Trump 37: Tweeting instead of Leading

[AmazonGrace]

The Trumps cannot be trusted to run a  NY charity but running the country, no problem.

 

[AmazonGrace]

Trump does corruption

[AmazonGrace]

Was this here already. Is there ANY Trump who isn't a crook? 

 

[fraurosena]

If this is true (and we all know it's not) then why did you direct every agency yesterday to find money that could be used to finance a border wall?

 

[AmazonGrace]

 Did Putin ask him to?

You have the right to remain silent

[onekidanddone]

2 hours ago, AmazonGrace said:

Was this here already. Is there ANY Trump who isn't a crook? 

 

Oh sweet Rufus on a Ritz Cracker at first glance she looks like a cross between Trump in drag and Dolores Umbrage. Those eyebrows are going to give me nightmares.

Okay that was very BEC 

[47of74]

Fuckhead needs positive reinforcement

Quote

President Donald Trump has a new ad airing on CNN, asking viewers to call and thank him so they can "let President Trump know that we appreciate what he’s doing for America."

The ad was apparently recorded from CNN and posted to Twitter by journalist Yashar Ali.

The ad features Trump's campaign manager Brad Parscale, who touts Trump's achievements before asking viewers to call a 1-800 number to thank him for those achievements.

Hey fuckhead, here's my positive reinforcement: Go fuck yourself, you low life, lying, four flushing sack of cat, cow, dog, bird, moose, mouse, rat, buffalo, turtle, human, monkey, gorilla, whale, and skunk shit that was mixed together, sat out in the sun, and allowed to ferment.

[onekidanddone]

Just now, 47of74 said:

Fuckhead needs positive reinforcement

Hey fuckhead, here's my positive reinforcement: Go fuck yourself, you low life, lying, four flushing sack of cat, cow, dog, bird, moose, mouse, rat, buffalo, turtle, human, monkey, gorilla, whale, and skunk shit that was mixed together, sat out in the sun, and allowed to ferment.

First off CNN is FAKE NEWS WITCH HUNT, and I'm surprised Trump would risk giving CNN's viewers a chance to leave messages saying mean things to Trump about FAKE NEWS WITCH HUNT.  Second: Why is his campaign giving money to FAKE NEWS WITCH HUNT? Third: Does he really think  he is going to get nothing but positive responses? Lastly: the paranoid side of me is thinking this is just a way to add to a robocall database. Any negative calls are going to have the phone numbers listed in an "enemies " database

[fraurosena]

7 minutes ago, onekidanddone said:

First off CNN is FAKE NEWS WITCH HUNT, and I'm surprised Trump would risk giving CNN's viewers a chance to leave messages saying mean things to Trump about FAKE NEWS WITCH HUNT.  Second: Why is his campaign giving money to FAKE NEWS WITCH HUNT? Third: Does he really think  he is going to get nothing but positive responses? Lastly: the paranoid side of me is thinking this is just a way to add to a robocall database. Any negative calls are going to have the phone numbers listed in an "enemies " database

The best thing to do would be to NOT call at all. No responses. Just crickets.

[AmazonGrace]

Maybe Trump decided to withdraw from Syria because he wants people talking about that and not Flynn and his criminal charity.

 

 

[fraurosena]

Here are the follow-up tweets to the one posted above. I said yesterday that getting at his foundation was going to be butt-clenchingly painful for him, and going by his attacks on the NY AG's (plural), it hurts like he got a kick to the nuts.

- "horrific women abuse".... so, allegedly, he abused horrific women

- "when I wanted to close the Foundation" .... except you didn't

- "who openly campaigned on a GET TRUMP agenda"... and got the most votes, that's democracy at work, moron

 

[onekidanddone]

4 minutes ago, fraurosena said:

- "horrific women abuse".... so, allegedly, he abused horrific women

or abused by horrific women?

[fraurosena]

9 minutes ago, AmazonGrace said:

Maybe Trump decided to withdraw from Syria because he wants people talking about that and not Flynn and his criminal charity.

