Topic: The US Presidency 2019

[mariomike]

Saw this in US Military,

If Trump's conduct is so wrong, then I expect both the house and the senate to impeach him.

Maybe not,

, I see no way on God's Green Earth that Trump will ever be found guilty of any charge regardless of how heavy the evidence is.

If GOP senators were to throw him under the bus, it could turn into a double header,

Sondland testimony raises questions about Pence's denials on Ukraine
https://www.cnn.com/2019/11/20/politics/mike-pence-ukraine-impeachment-gordon-sondland/index.html

I think most readers know who that would leave on deck. 

[MrWhyt]

If GOP senators were to throw him under the bus, it could turn into a double header,

Sondland testimony raises questions about Pence's denials on Ukraine
https://www.cnn.com/2019/11/20/politics/mike-pence-ukraine-impeachment-gordon-sondland/index.html

I think most readers know who that would leave on deck.

If on the off chance Trump is convicted by the senate, Pence becomes president. A separate impeachment would have to be held to get rid of Pence. You can be sure that while that is happening Pence will appoint a squeaky clean VP to take over for him in case he gets tossed. There is no way an impeachment leads to a Pelosi presidency.

[Brad Sallows]

And the power to change the succession policy beyond the VP lies with Congress, as described here.

[mariomike]

Whatever the policy of succession, I've got to go with FJAG, "I see no way on God's Green Earth that Trump will ever be found guilty of any charge regardless of how heavy the evidence is."

[Bruce Monkhouse]

Or light.

[FJAG]

The House Intelligence Committee's Trump-Ukraine Impeachment Inquiry Report is out. See and read here:

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/read-impeachment-report-democrats-house-intelligence-committee/story?id=67468548&cid=clicksource_4380645_null_hero_related

 

[FJAG]

Trump rattles bathroom-appliance market with gripes about water regulation

WASHINGTON  — When it comes to toilets, President Trump just wants to let it flow.

Trump said Friday that his administration is looking into relaxing water-saving regulations for toilets, sinks and showers, saying consumers end up using even more water by flushing multiple times and trying to get clean with low water streams.

“People are flushing toilets 10 times, 15 times as opposed to once. They end up using more water,'' Trump said while talking with business owners about what he said are ‘’common sense'' steps to end overregulation. "The EPA is looking at that very strongly at my suggestion.''

...

Use of low-flush toilets started in the 1990s after President George H.W. Bush signed the Energy Policy Act. The 1992 law said new toilets could use no more than 1.6 gallons of water per flush. The law went into effect in 1994 for residential buildings and 1997 for commercial structures.

...

See full article here:

https://www.foxbusiness.com/money/trump-complains-low-flow-toilets-are-flush-with-problems

"10 times, 15 times ..." makes you wonder, doesn't it?

[kkwd]

See full article here:

https://www.foxbusiness.com/money/trump-complains-low-flow-toilets-are-flush-with-problems

"10 times, 15 times ..." makes you wonder, doesn't it?

Yes, makes me wonder about the toilets in the white house. Odds are they have the weakest toilets available. Unless somebody here can give us their personal experiences with using white house toilets. But fairly, that would be called an exaggeration by Trump. But of course to the NYT it would be called a lie and added to the list.

[Baden Guy]

We had the same problem as President Trump. Too many flushes to clear the toilet.
The plumbers that service our apartment building recommended :
https://www.homedepot.ca/product/american-standard-reliant-48-lpf-round-front-toilet-in-white/1001054614?eid=PS_GOOGLE_D00%20-%20E-Comm_GGL_Shopping_PLA_EN_NowOnSale_Top%20Sellers_Top%20Sellers__PRODUCT_GROUP_aud-765569715521:pla-515164511167&gclid=EAIaIQobChMI1oLOzJSk5gIVC4iGCh3l9AKmEAQYAyABEgJlvPD_BwE&gclsrc=aw.ds

Now our toilets "always" work on the first flush.
MAGA with an American Standard toilet. 

[Brihard]

Yes, makes me wonder about the toilets in the white house. Odds are they have the weakest toilets available. Unless somebody here can give us their personal experiences with using white house toilets. But fairly, that would be called an exaggeration by Trump. But of course to the NYT it would be called a lie and added to the list.

Either way he can be fairly accused of talking a load of s**t?

[PPCLI Guy]

Yes, makes me wonder about the toilets in the white house. Odds are they have the weakest toilets available. Unless somebody here can give us their personal experiences with using white house toilets. But fairly, that would be called an exaggeration by Trump. But of course to the NYT it would be called a lie and added to the list.

\
Sorry man.  That is not an exaggeration.  It is an untruth.  A lie.  And it is not being told by some random right wing crackpot on the internet.  It is being told by the man occupying the position that used to be called the Leader of The Free World, but is no longer, in part due to an inability to either tell the truth nor understand the import of doing so when you are supposed to be occupying the shining city on the hill.

