    The attorneys denied several allegations of lying made by Mueller last month when the special counsel tore up a plea agreement with Manafort.
     
    They also said that Mueller alleges Manafort was in contact with someone who asked him permission to use Manafort’s name “as an introduction” in the event that the person met the president.
     

  15. from wapo’s report of
    Paul Manafort shared 2016 polling data with Russian employee, according to court filing
    […]
    U.S. District Judge Amy Berman Jackson has ordered the special counsel to respond and set a Jan. 25 hearing date to air the dispute.
     
    In the Tuesday filing, Manafort’s lawyers said the disagreement can be dealt with through the sentencing process, because prosecutors have said they have no plans to file fresh charges.
     
    The longtime Republican consultant already faces a possible maximum, 10-year prison sentence in his D.C. case under federal guidelines for conspiring to cheat the Internal Revenue Service, violate foreign-lobbying laws and tamper with witnesses. That time could come in addition to his punishment for separate convictions in Virginia on tax and bank fraud charges.
     
    [Prosecutors say they are still weighing new charges against ex-Trump campaign chairman Manafort]
     
    Manafort faces a tentative March 5 sentencing date in his federal case in D.C. If he is found to have breached the deal, he would lose any sentencing credits for acceptance of responsibility, prosecutors said.
    The longtime lobbyist is set for sentencing Feb. 8 in Virginia before U.S. District Judge T.S. Ellis III of Alexandria .
     
     
     
    Under the agreement with prosecutors in his D.C. case, Manafort also was ordered to forfeit an estimated $15 million he hid from the IRS, but was permitted to keep some property held with relatives. In return for his cooperation, he hoped to have prosecutors recommend leniency, possibly slicing years off his prison term.
     
     
     
    Prosecutors said Manafort also lied about the circumstances of a $125,000 wire transfer in 2017.
     

  16. I don’t see why the media shouldn’t just pick one of their members to cover the usurper’s event. PBS would be a good choice, since the rippers are always bitching that it is biased to the left, if not an outright commie-nest.
    Then highly respected constitutional lawyers like Lawrence Tribes and ted olson* could comment on the legality of the usurper’s proposal. 
    * not that I respect ted olson. Not after his arguments against abortion in the SCOTUS that implied that foeti are property of the government. 

  17. I don’t need to actually hear the filthy russian prostitute spout his fallacies. I’ll depend on Maddow to instantly analyze the usurper’s bombastardy for me. I can read the text as intended online. I can read the text as interrupted by non sequitur  self-pity and self aggrandizement online. Tomorrow evening I’ll get Lisa Desjardin’s take on it. 

  18. …that’s why the call it the “bully pulpit”
     
    …and, no, i wouldn’t watch or listen to Trump speak if you paid me.  It’s 2019- i just read the immediately available transcript.  Have you ever read a transcript of one of this doofus’s speeches?  They’re unintelligible.  Guess he’s speaking to his base.

  19.  
    Here is an interesting take/prediction

    Odds are the president is going to appear on national television tonight, for about eight minutes or so, to announce that he’s going to agree to reopen the federal government after 17 days of closure while simultaneously invoking national emergency powers allowing him to bypass Congress to start building a wall on the border.

    To read it all
    Jack

  20. If he declares a national emergency, i hope he gets one, in the form of crippling peaceful protests in major cities.  Rush hour is a good time for a stoll, dontcha think?

  21. Ted Olson is an interesting guy.  He is anti-abortion (or at least he argued that in his role as Solicitor General) but he is pro-gay rights.  He’s a smart, possibly brilliant lawyer, and but for his right wing leanings would be a great choice for Attorney General.  Certainly a whale of a lot better than either the acting one or the nominee.
     
    Another thought I had about coverage of SFB’s lie fest tonight was to recreate SNL’s News for the Hard of Hearing, but have the translator shouting out the actual facts to counter SFB’s lies.

  22. Jack – Having been involved, the furloughed person, in the third, and probably second, longest shut downs of the federal government history, I have little faith in SFB ending the standoff tonight.  The issue is he has no clue what will happen if he declares a “national emergency”.   Truth is he has no clue about much of life because he is a low intelligence simpleton suffering from mental issues. 
     
    However, if he does declare that he will sign the budgets presented without “wall” funding, and declares a “national emergency” thinking it will turn out like Mussolini or Hitler would get, he will be surprised.

  23. Bink, capitol idea.  Location(s) would need to be chosen carefully for maximum impact.
     
    Jack, there is a very real and serious debate not only regarding whether SFB could declare a national emergency given the numbers that are out there regarding illegal immigration, and even if he could whether he can divert money from one department  (say, DOD) to another (say, DHS) for a purpose unrelated to the original funding grant.  The other, political part of the debate is whether more than the 2 current Repug senators who have broken with him will say “Enough!” and join the Dems to stop the nonsense.
     

  24. The Summary of the CRS report states:

    Summary The President of the United States has available certain powers that may be exercised in the event that the nation is threatened by crisis, exigency, or emergency circumstances (other than natural disasters, war, or near-war situations). Such powers may be stated explicitly or implied by the Constitution, assumed by the Chief Executive to be permissible constitutionally, or inferred from or specified by statute. Through legislation, Congress has made a great many delegations of authority in this regard over the past 200 years.
     
    There are, however, limits and restraints upon the President in his exercise of emergency powers. With the exception of the habeas corpus clause, the Constitution makes no allowance for the suspension of any of its provisions during a national emergency. Disputes over the constitutionality or legality of the exercise of emergency powers are judicially reviewable. Indeed, both the judiciary and Congress, as co-equal branches, can restrain the executive regarding emergency powers. So can public opinion. Furthermore, since 1976, the President has been subject to certain procedural formalities in utilizing some statutorily delegated emergency authority. The National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1601-1651) eliminated or modified some statutory grants of emergency authority; required the President to declare formally the existence of a national emergency and to specify what statutory authority, activated by the declaration, would be used; and provided Congress a means to countermand the President’s declaration and the activated authority being sought. The development of this regulatory statute and subsequent declarations of national emergency are reviewed in this report, which is updated as events require.

    Interesting, no?  SFB can’t just say it and do it.  

  25. I agree with the assessment Jack presented — it doesn’t matter what happens in reality — it gives him a way out.
     

  26. Ok, now here’s some useful news – news you can use so to speak. Thanks to WaPo for publishing it. I really like this part:

    The wall in Israel is 99.9 percent effective.
     

    Only one-tenth (33 miles) of the Israeli barrier with Palestinian territories is an eight-meter (25-foot) concrete wall. The other 90 percent is a two-meter (6-foot) high electronic fence. As for “99.9 percent,” these numbers are a fantasy. The New York Times in 2016 reported on a vast smuggling industry that easily evades the Israeli security fence and wall that divides Israeli and Palestinian areas.

    Moron

  27. Here’s hoping that Nancy and Chuck get it right tonight. To me they just seem like an unlikely and odd couple. Neither is particularly compelling when in front of a microphone.

  28. Hearing that his address is less than 10 minutes, ( God help me) I’m watching it. There would literally be no way to debunk in real time all of the bullshit that’s flowing out of this ugly fucking puss. 

  29. Stupid fuck has made it personal to him. And claims the $5.7 B is the request of law enforcement professionals. What a load of shit. 

Leave a Reply