Miscellaneous Trump (16 Viewers)

[Huntn]

Anxiety surges as Donald Trump may be indicted soon: Why 2024 is 'the final battle' and 'the big one'​

Anxiety surges as Donald Trump may be indicted soon: Why 2024 is 'the final battle' and 'the big one'

Donald Trump's many legal problems – and calls for protests – have generated new fears of political violence and anxiety about the 2024 election.

www.yahoo.com

WASHINGTON – It looks like American politics is entering a new age of anxiety, triggered by an unprecedented legal development: The potential indictment of a former president and current presidential candidate.

Donald Trump's many legal problems – and calls for protests by his followers – have generated new fears of political violence and anxiety about the unknowable impact all this will have on the already-tense 2024 presidential election

I’ll reframe this is a more accurate way, Are Presidents above the law? This new age was spurred into existence when home grown dummies elected a corrupt, mentally ill, anti-democratic, would be dictator as President and don’t bother to hold him responsible for his crimes, don’t want to because in the ensuing mayhem and destruction, they think they will be better off. The man is actually advocating violence (not the first time). And btw, screw democracy too. If this feeling spreads, we are In deep shirt.

This goes beyond one treasonous Peice of work and out to all his minions. This is on you or should we be sympathetic to the idea of they can’t help being selfish suckers to the Nation’s detriment? Donald Trump is the single largest individual threat to our democracy and it‘s all going to boil down to will the majority of the GOP return to his embrace and start slinging his excrement to support him?

 

[Optimus Prime]

As Trump embraces Saudis, 9/11 families continue to yearn for accountability

Exclusive: Retired firefighter and 9/11 responder Adam Lake said of the president, “Really, this guy’s not for anybody but himself.”

www.independent.co.uk

 

[cuddlemonkey]

I haven’t equated anything. If the standard is illegality then that is what it is.

Except you did.

If you want to eliminate corruption the standard needs to be that you actively avoid not only real conflicts of interest but also anything that creates the appearance of a conflict. It is a higher standard. A much higher standard. It doesn’t allow for the BS that Hunter and Jim Biden did. It doesn’t allow for the crap Jared and Donald did and continue to do. It doesn’t allow for family controlled charitable foundations that take in millions upon millions of dollars from foreign entities. Why. Because those create at a minimum the appearance of a conflict of interest. When you enter public office, the bar should be raised. Not lowered.

 

[fooferdoggie]

As Trump embraces Saudis, 9/11 families continue to yearn for accountability

Exclusive: Retired firefighter and 9/11 responder Adam Lake said of the president, “Really, this guy’s not for anybody but himself.”

www.independent.co.uk

good luck.

 

[TampaJoe]

Except you did.

And yet nobody here agrees to that standard. So if the standard is illegality then that is what it is.

 

[DaveXA]

The emoluments clause has never been enforced.

Outside of Trump, in our history, when has it needed to be enforced?

It carries no criminal penalties under the law.

That’s irrelevant to this discussion.

That said, a breach of the emoluments clause can be considered a high crime or misdemeanor under the Constitution for the purposes of impeachment.

Of course. I didn't say otherwise. But you didn't answer my question. Do you think Trump should be impeached or better yet, do you believe his actions are impeachable?

 

[MT15]

I can tell be the replies that ole Joe is proving my point. At least he’s reliable in his trolling.

 

[Lapaz]

Hunter was receiving payments while his father was VP. Hunter was also being paid while his father was POTUS. And there is evidence Biden knew about the payments. By that standard alone, he was conflicted.

The same standard should apply to Jared. The same standard should be applied Justice Thomas and every Judge. The same standard should be applied to every member of the Senate and the House and every cabinet level secretary.

Everybody knows there is corruption. It isn’t hard to spot. But if you REALLY want to do something about it, then condemn it everywhere. Until that happens, it will continue.

You’re comparing peanuts to gold. Jared got paid and was shady. Not Joe Biden. Then Trump crime family is 100s of times worse. Standards account for damage. The damage the Trump crime family is inflicting is like 1st degree murder compared to a misdemeanor that the Biden family inflicted.

 

[Lapaz]

Yep. There are degrees. And when you get to the highest levels of government, that’s a pretty big deal wouldn’t you say? So tell me. How much corruption at that level is okay? Put a number on it.

And tell me when and how we are to determine when the line is crossed. Cause you gotta look to know. You gotta investigate. Rarely is there the smoking gun. You gotta have probable cause certainly. But if we have probable and then are prevented from thoroughly and independently investigating the allegations, nothing gets done. Nothing changes.

There is no number. It’ll never be 0, but it shouldn’t be billions.

 

[TampaJoe]

Outside of Trump, in our history, when has it needed to be enforced?

That’s irrelevant to this discussion.

Of course. I didn't say otherwise. But you didn't answer my question. Do you think Trump should be impeached or better yet, do you believe his actions are impeachable?

Which action specifically. I mean if you are speaking of impeachment, you need to specify charges.

I think the plane is a step too far but he hasn’t accepted that yet and if he doesn’t take possession of it personally now or in the future, I’m not sure it would technically be a violation of the emoluments clause.

