Judging Trump's performance

Two things that I politely ask that you stop doing.
1. Please stop doing double replies to the same post.
2. Please stop quoting a post from me, and then proceeding to go off on a completely different subject that has nothing to do with the post of mine to which you replied ( Like this one). Its not because I "fear" what you are saying when you go off on a different subject, its just that I'm not necessarily interested in going off on that different subject. You are what I would call a "ranter" that hops from subject to subject so quickly that nothing ever gets accomplished. When you touch upon a subject that I am interested in replying, I will do so. When I touch upon a subject in which you are interested in replying, please do so. If I reply to you, by all means, provide a retort to the subject to which I replied. Don't use my post as an entry into a completely different conversation. I realize that you are probably going to say we were talking about Trump and therefore anything about Trump is related, but that is a preposterous over generalization.

 

1. A person not employed by the government providing personal memos to the Times is not leaking. The article concerning the memos appeared on May 16th. On May 7th, Rosenstein appointed Robert Mueller as an independent special prosecutor. To say there is no correlation is ignoring the obvious.

2. I never believed there were any tapes. I said weeks ago it was just another red herring. Most of the media were equally skeptical. Trump fooled no one. But let's assume you are right according to Trump's thinking and no one else.

Okay, so Trump wanted to deter Comey or frighten him by pretense or a show of strength. That is what you are saying. Am I right?

Comey is an American lawyer who served as the seventh Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation. He was the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York, subsequently the United States Deputy Attorney General in the administration of President George W. Bush. Comey appointed Patrick Fitzgerald to be the Special Counsel to head the grand jury investigation into the Plame affair after Attorney General John Ashcroft recused himself.

Comey took copious notes after each discussion with Trump. His testimony was based on those notes. Comey is a seasoned veteran of Congressional hearings.

So, you are telling me that Trump is so freaking stupid that he thinks he can bluff a man like Comey. If that is true, Trump is far more stupid than I thought.

Also, he thinks it is a great idea to try in vain to "bluff" the American people and the news media for 41 days.

That is your way of defending Trump? Okay, I'm fine with that.

 

1. Quit being so presumptuous that you think you can tell me what to write. Despite whom I quote, I am writing to all readers of the thread, not just you.

2. Don't even try to tell me what to write.

 

1. Call it a leak, or call it Jabberwocky for all I care. The title is meaningless in this context. Even if we are going to conclude that Jabberwocky triggered the special prosecutor, it is the content within Jabberwocky, rather than Jabberwocky itself that triggered the investigation. The content would have come to light regardless, and thus it is wrong headed to conclude that Jabberwocky is the cause of the special prosecutor.

2. Well.......at least you are now properly calling it a bluff rather than the clearly incorrect characterization as a lie. I consider that progress.

 

1. If you are writing to all readers of the thread, WHY are you quoting me to go off on a different subject? You do know that you can make a post without quoting someone don't you ? What you are doing is rude. I cannot control your actions, but I can point out when you are breaching protocol. YOU ARE BREACHING PROTOCOL.

2. I cannot control your actions, but I can point out when you are breaching protocol. YOU ARE BREACHING PROTOCOL. It is bordering on being a stalker.

 

I made a huge error in my post. It should read:

1. A person not employed by the government providing personal memos to the Times is not leaking. The article concerning the memos appeared on May 16th. On May 17th, Rosenstein appointed Robert Mueller as an independent special prosecutor. To say there is no correlation is ignoring the obvious.

Not May 7th.

"Call it a leak, or call it Jabberwocky for all I care. The title is meaningless in this context. Even if we are going to conclude that Jabberwocky triggered the special prosecutor, it is the content within Jabberwocky, rather than Jabberwocky itself that triggered the investigation." On that we fully agree.

But then you say, "The content would have come to light regardless, and thus it is wrong headed to conclude that Jabberwocky is the cause of the special prosecutor." You just said "the content within Jabberwocky triggered the investigation." That means the Jabberwocky published on the 16th caused the appointment of the special prosecutor on the 17th. There is a direct correlation.

You are playing word games again.

"2. Well.......at least you are now properly calling it a bluff rather than the clearly incorrect characterization as a lie." You forgot the part where I said, "So, you are telling me that Trump is so freaking stupid that he thinks he can bluff a man like Comey."

I see you didn't challenge that statement or the statements that followed. Good, we are making progress.

 

This feels like deja vu....Do you REALLY not remember ?....or did you not like how it turned out the first time and now want another shot at the apple? Or do you simply keep going over the same ground again and again and again, solely for the purpose of keeping your thread alive?

