|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On March 15 2019 05:43 On_Slaught wrote:Show nested quote +On March 15 2019 05:13 Danglars wrote:
He's behind on vetoes when compared to the Obama presidency. He has his "divisive" label to keep up, after all.
The only thing the supremes can do at this point is return to originalism and say Congress does not have the power to lend out emergency declarations (and entailed powers) to the executive. They made the process about as subjective as possible. Oops. Obama literally only had 2 vetoes in his first 6 years in office. Also, your point on the act ignores the fact that the original act had a provision that said the Congressional vote (the one that happened today) was un-vetoable. That was the check. However since then SCOTUS has ruled such "legislative vetoes" unconstitutional. There is a real argument, which I'm sure will be made, that the provision was vital and not serverable from the original act, thus making the whole act, and Trumps basis for this declaration, unconstitutional.
First off, thank you for the agreement that Obama had more vetoes than Trump has had to date. I find so little to agree with you about, so I'd like to call attention to the times I do.
Congress has no power to pass legislation that dodges presidential veto. They have to rescind the extension of emergency powers to the Executive via the normal passage of a bill. That follows constitutional order, not little inventions of their own.
They can as well pass a Constitutional Amendment proposing a structure for declarations of emergency that allow them more control. That's the proper way to change normal legislative procedure.
|
On March 15 2019 05:29 xDaunt wrote:Alright, looks like the issue of the FBI/DOJ omitting exculpatory from the FISA applications is a bigger deal than I thought. John Solomon just dropped a new story about the FBI possessing exculpatory evidence before filing the FISA application yet filing to include it in the FISA application. Specifically, the FBI had likely learned exculpatory information from its source, Stefan Halper, about Carter Page and George Papadopoulos, during the summer of 2016: Show nested quote +....What remains uncertain in the court of public opinion is whether the FBI possessed evidence suggesting Papadopoulos and Page — and, thus, the larger Trump campaign — were innocent of collusion. Republican lawmakers have suggested for months that such evidence existed and was hidden from the courts, but none has emerged in public.
My reporting from more than two dozen sources, many with access to the FBI’s evidence, suggests one answer to that question lies in Halper’s interactions with the two Trump campaign advisers, some of it documented in FBI records. And interviews with both men reveal just how much they told Halper about their innocence.
Page, an avid biker, rode his mountain bike on Aug. 20, 2016, to a northern Virginia farm after being invited there by Halper for a casual Saturday visit. Page met Halper weeks earlier when invited by Halper’s assistant to a Cambridge academic conference. The two corresponded by email around the time of Page’s trip to Moscow and arranged to meet in Virginia.
By the time Page arrived at Halper’s farm, he had been rattled by media calls during the prior week in which reporters alleged having information that Page met with two senior Russian intelligence figures in Moscow. The reporters suggested his trip might have been part of a larger plot to coordinate with Russia to benefit Trump’s election as president.
That allegation, it turns out, was one of many in the uncorroborated Steele dossier guiding the FBI’s collusion probe.
Page told me he was incredulous at the suggestions and told everyone he knew, including Halper, that he had not met either Russian intel figure and knew of no Trump-Moscow coordination.
“I’m certain that nothing I said that day at the professor’s farm could be deemed as anything other than exculpatory. And once again, in September, I explained reality to the FBI. Contrary to the DNC’s false reports, I have never met those Russians, and I did not know of any effort to coordinate, collude or conspire with Russia. Period.”
Page said he went to Moscow in July 2016 simply to give a speech, at the same university where President Obama spoke a few years earlier. And he said he consciously did not take any actions with Russians that might raise concerns, especially after helping U.S. prosecutors and the FBI in an earlier Russian criminal case and meeting with federal authorities as recently as the previous March.
“I’ve never done anything even vaguely resembling illegality throughout the countless trips to Russia. But I was exceptionally meticulous that trip to carefully avoid anything that could be remotely construed as questionable,” he told me.
Page’s recollection is backed up by a letter he sent to then-FBI Director James Comey a few weeks after his Halper meeting. “For the record, I have not met this year with any sanctioned official in Russia, despite the fact that there are no restrictions on U.S. persons speaking with such individuals,” he wrote in September 2016.
Multiple sources tell me none of the FISA applications the FBI submitted to judges over the course of a year’s surveillance of Page made any mention of exculpatory statements or protestations of innocence that Page made to informants.
If such statements exist, in the form of a tape or a transcript or an FBI interview report — three routine investigative tools the FBI uses when managing informers — then it would be a huge omission that likely violated FBI rules.