 

 

Nah, he's leaving because Putin wants him to. This is playing right into the Russian dictator's hands.

[Audrey2]

1 hour ago, onekidanddone said:

Oh sweet Rufus on a Ritz Cracker at first glance she looks like a cross between Trump in drag and Dolores Umbrage. Those eyebrows are going to give me nightmares.

Okay that was very BEC 

You're kinder (and less BEC) than I am.

My big BEC comment: Remember that scene from A League of Their Own, the women's baseball movie directed by the late great Penny Marshall? Remember Marla, the daughter of a single father, who could really play, but didn't have the facial beauty of the other characters? When the matron was making recommendations for hair and make-up, when she got to Marla, she made a face and said, "Lots of night games." I think the same thing for Trump's sister. Okay, done BEC.

Yikes! I can see a family resemblance! And that's not even counting the hairdo!

[Howl]

1 hour ago, fraurosena said:

Nah, he's leaving because Putin wants him to. This is playing right into the Russian dictator's hands.

Yes, exactly.  SecDef Mattis is shitting bricks about this, plus, yet again, it totally fucks over America's reliable ally, the Kurds.  I'm pissed over this.  

A telling excerpt from the NYT article today that makes exactly @fraurosena's point.  

Spoiler

In a series of meetings and conference calls over the past several days, Defense Secretary Jim Mattis and other senior national security officials have tried to dissuade Mr. Trump from a wholesale troop withdrawal, arguing that such a significant national security policy shift would essentially cede foreign influence in Syria to Russia and Iran at a time when American policy calls for challenging both countries.

Abandoning the American-backed Kurdish allies, Pentagon officials have argued, will hamper future efforts by the United States to gain the trust of local fighters, from Afghanistan to Yemen to Somalia.

This is also an insult to Mattis, who knows that this is a stupid, stupid move on both a strategic and diplomatic level.  And Bolton in the West Wing -- back in Sept of this year, Bolton vowed to keep US in Syria until Iran and its proxies withdrew, SPECIFICALLY to counteract Iran's influence in the region. In addition, not sure how this could inadvertently affect the fragile progress made on the UN brokered talks between Saudis -Yemenis.  

For the idiocy quotient of premature withdrawal, review Bush's "Heck of a job, Brownie" (Katrina) combined with "Mission Accomplished" (Iraq).   

After stepping on his own dick multiple times this week, Trump is trying to declare a win, any win, or anything that can be spun by Sarah and Kellyanne as being remotely a win, as he retreats to Mar-a-Loco with his tail between his legs for two weeks of out of control shitter-twitter tweaker tweeting.  JFC, save us all. 

Really, no I mean REALLY, I hope Mueller has a special package under his Special Counsel X-Mas tree, to be opened on Christmas Eve. 

I'd also like to point out that Trump returns to his campaign themes over and over in times of crisis (perceived humiliation): Immigration, Wall, ISIS. 

His arch enemies publicly handed his ass to him on Wall funding, Trump Foundation is blown up and exposed as a criminal enterprise, Witch Hunt incantation isn't working, Cohen betrayal,  Pecker/Enquirer betrayal; he's turning to "beating ISIS!"  to top off his narcissistic supply.  Remember, a narcissist is dangerous and unpredictable when running on empty and feeling cornered.  

*********

OK, ETA to include this post from MilitaryTimes.com this morning that has a focus on the dynamic between Turkey and the Kurds fighting in Syria. 

Here’s what may be driving a U.S. troop withdrawal from Syria

Excerpt

Quote

Reports of a total and immediate withdraw of U.S. troops from Syria come amid heightening tensions — and growing risk of military confrontation — between the U.S. and Turkey.

Turkish forces want to push their troops into Syria. The U.S.-backed Syrian Kurds want to keep the Turkish forces out. And the U.S. has struggled for months to keep both players happy.

A confrontation between the U.S and Turkey, officially NATO allies, would create a geopolitical crisis at the heart of the world’s most powerful military alliance.