If you are going to conclude that Comeys leak is what led to a special prosecutor ( which is debatable), you also have to acknowledge that it was the content within that leak, as opposed to the actual leak that would have led to the appointment of a special prosecutor. Comey was going to testify before an open session of Congress regardless, and that same content would have come to light regardless. If that content triggered a special prosecutor, it would have done so whether it was revealed via a leak, OR via an open session of Congress a few weeks later. In that sense, you cannot credibly attribute the special prosecutor to Trumps tweet, rather you would STILL have to attribute it to the content of what Comey alleged.

 

The entire basis of Comey's testimony before the Senate Intelligence Committee was the Jabberwocky and the contents thereof caused the appointment of the special prosecutor. You agree with that.

I don't see what your issue is. Are you saying the memos are irrelevant but the contents of the memos are relevant? That doesn't make sense.

Again, you are reminded the memos were published on one day. The next day Rosenstein appointed the special prosecutor. This strongly suggests the two events are related. Is that written in stone? No, but highly likely.

 

You said, "Has it occurred to you SS that millions of Americans are simply tired of what they see as cookie cutter politicians in Washington never actually doing anything major and constantly seeming to have to conform to the political correctness of the day and what the "establishment" thinks?"

You put it inside the quote containing my remarks. You don't want to do that. I nearly missed it.

Yes, the thought has occurred to me, and I have written about it several times. To be more precise, approximately 63 million Americans felt that way. That's the 25% of the electorate that voted for Trump.

I wonder how many millions now regret their decision.

I noticed you didn't take issue with my post.

 

Sorry for the problems with the quote function.

Why would I deny that President Trump says dumb things pretty much on a daily basis?

Of course, that doesn't mean I think he should be impeached. Any more than millions of American didn't think that President Clinton should be impeached over lying about sex with a homely intern.

 

The only legal scholar Trump fans have is Dershowitz. They constantly quote him, and only him. I hope the Republican PAC that is paying him is getting their money's worth.

Most legal scholars disagree with Dershowitz. First, Trump wasn't trying to bluff Comey. Comey is not the kind of man one can bluff. Trump's lie about the tapes was meant strictly for the media and the American people. If Trump thought he could bluff Comey, he is far more stupid than I thought.

Second, if the President knows the truth, but makes a false statement, that is an obvious lie. He lied to the American people, and that is a political disaster for him. He knows it, his lawyers know it, and so do you.

So does Dershowitz. Obviously, he is earning his keep, although his example was trite, childish, and meant for Trump fans who believe that kind of s**t.

 

If I recall correctly Dershwitz is a lifelong Democrat and would undoubtedly scoff at the idea of being paid by a Republican PAC. He has also publicly derided Hillary Clinton critics for their "lock her up" schick.

And you've forgotten that I can't stand President Trump.

 

Bear in mind, I am not using the "I" word, either. I am merely providing facts that could result in his impeachment.

I thought the intern was kind of cute at the time.

 

Different strokes for........well, you get the idea.

 

You continue to ignore the salient point in my post. It is the content that matters. It does not matter if the content was revealed via a leak, or via his congressional testimony. If in fact that content is what led to a special prosecutor, it would have led to a special prosecutor regardless of how it was revealed.

You were trying to say that Trumps tweet is what led to the special prosecutor, because his tweet is what triggered him to leak. My point is that it is the content that led to the special prosecutor, and whether or not that content was revealed via the leak, OR his Congressional Testimony a few weeks later, a special prosecutor would have been named regardless. Thus you cannot blame the tweet on the special prosecutor. At most you could say that the leak caused the special prosecutor to be named a few weeks earlier than it otherwise would have. In the big picture, that couple of weeks means nothing.

 

Yeah, I do.

 

I don't care if Dershowitz is a Democrat. I'm guessing he is being paid more because of it. He is making a fool of himself. Not only do scores of legal scholars disagree with him, so does history, the House, twice, and the Supreme Court.

I didn't forget. I made an observation, a true one. "The only legal scholar Trump fans have is Dershowitz."

 

The latest from Trump on the WAPO article. This one will cause a lot of head scratching.

Trump tweeted, "Obama Administration official said they "choked" when it came to acting on Russian meddling of election. They didn't want to hurt Hillary?"

Let's see if I have this right. The CIA captured Putin’s specific instructions on the operation’s audacious objectives — defeat or at least damage the Democratic nominee, Hillary Clinton, and help elect her opponent, Donald Trump.