A month later, in London, Papadopoulos was paid $3,000 to present a foreign policy paper to Halper. On the second day of his visit with Halper, Papadopoulos said the conversation turned from academic work to a barrage of questions about Russia, Trump and collusion, including whether the Trump campaign had conspired with Russia on the hacked Clinton emails or changed the GOP platform on Ukraine to appease Vladimir Putin.
Papadopoulos told me he pointedly remembers his response: “I made it clear to Halper that what he was suggesting did not only amount to treason, but that I had absolutely no idea what he was talking about and had no information at all about anyone involved with the campaign who might have been involved with a conspiracy because there never was a conspiracy and no one was colluding with a foreign power, especially Russia.
“Furthermore, I made it clear to him that Ukraine should be supported and that Russia will always remain a competitor, even if Trump decided to work with Russia to stabilize Syria and East Ukraine while checking China’s rise.”
Sources familiar with the FISA applications say they contain no evidence that Papadopoulos made exculpatory statements unwittingly to an FBI informer.
Again, if such statements exist in transcripts, tapes or FBI reports, they’re a major omission.
Page never has been charged with wrongdoing. And Papadopoulos, after an exhaustive investigation by special counsel Robert Mueller, was not accused of conspiracy with Russia; instead, he pleaded guilty to making a false statement to the FBI about a months-old conversation with Australian diplomat Alexander Downer regarding a rumor that Russia possessed embarrassing emails from Clinton.
The crime was deemed so minor by the presiding judge that Papadopoulos was sentenced to a mere 14 days in jail.
If Page’s and Papadopoulos’s recollections of what they told Halper are accurate, former FBI officials Comey, James Baker, Andrew McCabe, Lisa Page and Peter Strzok — all of whom played a role in the Russia probe and the FISA warrants — have some serious explaining to do. So does departing Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, who signed the fourth and final FISA warrant.
My reporting suggests a much bigger scandal — the intentional misleading of the nation’s federal intelligence court — soon may eclipse the Russia narrative that has dominated the media the past two years.
The fastest way to know if that storm is on the horizon is for President Trump to declassify the documents showing exactly how the FBI behaved in this case. Source. Now moving past the FISA issue, here's the part about this that I find very troubling. Why does Halper, a CIA asset, keep showing up with all of these Trump guys? There's no way that's just happenstance. Who's pulling the strings here? Brennan? What's the predicate for the CIA's involvement in this stuff? We already know from the Papadopoulos case that intelligence assets were making contact with him well-before the FBI opened their CI investigation in July 2016.
This sounds like the "exculpatory" evidence consisted of denials by the targets. I'm not sure that really is considered exculpatory evidence. A lot of this stuff that went on seems to be par for the course for prosecutions in America. For example the use of dawn raids with armed agents, as in Stone's case, happens with white collar criminals.
|
On March 15 2019 05:51 Doodsmack wrote:Show nested quote +On March 15 2019 05:29 xDaunt wrote:Alright, looks like the issue of the FBI/DOJ omitting exculpatory from the FISA applications is a bigger deal than I thought. John Solomon just dropped a new story about the FBI possessing exculpatory evidence before filing the FISA application yet filing to include it in the FISA application. Specifically, the FBI had likely learned exculpatory information from its source, Stefan Halper, about Carter Page and George Papadopoulos, during the summer of 2016: ....What remains uncertain in the court of public opinion is whether the FBI possessed evidence suggesting Papadopoulos and Page — and, thus, the larger Trump campaign — were innocent of collusion. Republican lawmakers have suggested for months that such evidence existed and was hidden from the courts, but none has emerged in public.
My reporting from more than two dozen sources, many with access to the FBI’s evidence, suggests one answer to that question lies in Halper’s interactions with the two Trump campaign advisers, some of it documented in FBI records. And interviews with both men reveal just how much they told Halper about their innocence.
Page, an avid biker, rode his mountain bike on Aug. 20, 2016, to a northern Virginia farm after being invited there by Halper for a casual Saturday visit. Page met Halper weeks earlier when invited by Halper’s assistant to a Cambridge academic conference. The two corresponded by email around the time of Page’s trip to Moscow and arranged to meet in Virginia.
By the time Page arrived at Halper’s farm, he had been rattled by media calls during the prior week in which reporters alleged having information that Page met with two senior Russian intelligence figures in Moscow. The reporters suggested his trip might have been part of a larger plot to coordinate with Russia to benefit Trump’s election as president.