 

[AmazonGrace]

This statement sounds like Trump wanted to declare victory but  in the end it could be that nothing much ends up changing 

 

[fraurosena]

Let's hope so, because...

 

[fraurosena]

Oh my, he really is scared of the press, isn't he? Just look at his (usual) defensive posture with arms crossed in front of his chest. 

Also, whatever happened to his tweet statement today, that the wall - that really is a fence - was already being paid for by Mexico in his new not-NAFTA deal? Doesn't that negate the need for a shutdown, which he says he will proudly do if the Dems don't give him money for his 'boarder' wall? ?

[Howl]

Love that blue dress with the blue pendant; too bad Betsy DeVos is in it. 

[AmazonGrace]

Putin called in all the favors at once 

 

[47of74]

I just saw this.

Do I reply with what my headaches obviously look like? (HINT: They’re all orange, loud, and obnoxious).

[Howl]

@AmazonGrace, re: Natasha Bertrand's tweet: The Treasury Department's Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) has notified Congress of its intention to terminate the sanctions imposed on Oleg Deripaska's companies...it's so damned blatant, but this will assist the government when it investigates Mnuchin, or maybe Mueller is already on it! 

*******************

ISIS Is Not Defeated. Pulling US Troops From Syria Would Jeopardize Everything

A bit more on Turkey from DefenseOne.com.  SURPRISE, The U.S. has approved the potential sale to Turkey of $3.5 billion in Patriot missiles, the Defense Security Cooperation Agency announced late Tuesday.  

Quote

In related news: The U.S. has approved the potential sale to Turkey of $3.5 billion in Patriot missiles, the Defense Security Cooperation Agency announcedlate Tuesday.

Involved: If buyers and seller come to terms, the deal would cover 80 Patriot missiles, sixty PAC-3 missiles, four radar sets, 20 launching stations, and related gear.

Justification given: “This proposed sale will contribute to the foreign policy and national security of the United States by improving the security of a key NATO Ally on the front lines of the fight against terrorism. Turkey is a member of and critical enabling platform for the Defeat-ISIScampaign and continues to be an essential element of our National Security Strategy and National Defense Strategy efforts to compete against great powers in both Europe and the Middle East.” Read the rest, here.

ICYMI, Russia has been very publiclytrying to sell its own missile defense system to Turkey’s President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, going back to at least December 2017. The two countries agreed on a deal two days before the end of the year. Turkey reportedly acquired one S-400 battery at a cost of $2.5 billion; delivery of that system isn’t expected until at least the first quarter of 2020, Defense News reported in their July summary. Almost from day one of negotiations, Erdogan very publicly expressed his interest — even saying in at one point in August that Turkey “needs” the Russian system.

FWIW: It would seem the only jets to pose an actualized threat to Turkish troops and citizens in recent years have been Russian jets (the November 2015 shootdown near Turkey’s Hatay province) — and Turkey’s own, as in the ones used in that wild 2016 attempted coup.

But now Turkey really wants the Patriot system, a package it passed over two times already because the U.S. wouldn’t share missile tech details with the Turks, Defense News reported Tuesday evening. The first time it rejected the U.S. happened “in 2013 when it chose a Chinese system that it later dropped out of, and in 2017” with the Russian deal noted above.

Erdogan spoke to Trump last Friday, the WSJ’s Dion Nissenbaum reports today. That came about a week after Erdogan “moved Turkish military forces to the border and threatened to attack the Kurdish forces within days.” After that Friday conversation, “the discussions about withdrawing U.S.forces moved rapidly.” More (paywall alert), here.

 

[GreyhoundFan]

"Why not indict the Trump Organization?"

Spoiler

Legal scholars debate whether a sitting president can be indicted or only impeached. If the latter, it’s not clear given the statutes of limitation on most crimes whether he could ever be prosecuted for certain crimes. That surely seems wrong; the framers certainly did not intend to give the president a get-out-of-jail free card for crimes he might commit in office. (One solution might be to indict under seal.)

