Reports (w/ multiple sources) detail Trump's pattern of disrespecting military casualties (2 Viewers)

[nolaspe]

Another article about trumps slipping support with the military
=========================

The weekend warriors in their Army surplus battle rattle, their paintball weapons and gun show specials are getting lots of love from this clown show’s commander in chief.

“GREAT PATRIOTS!” President Trump tweeted, along with a video of the vigilantes flouting the law and causing disorder while cruising the streets of an American city.

Meanwhile, the real defenders of freedom — the men and women of the U.S. military — aren’t getting love from Trump. And they’re sure not giving it.

Unsurprising, given the way Trump didn’t even blink at reports that Russia was paying bounties to Afghan troops for American kills.

Or that he was impeached for withholding military aid to Ukraine, putting global trust in America’s military at risk.

Or that he keeps trying to take millions in military funding — gutting plenty of military projects right here in the D.C. region, including a day care for military kids — to build his wall.........

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/support-for-trump-appears-to-be-slipping-in-the-military-and-no-wonder/2020/08/31/7748cf3e-ebb9-11ea-b4bc-3a2098fc73d4_story.html

VoteVets.org just posted this on fbook...

Trump: Americans Who Died in War Are ‘Losers’ and ‘Suckers’

The president has repeatedly disparaged the intelligence of service members, and asked that wounded veterans be kept out of military parades, multiple sources tell The Atlantic.

www.theatlantic.com

 

[barbar]

And, worse than the Russian meddling was the Trump campaign welcoming, and aiding the interference.

In my book, this is just as bad as full on collusion.

 

[Lapaz]

I have an excuse for everything? Mueller had unlimited resources and funding to investigate Trump and Russia. But after he didn't find what the left expected the excuses started that the reason Mueller didn't find anything is because he was restricted. Give me a break. Couldn't we say that about any investigation that didn't produce what was expected?

Are you not aware that the Special Cousel worked with the DOJ on the redactions? Let me guess. The smoking gun that shows Trump colluded with Russia is behind those redactions. How convenient

The evidence Trump colluded is in public. Among other things, he asked for Russia to interfere by "finding" Hillary's emails, which amounts to asking them to commit the crime of hacking, but that's too indirect to be used to indict Trump. In addition, remember that collusion is not a crime, but conspiracy is a crime. The evidence that he conspired is extremely difficult to prove, and probably doesn't exist, since Trump probably didn't sign a contract to conspire, and wasn't dumb enough to be recorded saying how they would conspire. That doesn't mean he didn't conspire, but mafiosos are trained on how to hide that, and I consider Trump a mafioso. Some potential evidence that Trump is beholden to Russia has been withheld by Deutsche bank and the IRS.

 

[TxSaintFan]

Maybe people are remaining anonymous is because anyone who dared testify had their lives and careers destroyed?

Ask Lt. Col Vindman and his twin brother about it.

I'm sure Lester Holt will ask Alex about it on Monday night on the NBC Nightly News.

I've know the Vindmans for 12-13 years and I'm here to tell you he's the real deal. I've not met many people in my life that have the integrity that guy has and what happened to him is wrong on every level.

He's been relatively quiet during this whole thing with the classiness he embodies. I'll be interested to see what he has to say on a national stage.

 

[wardorican]

One-on-one with Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman

In his first-ever television interview, Vindman, a key witness in President Trump’s impeachment hearings, speaks with Lester Holt about why he called out the president’s actions and the retaliation that he says derailed his career.

www.nbcnews.com

Didn't bring up the disparaging remarks.

 

[Optimus Prime]

Post article on those disputing the story
===================
“They have some sleazebag reporter from a third-rate magazine having some source quoting me saying, I won’t even use the term, but saying bad things. … We had 25 people that were witnesses that are on the record already that have said that never took place. It never took place — what they said.”.......