That allegation, it turns out, was one of many in the uncorroborated Steele dossier guiding the FBI’s collusion probe.
Page told me he was incredulous at the suggestions and told everyone he knew, including Halper, that he had not met either Russian intel figure and knew of no Trump-Moscow coordination.
“I’m certain that nothing I said that day at the professor’s farm could be deemed as anything other than exculpatory. And once again, in September, I explained reality to the FBI. Contrary to the DNC’s false reports, I have never met those Russians, and I did not know of any effort to coordinate, collude or conspire with Russia. Period.”
Page said he went to Moscow in July 2016 simply to give a speech, at the same university where President Obama spoke a few years earlier. And he said he consciously did not take any actions with Russians that might raise concerns, especially after helping U.S. prosecutors and the FBI in an earlier Russian criminal case and meeting with federal authorities as recently as the previous March.
“I’ve never done anything even vaguely resembling illegality throughout the countless trips to Russia. But I was exceptionally meticulous that trip to carefully avoid anything that could be remotely construed as questionable,” he told me.
Page’s recollection is backed up by a letter he sent to then-FBI Director James Comey a few weeks after his Halper meeting. “For the record, I have not met this year with any sanctioned official in Russia, despite the fact that there are no restrictions on U.S. persons speaking with such individuals,” he wrote in September 2016.
Multiple sources tell me none of the FISA applications the FBI submitted to judges over the course of a year’s surveillance of Page made any mention of exculpatory statements or protestations of innocence that Page made to informants.
If such statements exist, in the form of a tape or a transcript or an FBI interview report — three routine investigative tools the FBI uses when managing informers — then it would be a huge omission that likely violated FBI rules.
A month later, in London, Papadopoulos was paid $3,000 to present a foreign policy paper to Halper. On the second day of his visit with Halper, Papadopoulos said the conversation turned from academic work to a barrage of questions about Russia, Trump and collusion, including whether the Trump campaign had conspired with Russia on the hacked Clinton emails or changed the GOP platform on Ukraine to appease Vladimir Putin.
Papadopoulos told me he pointedly remembers his response: “I made it clear to Halper that what he was suggesting did not only amount to treason, but that I had absolutely no idea what he was talking about and had no information at all about anyone involved with the campaign who might have been involved with a conspiracy because there never was a conspiracy and no one was colluding with a foreign power, especially Russia.
“Furthermore, I made it clear to him that Ukraine should be supported and that Russia will always remain a competitor, even if Trump decided to work with Russia to stabilize Syria and East Ukraine while checking China’s rise.”
Sources familiar with the FISA applications say they contain no evidence that Papadopoulos made exculpatory statements unwittingly to an FBI informer.
Again, if such statements exist in transcripts, tapes or FBI reports, they’re a major omission.
Page never has been charged with wrongdoing. And Papadopoulos, after an exhaustive investigation by special counsel Robert Mueller, was not accused of conspiracy with Russia; instead, he pleaded guilty to making a false statement to the FBI about a months-old conversation with Australian diplomat Alexander Downer regarding a rumor that Russia possessed embarrassing emails from Clinton.
The crime was deemed so minor by the presiding judge that Papadopoulos was sentenced to a mere 14 days in jail.
If Page’s and Papadopoulos’s recollections of what they told Halper are accurate, former FBI officials Comey, James Baker, Andrew McCabe, Lisa Page and Peter Strzok — all of whom played a role in the Russia probe and the FISA warrants — have some serious explaining to do. So does departing Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, who signed the fourth and final FISA warrant.
My reporting suggests a much bigger scandal — the intentional misleading of the nation’s federal intelligence court — soon may eclipse the Russia narrative that has dominated the media the past two years.
The fastest way to know if that storm is on the horizon is for President Trump to declassify the documents showing exactly how the FBI behaved in this case. Source. Now moving past the FISA issue, here's the part about this that I find very troubling. Why does Halper, a CIA asset, keep showing up with all of these Trump guys? There's no way that's just happenstance. Who's pulling the strings here? Brennan? What's the predicate for the CIA's involvement in this stuff? We already know from the Papadopoulos case that intelligence assets were making contact with him well-before the FBI opened their CI investigation in July 2016. This sounds like the "exculpatory" evidence consisted of denials by the targets. I'm not sure that really is considered exculpatory evidence. A lot of this stuff that went on seems to be par for the course for prosecutions in America. For example the use of dawn raids with armed agents, as in Stone's case, happens with white collar criminals.