What is clear, however, is that to the extent the president has a safe harbor for prosecution during his time in office, that protection is personal to him. His relatives and his business empire don’t get that benefit.

Indict a corporation (or a foundation or an LLC)? That’s what happened to the accounting firm Arthur Andersen in connection with the Enron scandal. The firm itself was indicted on a charge of alleged widespread obstruction of justice.

The Justice Department actually has some fairly clear rules as to when an organization can be indicted. The Justice Department’s “Principles of Federal Prosecution of Business Organizations” state:

Corporations should not be treated leniently because of their artificial nature nor should they be subject to harsher treatment. Vigorous enforcement of the criminal laws against corporate wrongdoers, where appropriate, results in great benefits for law enforcement and the public, particularly in the area of white collar crime. Indicting corporations for wrongdoing enables the government to be a force for positive change of corporate culture, and a force to prevent, discover, and punish serious crimes.

There are 10 factors to consider, in addition to usual guidelines about prosecutorial discretion, in deciding whether to indict a corporation, the Justice Department says:

1. the nature and seriousness of the offense, including the risk of harm to the public, and applicable policies and priorities, if any, governing the prosecution of corporations for particular categories of crime (see JM 9-28.400);

2. the pervasiveness of wrongdoing within the corporation, including the complicity in, or the condoning of, the wrongdoing by corporate management (see JM 9-28.500);

3. the corporation’s history of similar misconduct, including prior criminal, civil, and regulatory enforcement actions against it (see JM 9-28.600);

4. the corporation’s willingness to cooperate, including as to potential wrongdoing by its agents (see JM 9-28.700);

5. the adequacy and effectiveness of the corporation’s compliance program at the time of the offense, as well as at the time of a charging decision (see JM 9-28.800);

6. the corporation’s timely and voluntary disclosure of wrongdoing (see JM 9-28.900);

7. the corporation’s remedial actions, including, but not limited to, any efforts to implement an adequate and effective corporate compliance program or to improve an existing one, to replace responsible management, to discipline or terminate wrongdoers, or to pay restitution (see JM 9-28.1000);

8. collateral consequences, including whether there is disproportionate harm to shareholders, pension holders, employees, and others not proven personally culpable, as well as impact on the public arising from the prosecution (see JM 9-28.1100);

9. the adequacy of remedies such as civil or regulatory enforcement actions, including remedies resulting from the corporation’s cooperation with relevant government agencies (see JM 9-28.1200); and

10. the adequacy of the prosecution of individuals responsible for the corporation’s malfeasance (see JM 9-28.1300).

Furthermore, “Another factor to be weighed by the prosecutor is whether the corporation has engaged in conduct intended to impede the investigation. Examples of such conduct could include: inappropriate directions to employees or their counsel, such as directions not to be truthful or to conceal relevant facts; making representations or submissions that contain misleading assertions or material omissions; and incomplete or delayed production of records.” Offering pardons, smearing prosecutors and lying (a lot) would surely qualify.

If a hypothetical corporation, over a long period of time has engaged in tax fraud, violations of campaign finance laws, money laundering, violations of laws protecting charitable giving, and/or mail or bank fraud (say, by paying a lawyer via phony invoices), could that meet Justice Department standards for indicting a company? A company that has done all that and acts entirely without concern for compliance with legal or accounting norms, makes no effort to disclose wrongdoing and refuses to own up to wrongdoing clearly would meet many of those criteria. If, say, the Constitution prevents prosecution of the company’s principal (or others can be pardoned to escape justice), then “the adequacy of the prosecution of individuals responsible for the corporation’s malfeasance” would be practically nonexistent.