Still, 14 people who were traveling in France as part of the president’s entourage have disputed elements of the story. That sounds like a big number, but you have to consider who is speaking and their level of credibility. You also have to read carefully between the lines of their denials.


Here are the 14 witnesses in order of our assessment of their credibility.


FORMER NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISER JOHN BOLTON: “I didn’t hear either of those comments or anything even resembling them. I was there at the point in time that morning when it was decided that he would not go Aisne-Marne cemetery. He decided not to do it because of John Kelly’s recommendation. It was entirely a weather-related decision, and I thought the proper thing to do.”


Analysis: Bolton has particular credibility because he is a known Trump critic, having written a book, “The Room Where It Happened,” that depicts the president in highly unflattering terms. Moreover, in the book, Bolton wrote about the decision to cancel the trip to the cemetery, saying the weather was not good enough to ferry the president in a helicopter and a lengthy car drive was “an unacceptable risk” for a president in case of an emergency. (Kelly and Dunford instead traveled by motorcade to represent the United States.)


Still, Bolton also wrote that Trump was “displeased throughout the trip” and quoted then-White House press secretary Sarah Sanders as saying Trump was in a “royal funk.” (The trip came right after the midterm elections that cost Republicans control of the House of Representatives.) Bolton told the New York Times, “I’m not saying he didn’t say [the remarks] later in the day or another time.”.............

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/09/15/trump-says-there-are-25-witnesses-disputing-atlantic-nope/

 

[SaintForLife]

The problem for "the left" was not that the Mueller Report found no wrongdoing, it was that the Democrats chose not to indict on those counts (that's a whole other story). Also, lets acknowledge that although Mueller did not find evidence of collusion, he did find conclusively that Russia meddled in the 2016 election, which is a big effing deal in my book.

The fact that the Democrats didn't include any of the supposed examples of collusion/conspiracy or obstruction in their impeachment tells us that they knew it wasn't credible.

We all knew Russia interfered in the election, but that pales in comparison to how the US interferes with other countries elections.

 

[SaintForLife]

The evidence Trump colluded is in public. Among other things, he asked for Russia to interfere by "finding" Hillary's emails, which amounts to asking them to commit the crime of hacking, but that's too indirect to be used to indict Trump. In addition, remember that collusion is not a crime, but conspiracy is a crime. The evidence that he conspired is extremely difficult to prove, and probably doesn't exist, since Trump probably didn't sign a contract to conspire, and wasn't dumb enough to be recorded saying how they would conspire. That doesn't mean he didn't conspire, but mafiosos are trained on how to hide that, and I consider Trump a mafioso. Some potential evidence that Trump is beholden to Russia has been withheld by Deutsche bank and the IRS.

We can't prove he did it but we assume he did is not a convincing argument at all.

 

[barbar]

The fact that the Democrats didn't include any of the supposed examples of collusion/conspiracy or obstruction in their impeachment tells us that they knew it wasn't credible.

We all knew Russia interfered in the election, but that pales in comparison to how the US interferes with other countries elections.

That is not the reason those items were excluded.

 

[superchuck500]

If the article is wrong, General Kelly could set the record straight, but he doesn’t. Neither has any other person who has any credibility (meaning any person who hasn’t been known to lie to cover for Trump in the past), except maybe John Bolton, and he said he didn’t hear it but it sounded like something he would say.

Kelly goes on the record

 

[MT15]

Kelly goes on the record

3 years too late, IMO. But better late than not at all I guess.

 

[MT15]

 

[UncleTrvlingJim]

Kelly goes on the record

3 years too late, IMO. But better late than not at all I guess.

Honestly, screw that guy (Kelley). He just sat their on the sideline while all this was happening and said nothing? Same with Bolton and everyone who comes out years later, instead of just saying out loud in the moment -- "Woah, I thought all those reports about Trump being a terrible human being were exaggerations, but nope, I can't work with this guy" and resigning then and there.

 

[zztop]

yawn