It absolutely is exculpatory evidence. The issue is how much weight should it be given. That doesn't change the fact that it needed to be given to the FISA court.
|
On March 15 2019 05:49 IyMoon wrote:Show nested quote +On March 15 2019 05:42 Danglars wrote:On March 15 2019 05:35 xDaunt wrote:On March 15 2019 05:21 Danglars wrote:On March 15 2019 05:19 IyMoon wrote:On March 15 2019 05:13 Danglars wrote:
He's behind on vetoes when compared to the Obama presidency. He has his "divisive" label to keep up, after all.
The only thing the supremes can do at this point is return to originalism and say Congress does not have the power to lend out emergency declarations (and entailed powers) to the executive. They made the process about as subjective as possible. Oops. While I disagree with the national emergency, I think this might one of the best things to come out of the trump presidency. He is opening up the door for others to use this for things like climate change You mean to say that the door was always open for people to declare things national emergencies that are controversial. Tell me, do you know how many active and past national emergencies have been declared, and do you know what percentage you think were justifiably named so? The issue isn't whether Trump can declare a national emergency. He clearly can. The issue is the extent to which he can appropriate funds to build the wall. On this last point, the thing that is being overlooked a bit due to the national emergency declaration is the extent to which he already has funding to build the wall. He already has over $5 billion in undisputed funds to use, which he is using now. This comes from existing legislation and other discretionary funding initiatives. By the time that funding from the national emergency declaration even being material, Trump will have gotten done most of what he wanted to do anyway. IyMoon's comment was on whether or not Trump opened the door by doing this. I think whether or not Trump took this route, Democrats would try to use similar for their policy ideas. It's not so much opening the door as informing the public that the legislative gave power to the executive. People discovering this for the first time, like IyMoon, think something has changed. The emergency declaration funds comprised a minority of the funding he can use. That much is also true. I disagree based on the fact that they have not on some very serious democratic ideals. Healthcare was not declared an emergency when the ACA got watered down. Climate change did not get declared, gun control (Although with the second A I can see why this one would be different) The argument that the democrats would do this kinda gets blown away when you think about how they haven't
They made political considerations, and I'm sure they'll continue to do so. They always had the option to declare an emergency and dare the Congress or Courts to get involved, and nothing has changed. I never saw Democratic Ideals get in the way with DACA or ACA executive changes, and I don't expect them to do so in the future.
|
On March 15 2019 05:54 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On March 15 2019 05:49 IyMoon wrote:On March 15 2019 05:42 Danglars wrote:On March 15 2019 05:35 xDaunt wrote:On March 15 2019 05:21 Danglars wrote:On March 15 2019 05:19 IyMoon wrote:On March 15 2019 05:13 Danglars wrote:
He's behind on vetoes when compared to the Obama presidency. He has his "divisive" label to keep up, after all.
The only thing the supremes can do at this point is return to originalism and say Congress does not have the power to lend out emergency declarations (and entailed powers) to the executive. They made the process about as subjective as possible. Oops. While I disagree with the national emergency, I think this might one of the best things to come out of the trump presidency. He is opening up the door for others to use this for things like climate change You mean to say that the door was always open for people to declare things national emergencies that are controversial. Tell me, do you know how many active and past national emergencies have been declared, and do you know what percentage you think were justifiably named so? The issue isn't whether Trump can declare a national emergency. He clearly can. The issue is the extent to which he can appropriate funds to build the wall. On this last point, the thing that is being overlooked a bit due to the national emergency declaration is the extent to which he already has funding to build the wall. He already has over $5 billion in undisputed funds to use, which he is using now. This comes from existing legislation and other discretionary funding initiatives. By the time that funding from the national emergency declaration even being material, Trump will have gotten done most of what he wanted to do anyway. IyMoon's comment was on whether or not Trump opened the door by doing this. I think whether or not Trump took this route, Democrats would try to use similar for their policy ideas. It's not so much opening the door as informing the public that the legislative gave power to the executive. People discovering this for the first time, like IyMoon, think something has changed. The emergency declaration funds comprised a minority of the funding he can use. That much is also true. I disagree based on the fact that they have not on some very serious democratic ideals. Healthcare was not declared an emergency when the ACA got watered down. Climate change did not get declared, gun control (Although with the second A I can see why this one would be different) The argument that the democrats would do this kinda gets blown away when you think about how they haven't They made political considerations, and I'm sure they'll continue to do so. They always had the option to declare an emergency and dare the Congress or Courts to get involved, and nothing has changed. I never saw Democratic Ideals get in the way with DACA or ACA executive changes, and I don't expect them to do so in the future.