As to other business transactions, depends on facts and circumstances. It certainly looks to be a conflict of interest. But if the standard is illegality, one has to be able to prove certain elements of the crime to establish illegality. I have seen allegations. But allegations aren’t proof.

Whether his actions are or are not impeachable depends on the standards applied. Folks on this board demand proof of illegal acts That is the standard.

What I think doesn’t matter. What the House and the Senate think does matter. And you aren’t going to get either party to agree on a standard nor will either party agree to apply that standard regardless of the party affiliation of the accused.

I think much of what he does is at a minimum unethical behavior. All kinds of conflicts of interest. But is it illegal? Possibly. Folks claim to have proof. They need to make that case.

 

[Optimus Prime]

The Trump administration is preparing to welcome the first group of white South Africanrefugees to the United States as early as next week, according to three sources familiar with the matter.

This move comes despite the administration's restrictions on refugee admissions from other parts of the world, highlighting a divisive approach to immigration policy.

The assertion that minority white South Africans face discrimination from the Black majority has spread in far-right circles for years and been echoed by Trump's white South African-born ally Elon Musk.

The average white household in South Africa owns 20 times the wealth of the average Black household, according to the Review of Political Economy, an international academic journal.

Approximately 50 Afrikaners are expected to arrive at Washington Dulles International Airport in Virginia, where they will reportedly participate in a press conference before traveling to their final destinations in the US.

However, the sources cautioned that the arrival, already delayed by a week, could be subject to further changes. As of Thursday afternoon, a charter flight intended for the group had not yet received a landing permit.…..

First white South Africans to arrive in America despite Trump’s refugee freeze

The assertion that minority white South Africans face discrimination from the Black majority has been echoed by Trump's white South African-born ally Elon Musk

www.independent.co.uk

One of the white Afrikaners brought into the US as refugees by the Trump administration this week has a history of antisemitic social media posts, despite the White House using alleged antisemitism as a rationale for deporting pro-Palestinian protesters.

Charl Kleinhaus posted on X in 2023 that “Jews are untrustworthy and a dangerous group.” In another post last fall, he shared a rightwing, nationalist YouTube video that was later removed, titled: “‘We’ll shoot ILLEGAL Immigrants!’ – Poland’s Illegal Islamic immigrant solution,” with clapping emojis.

A number of Kleinhaus’s posts also promote the conspiracy theory that white people in South Africa are being particularly persecuted.


Kleinhaus confirmed to several media outlets, including the Bulwark and New York Times that he was the owner of the account that contained antisemitic and racist posts, though he insisted to the Times that he was not antisemitic and claimed to have written a post in error while on medication.

The Trump administration has engaged in a systematic campaign to arrest and attempt to deport pro-Palestinian activists in recent months, claiming that they are engaging in antisemitism. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) said last month it will begin screening immigrants’ social media activity for antisemitism, using it “as grounds for denying immigration benefit requests”.

Kleinhaus, however, was recently granted refugee status by the US government, along with 58 other white South Africans, and landed this week at Washington Dulles international airport.…….

White Afrikaner brought to US by Trump administration has history of antisemitic posts

Charl Kleinhaus confirms he owns account that contained posts, as White House uses antisemitism as rationale for deportations

www.theguardian.com

 

[Dragon]

I keep hearing, "Hunter was receiving payments." Well—yes, he was. He was employed by Burisma at the time.

So let me ask you this:
Do you work for free, Joe?
Should your adult children, if you have any, be barred from holding a job simply because of who their parent is? Should any adult child with a legitimate career be expected to decline employment just because their father works—or has worked—in government?

Unless you can point to specific instances where Joe Biden’s official actions were directly influenced by his son’s role at Burisma, this entire argument falls apart. Without such evidence, all you're doing is using distraction and innuendo to deflect from the very real corruption we’re seeing from the current administration.

 

[TampaJoe]

I keep hearing, "Hunter was receiving payments." Well—yes, he was. He was employed by Burisma at the time.

So let me ask you this:
Do you work for free, Joe?
Should your adult children, if you have any, be barred from holding a job simply because of who their parent is? Should any adult child with a legitimate career be expected to decline employment just because their father works—or has worked—in government?

Unless you can point to specific instances where Joe Biden’s official actions were directly influenced by his son’s role at Burisma, this entire argument falls apart. Without such evidence, all you're doing is using distraction and innuendo to deflect from the very real corruption we’re seeing from the current administration.

Except I haven’t been making that argument. You keep bringing it up. The standard we have been discussing is illegality. I accepted that as the standard. Since then I haven’t brought up Hunter or Joe. But you do. Why. If it’s not equivalent in your mind as you say, why keep bringing it up?

So unless you can prove illegality then the other conflicts of interest issues or unethical behavior falls outside the standard for removal from office. And we have those kinds of issues at all levels in all three branches of government. That’s why people refer to it as the swamp. Unpleasant but not illegal. Not good for the country but not illegal. Partisan but not illegal.