According to Trump's strange reasoning, since Obama did not attempt to stop Russia from damaging Clinton's campaign that somehow helped Clinton?

Is Trump a well man? Seriously, is he mentally fit for the job of President? His tweets on this matter say no. Maybe we need his interpreter once again. He really doesn't mean what he is saying.

Put a different way, he doesn't know what he is talking about.

 

Fine, let's let it go at that knowing that the contents of memos were revealed on May 16th and the special prosecutor was appointed on the 17th, three weeks before Comey's Senate hearing.

 

Fine.

1) Can you provide a source that verifies that Alan Dershowitz is being paid by Republicans to issue statements deemed supportive of President Trump. A relatively unbiased source at least.

2) A "score" is "twenty". And you said "scores". Can you please provide links to a minimum of 40 legal scholars who disagree with Alan Dershowitz's opinions about President Trump.

 

I see how you cut my sentence off at just the right time to make it look like my sentence said something that it does not. Cmon.

I am going to "let it go" with my ACTUAL words.

You were trying to say that Trumps tweet is what led to the special prosecutor, because his tweet is what triggered him to leak. My point is that it is the content that led to the special prosecutor, and whether or not that content was revealed via the leak, OR his Congressional Testimony a few weeks later, a special prosecutor would have been named regardless. Thus you cannot blame the tweet on the special prosecutor. At most you could say that the leak caused the special prosecutor to be named a few weeks earlier than it otherwise would have. In the big picture, that couple of weeks means nothing.

BTW....it is obvious in your response patterns that you are shamelessly working to keep your thread alive.

 

1. No, I can't. It is pure speculation, but since Dershowitz is the only Democratic legal scholar Trump's frriends are using, it is logical speculation.

2. Later. It is too early. Dershowitz is speaking out against obstruction and impeachment. It is way too early for that kind of speculation, but Dershowitz is doing the job is being paid to do. He is protesting against a non-issue. I will comply with your request when it becomes an issue.

 

Doesn't your bringing it up make it an issue? And given you are openly admitting you have no evidence to support your supposed "logical speculation".

Admit it SS, you have a habit of stating your "speculations" as though it was an established fact.

At least until you are called upon to prove it and then you back off as you did here.

IIRC, another very noted Democratic legal scholar Jonathan Turley has also defended President Trump in a similar fashion.

How many distinguished legal scholars would it take echoing those sentiments for you to agree that neither President Trump nor administration officials under his control have committed a crime?

 

People who voted for Trump, some being the most vulnerable when it comes to healthcare, are beginning to realize that Trump lied to them again, much like the wall courtesy of Mexico, America first as he dabbles in events throughout the globe, China a currency manipulator, tax reform, and rebuilding our crumbling infrastructure. Trump can't even get repeal of Obamacare done despite a Republican Party that has worked on that for seven years and now controls both houses of Congress. That is the height of futility and incompetence.

Back to the broken promise to his friends. Trump promised "Tonight, I am also calling on this Congress to repeal and replace Obamacare with reforms that expand choice, increase access, lower costs, and at the same time, provide better healthcare." Most observers knew that was an oxymoron. The government can't do all of that while lowering costs. That's impossible.

Of course, Trump's supporters will say private insurance companies, because of increased competition, will lower premiums and provide better health care. Yeah, right, when pigs fly. Of course, many of his fans may actually believe that lie. They believed the original lie and, for many of them, Trump can do no wrong.

The truth is both versions of Trumpcare is designed to lower costs by getting rid of essential health benefits such as emergency services, hospitalization, maternity and newborn care, and prescription drugs to name just a few. That, according Trump and the GOP, is their idea of providing better healthcare.

Another truth is, the purpose of both healthcare versions, House and Senate, is to lower government costs and reduce the deficit, not provide better healthcare as Trump promised. The CBO says the government saves money by cutting some $772 billion in federal help for states to pay for Medicaid. That is a selling point for conservative Republicans, who can say they are getting government out of health care and saving money while doing it. I told you that was the purpose of Trumpcare. Republicans admit it.

The purpose of the healthcare bill, if it ever passes the Senate, is to save money, not provide healthcare. 22 million more people will lose their healthcare. Under the Senate's bill, by 2026, an estimated 49 million people would not have insurance; almost twice as much as under Obamacare.

Trump lied to his base. Nearly everyone knew that except the base itself. Among those mostly hurt by Trumpcare? His base.