DACA and ACA are not national emergencies though?
Just because you CAN do something does not mean you should. Finding a bug doesn't mean you should exploit it, and you don't get a pass because ' someone else would have done the same thing '
It doesn't really matter though now. It is done, and I except dems to go hard on it in the future.
|
On March 15 2019 05:50 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On March 15 2019 05:43 On_Slaught wrote:On March 15 2019 05:13 Danglars wrote:
He's behind on vetoes when compared to the Obama presidency. He has his "divisive" label to keep up, after all.
The only thing the supremes can do at this point is return to originalism and say Congress does not have the power to lend out emergency declarations (and entailed powers) to the executive. They made the process about as subjective as possible. Oops. Obama literally only had 2 vetoes in his first 6 years in office. Also, your point on the act ignores the fact that the original act had a provision that said the Congressional vote (the one that happened today) was un-vetoable. That was the check. However since then SCOTUS has ruled such "legislative vetoes" unconstitutional. There is a real argument, which I'm sure will be made, that the provision was vital and not serverable from the original act, thus making the whole act, and Trumps basis for this declaration, unconstitutional. First off, thank you for the agreement that Obama had more vetoes than Trump has had to date. I find so little to agree with you about, so I'd like to call attention to the times I do. Congress has no power to pass legislation that dodges presidential veto. They have to rescind the extension of emergency powers to the Executive via the normal passage of a bill. That follows constitutional order, not little inventions of their own. They can as well pass a Constitutional Amendment proposing a structure for declarations of emergency that allow them more control. That's the proper way to change normal legislative procedure.
That. Is. What. They. Did. Hence, why the act is garbage.
Still the real battle will revolve around the allocation of money part. From what I've read, no doubt Youngstown v Sawyer, regarding limits on the executives power (Roberts is a professed fan of the decision... not good news for Trump!), and the non-delegation doctrine (multiple cases), will be at the forefront.
|
On March 15 2019 05:13 Danglars wrote:
He's behind on vetoes when compared to the Obama presidency. He has his "divisive" label to keep up, after all.
The only thing the supremes can do at this point is return to originalism and say Congress does not have the power to lend out emergency declarations (and entailed powers) to the executive. They made the process about as subjective as possible. Oops.
Is that because Trump doesn't veto things or because McConnel doesn't allow the senate to vote on something that Trump would veto?
|
On March 15 2019 06:12 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:Show nested quote +On March 15 2019 05:13 Danglars wrote:
He's behind on vetoes when compared to the Obama presidency. He has his "divisive" label to keep up, after all.
The only thing the supremes can do at this point is return to originalism and say Congress does not have the power to lend out emergency declarations (and entailed powers) to the executive. They made the process about as subjective as possible. Oops. Is that because Trump doesn't veto things or because McConnel doesn't allow the senate to vote on something that Trump would veto?
Or is it because the things he would want to veto pass with veto-proof majorities (I mean, Trump signed the Russia sanctions bill he said was unconstitutional after all). Obama didn't get overridden until 2016 after all, it's a bad idea to bother vetoing something you'll lose anyway. And in 2016 McConnell got mad at Obama for not vetoing harder.
This leaves aside that counts with no denominators are worthless for tracking...pretty much anything. And the relevant denominator for each president, as you point out, is "how many bills they didn't want passed and wouldn't get overridden on reached their desk." Which has about as much to do with "diviseness" as potatoes with astronauts.
|
On March 15 2019 06:12 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:Show nested quote +On March 15 2019 05:13 Danglars wrote:
He's behind on vetoes when compared to the Obama presidency. He has his "divisive" label to keep up, after all.
The only thing the supremes can do at this point is return to originalism and say Congress does not have the power to lend out emergency declarations (and entailed powers) to the executive. They made the process about as subjective as possible. Oops. Is that because Trump doesn't veto things or because McConnel doesn't allow the senate to vote on something that Trump would veto?
Number 2. McConnell refuses anything where there would be even a slight chance to go off-rail. Including nearly everything passed in the House since January that he is not legally forced to take up (like this emergency declaration rebuttal).
|
On March 15 2019 06:57 Nouar wrote:Show nested quote +On March 15 2019 06:12 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:On March 15 2019 05:13 Danglars wrote:
He's behind on vetoes when compared to the Obama presidency. He has his "divisive" label to keep up, after all.