 

[TampaJoe]

There is no number. It’ll never be 0, but it shouldn’t be billions.

How do you consistently apply a standard unless you are willing to draw a line somewhere? In order to claim independence as a CPA, I can’t own a single share of stock in a client. I had to sell an interest in an investment that I inherited from my father when I went to work for an international accounting firm. My office was in TN and the client was out of CO. I would never have worked on that engagement but the firms standard was zero.

As I said earlier, my wife couldn’t accept anything more than 25 dollars. In my current position, I can’t accept lunch from a customer or a vendor. Zero. So maybe the standard should be zero. Otherwise people will find ways to exploit it.

 

[Dragon]

Except I haven’t been making that argument. You keep bringing it up. The standard we have been discussing is illegality. I accepted that as the standard. Since then I haven’t brought up Hunter or Joe. But you do. Why. If it’s not equivalent in your mind as you say, why keep bringing it up?

So unless you can prove illegality then the other conflicts of interest issues or unethical behavior falls outside the standard for removal from office. And we have those kinds of issues at all levels in all three branches of government. That’s why people refer to it as the swamp. Unpleasant but not illegal. Not good for the country but not illegal. Partisan but not illegal.

Hunter Biden was employed by Burisma, a private energy company in Ukraine, and received a salary for his role—just like any other board member or employee in the private sector. This is fundamentally different from what happened during the Trump administration.

In contrast, Donald Trump, Ivanka Trump, and Jared Kushner held official roles in the U.S. government. As such, they were subject to the Emoluments Clause of the U.S. Constitution, which is specifically designed to prevent federal officials from profiting from their public office or receiving gifts, payments, or titles from foreign states.

Despite this, the Trump family continued to profit from foreign business interests, trademarks, hotel stays by foreign governments, and international deals while serving in public office—raising serious and well-documented constitutional concerns.

So the distinction is clear:

• Hunter Biden was not a government official.
• The Trump family was.

Attempting to equate the two situations ignores this key legal and constitutional difference. If we're going to talk about corruption or conflicts of interest, the conversation should start with public officials who used their positions for personal gain, not private citizens with independent careers.

But you already know all this Joe - and still you continue with your "both sides" excuses

 

[TampaJoe]

Okay. As I said go make your case and impeach them.

Let me ask you a hypothetical question. Let’s say that Barron Trump took a job consulting for the government of Quatar. And the government of Quatar decided to pay him 2 million dollars? Does that constitute a conflict of interest for POTUS? Is it a violation of the emoluments clause? I mean are you going to argue that it’s okay because Barron has expenses and can’t be expected to work for free? Keep in mind Barron isn’t a government employee. Is what Barron doing illegal? Would you and other Democrats question this arrangement? Wouldn’t you and other Democrats question Trump’s foreign policy decision as they relate to Quatar? How much proof would you require to do something about it?

What if Quatar donated the plane to Barron?

 

[DaveXA]

Okay. As I said go make your case and impeach them.

Your refusal to state that Trump should be impeached says it all for me.

 

[TampaJoe]

Your refusal to state that Trump should be impeached says it all for me.

I have all kinds of problems ethically with Trump. I would personally remove him from office. I would never have allowed him to run in the first place. But he has been duly elected twice. Neither of us has the power to impeach and remove a government officer. That is up to the House and the Senate.

Until both parties agree to a standard of conduct that they will both apply equally to themselves and other government officials, impeachment is a long shot. You know it and I know it. Currently the standard has holes in it so big you could drive Clarence Thomas’s RV thru it.

 

[Optimus Prime]

Former FBI director James Comey is being accused of ‘threatening the life’ of Donald Trump after posting an Instagram picture of seashells on a beach.

“Cool shell formation on my beach walk,” Comey captioned the post, which depicted seashells spelling out the numbers “8647.”

But conservatives were quick to suggest that their formation was intended as a veiled threat against the commander-in-chief, as “86” has a history of being used as a verb in American slang to mean removing someone from a venue and Trump is the 47th president of the United States.

Comey subsequently deleted the image and explained in a separate post: “I posted a picture earlier of some shells I saw on a beach walk, which I assumed were a political message.

“I didn’t realize some folks associate those numbers with violence. It never occurred to me but I oppose violence of any kind so I took the post down.”

He did not clarify what “political message” he assumed the shells alluded to and his attempt to address the controversy only served to stoke Republican fury.

Tennessee GOP Rep. Andy Ogles moved swiftly to announce he had written to Secret Service Director Sean Curran and FBI Director Kash Patel “urging an immediate joint investigation,” adding: “If Comey broke the law, he shouldn’t get a pass. He should be in handcuffs.”

Patel responded on X that the bureau was aware of Comey’s post and was “in communication with the Secret Service and Director Curran.”

“Primary jurisdiction is with SS on these matters and we, the FBI, will provide all necessary support,” he added...............

Ex-FBI director James Comey accused of ‘threats’ against Trump with seashell post

Former intelligence official’s seemingly innocuous post provokes MAGA outcry alleging it contains veiled threat against the president’s life

www.the-independent.com