Now, the Justice Department has made clear in recent years that the preferred practice is to prosecute individual wrongdoers. None other than former deputy attorney general Sally Yates wrote an important update to the rules governing prosecution of corporations. In 2015, she put out a memorandum that explained:

The guidance in this memo reflects six key steps to strengthen our pursuit of individual corporate wrongdoing, some of which reflect policy shifts and each of which is described in greater detail below: (l) in order to qualify for any cooperation credit, corporations must provide to the Department all relevant facts relating to the individuals responsible for the misconduct; (2) criminal and civil corporate investigations should focus on individuals from the inception of the investigation; (3) criminal and civil attorneys handling corporate investigations should be in routine communication with one another; ( 4) absent extraordinary circumstances or approved departmental policy, the Department will not release culpable individuals from civil or criminal liability when resolving a matter with a corporation; (5) Department attorneys should not resolve matters with a corporation without a clear plan to resolve related individual cases, and should memorialize any declinations as to individuals in such cases; and (6) civil attorneys should consistently focus on individuals as well as the company and evaluate whether to bring suit against an individual based on considerations beyond that individual’s ability to pay.

Essentially, the update in Yates’s memo also made it harder for corporations to get credit for cooperating. (“Under the new policies, a company must also provide all relevant facts, including any available evidence, and fully cooperate in federal criminal and civil actions against the individual wrongdoers to receive cooperation credit. A company must investigate the facts early in the process and accurately, reasonably, and promptly disclose those facts to the DOJ. According to the new policy, a company can no longer settle a case with favorable terms unless it assists in the prosecution of the individual wrongdoers from the beginning of the investigation. In light of the new policies, corporations should give thought to how they will deal with the DOJ if they become the subject of an investigation.”)

In other words, going after a corporation is a big deal and generally should not allow individual wrongdoers to go free. If, however, we are talking about a unique case in which Justice Department policy says the key person cannot be indicted, then going after the corporation may be the only viable alternative.

How the interaction of rules regarding prosecution of business entities might interact with department policy regarding prosecution of a president is unclear. (We’ve never been anywhere near this situation because all modern presidents up to the current one disgorged their businesses.)

“Unless the Office of Special Counsel or the Southern District of New York [prosecution team] intends to indict Trump personally (or has already indicted him under seal), no claim could be made that indicting any of the Trump organizations would somehow be an abusive circumvention of what ought to be an indictment of Mr. Trump as the real party in interest and the real ‘brains,’ if you’ll pardon the expression in this context, behind those entities,” says constitutional scholar Laurence H. Tribe. In fact, he says, nothing prevents the “the Trump campaign committee, the Trump inaugural committee, or the just-dissolved (but still under investigation by the New York Attorney General) Trump Foundation” from being indicted, if evidence is warranted.

Former White House ethics counsel Norman Eisen adds, “Trump could be named as an unindicted co-conspirator in an action against the Trump Organization or the Trump campaign for conspiring to violate federal campaign finance laws, for example. If Mueller were worried that his report might be suppressed or take too long to get out, that would be a clever way of making some evidence against the president public.”

It bears repeating that most of the facts obtained in investigations by the Southern District of New York prosecutors, special counsel Robert S. Mueller III and the New York state attorney general remain hidden from view. We know very little (other than the scheme with Michael Cohen) about Trump’s involvement in possible crimes, although a series of public actions may be the basis for obstruction charges. We do not know the degree to which he might have used his corporation to facilitate crimes, if any were committed.

Going after the Trump Organization, if facts warrant, should be an arrow in Mueller’s quiver. The stronger the case for not prosecuting a president, the stronger the case, if evidence proves wrongdoing, to go after his corporate organization from which Trump operated. (Talk about crossing a red line, right?)

Granted, indictment of Trump’s eponymous company, a company so closely and completely identified with Trump personally, might increase Congress’s willingness to indict and remove Trump from office for conduct for which he couldn’t presently be prosecuted. (Mueller wouldn’t even need to put all his information in a report if the alleged crimes are detailed in a series of legal filings including indictment of Trump’s company.) That, however, is a matter of political speculation dependent on all sorts of future events.

For now, follow the money — and look for the entity or the people signing the checks and financial documents.

 

[AmazonGrace]

 

The letter of intent, signed. 

[fraurosena]

Can the presidunce unilaterally decide to withdraw troops? Or am I missing something?