The only thing the supremes can do at this point is return to originalism and say Congress does not have the power to lend out emergency declarations (and entailed powers) to the executive. They made the process about as subjective as possible. Oops. Is that because Trump doesn't veto things or because McConnel doesn't allow the senate to vote on something that Trump would veto? Number 2. McConnell refuses anything where there would be even a slight chance to go off-rail. Including nearly everything passed in the House since January that he is not legally forced to take up (like this emergency declaration rebuttal).
Also let's ignore that Trump still has plenty of time for friendly neighborhood Democrats to start passing him bills to veto to reach that benchmark. He's only two years in.
But I guess we're supposed to be arguing about whether Obama did something "awful" so it can be ok for Trump to do the same thing. Don't be fooled by the notion that a leader should be doing things based on their own merits. Or by that nasty thing called context.
|
The Steele Dossier is far from verified but I think it has been shown that Steele did in fact have well placed Russian sources with some real knowledge. For example trumps bodyguard testified that trump was offered 5 prostitutes at the Ritz carlton Moscow. Someone knew he had been offered that, though of course they may have embellished the story. And now we have this:
|
Beto O'Rourke is such a lame candidate. He could have done it at the front of a parade in an epic event but instead does it in the middle of a ton of things happening and no one cares.
|
Regardless of whether or not he's actually the best candidate to take on Trump, that last thing I would say about Beto is that nobody cares. A lot of people liked him and wanted him to beat Ted.
|
|
|
In a rant about how mean the left is on Breitbart Trump casually threatened using the military and police to 'get tough'. Just another day in the office...
“So here’s the thing—it’s so terrible what’s happening,” Trump said when asked by Breitbart News Washington Political Editor Matthew Boyle about how the left is fighting hard. “You know, the left plays a tougher game, it’s very funny. I actually think that the people on the right are tougher, but they don’t play it tougher. Okay? I can tell you I have the support of the police, the support of the military, the support of the Bikers for Trump – I have the tough people, but they don’t play it tough — until they go to a certain point, and then it would be very bad, very bad. But the left plays it cuter and tougher. Like with all the nonsense that they do in Congress … with all this invest[igations]—that’s all they want to do is –you know, they do things that are nasty. Republicans never played this.” source
|
On March 15 2019 09:32 JimmiC wrote:
All 420 (not a pot reference) people voted, regardless of party to make the mueller report public. So I guess we will all know soon enough.
Not all 420, but 420/424.
|
On March 15 2019 10:01 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote:In a rant about how mean the left is on Breitbart Trump casually threatened using the military and police to 'get tough'. Just another day in the office... Show nested quote +“So here’s the thing—it’s so terrible what’s happening,” Trump said when asked by Breitbart News Washington Political Editor Matthew Boyle about how the left is fighting hard. “You know, the left plays a tougher game, it’s very funny. I actually think that the people on the right are tougher, but they don’t play it tougher. Okay? I can tell you I have the support of the police, the support of the military, the support of the Bikers for Trump – I have the tough people, but they don’t play it tough — until they go to a certain point, and then it would be very bad, very bad. But the left plays it cuter and tougher. Like with all the nonsense that they do in Congress … with all this invest[igations]—that’s all they want to do is –you know, they do things that are nasty. Republicans never played this.” source
While subtly undermining the "toughness" of his supporters, telling them they aren't doing enough.
|
On March 15 2019 10:01 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote:In a rant about how mean the left is on Breitbart Trump casually threatened using the military and police to 'get tough'. Just another day in the office... Show nested quote +“So here’s the thing—it’s so terrible what’s happening,” Trump said when asked by Breitbart News Washington Political Editor Matthew Boyle about how the left is fighting hard. “You know, the left plays a tougher game, it’s very funny. I actually think that the people on the right are tougher, but they don’t play it tougher. Okay? I can tell you I have the support of the police, the support of the military, the support of the Bikers for Trump – I have the tough people, but they don’t play it tough — until they go to a certain point, and then it would be very bad, very bad. But the left plays it cuter and tougher. Like with all the nonsense that they do in Congress … with all this invest[igations]—that’s all they want to do is –you know, they do things that are nasty. Republicans never played this.” source
Support of the military lol. Anytime people talk about the military supporting Trump it's people speaking for military veterans saying how much they love Trump, then actual military veterans coming in and saying they think Trump is a total fucking moron.
|
|
|
All of the 420 present, voted. 4 voted in 'present'
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