[FJAG]

We had the same problem as President Trump. Too many flushes to clear the toilet.
The plumbers that service our apartment building recommended :
https://www.homedepot.ca/product/american-standard-reliant-48-lpf-round-front-toilet-in-white/1001054614?eid=PS_GOOGLE_D00%20-%20E-Comm_GGL_Shopping_PLA_EN_NowOnSale_Top%20Sellers_Top%20Sellers__PRODUCT_GROUP_aud-765569715521:pla-515164511167&gclid=EAIaIQobChMI1oLOzJSk5gIVC4iGCh3l9AKmEAQYAyABEgJlvPD_BwE&gclsrc=aw.ds

Now our toilets "always" work on the first flush.
MAGA with an American Standard toilet. 

I'm not sure if you were being sarcastic or not seeing that a 4.8 litres per flush American Standard toilet is the same as the 1.6 gallons per flush toilet that Bush's administration mandated by the regulations and that Trump is railing against.

 

[mariomike]

MAGA with an American Standard toilet. 

I had ours replaced with Kohler Santa Rosa's, equipped with the AquaPiston flushing system.

Trump said Friday...

“People are flushing toilets 10 times, 15 times as opposed to once."

Never have to flush our Santa Rosa's more than once.

Either way he can be fairly accused of talking a load of s**t?

Our installation guys put it this way, "It may seem like sh$t to you. But, it's our bread and butter."

 

[FJAG]

Personally we've been using dual flush toilets 4.8 LPF/1.3 US GPF (for the big jobs) / 3.0 LPF/0.8 US GPF (for the inconsequential jobs) in both our homes over the last ten years and I've never needed a second flush for either.

Where's the turd emoji when you really need it. 

[mariomike]

Sorry man.  That is not an exaggeration.  It is an untruth.  A lie.  And it is not being told by some random right wing crackpot on the internet.  It is being told by the man occupying the position that used to be called the Leader of The Free World, but is no longer, in part due to an inability to either tell the truth nor understand the import of doing so when you are supposed to be occupying the shining city on the hill.

President Reagan spoke of the shining city on the hill in his farewell speech,
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c32G868tor0

His daughter had this to say about her father and the current occupant,

Ronald Reagan's daughter says he would be 'horrified' by Trump's America
https://www.cnn.com/2019/03/20/politics/patti-davis-trump-ronald-reagan/index.html

[Baden Guy]

I'm not sure if you were being sarcastic or not seeing that a 4.8 litres per flush American Standard toilet is the same as the 1.6 gallons per flush toilet that Bush's administration mandated by the regulations and that Trump is railing against.

 

No sarcasm here. I wasn't aware of the numbers, thanks for the info. We are very pleased with our new toilets and much appreciate the advice from the plumbers.

[QV]

IG Horowitz's report has uncovered appalling behavior by the FBI in the Crossfire Hurricane investigation and FISA applications.  Looking forward to John Durham and his team getting to the bottom of all of this corrupt conduct (and do his part to drain the swamp).

Pretty big news, I'm surprised this garnered no discussion here.

   

[FJAG]

IG Horowitz's report has uncovered appalling behavior by the FBI in the Crossfire Hurricane investigation and FISA applications.  Looking forward to John Durham and his team getting to the bottom of all of this corrupt conduct (and do his part to drain the swamp).

Pretty big news, I'm surprised this garnered no discussion here.

Not really pretty big news.

The big news was that the IG found that the Russia investigation was legally justified.

Consequentially he found that mistakes were made even though those did not effect the overall finding of legal justification.

Shocker that in an organization as large as the FBI mistakes were made? Not really.

Feel free to believe that it stands for what you want it to believe. We won't stop you or change your mind.

 

[QV]

Just a few mistakes, eh?  Everything was justified with only a few mistakes which are understandable given the size of the FBI, is that your take?

[FJAG]

Just a few mistakes, eh?  Everything was justified with only a few mistakes which are understandable given the size of the FBI, is that your take?

Yup. Pretty much.

There were 17 errors which basically related to information left out of wiretap applications (and one lawyer altering an email). These are process errors and do not alter the facts uncovered by the investigation. When creating affidavits to support search warrants there's a large scope for the author to decide what particular fact is or isn't relevant to the application. Opinions differ and it is fairly easy to second guess and criticize with twenty-twenty hindsight. I've done it myself on defending against evidence obtained by a search warrant. The defence rule here is that if you can't beat the facts, try to beat the process that disclosed them.

Horowitz was being scrupulously meticulous in his evaluation of this case and disclosed everything that was questionable but nevertheless made the overall conclusion that this was an LSMFT moment. (for all you smokers out there, this doesn't mean Lucky Strikes Mean Fine Tobacco but Legally Sound - Mighty Fine Trial)

 

[QV]

Errors like omitting to disclose exculpatory information in the applications, or altering a document to reflect the opposite that it actually means.  All 17 significant errors somehow favoured and furthered the investigators.  What are the odds?  Slim to none.   

Here is what AG Barr had to say: "FBI officials misled the FISA court, omitted critical exculpatory facts from their filings, and suppressed or ignored information negating the reliability of their principal source,” he added. “The inspector general found the explanations given for these actions unsatisfactory.”

This is where Durham comes in, and motive will be determined in his investigation.   

Dismissing this is being disingenuous of what really happened here.       

[Bruce Monkhouse]

information left out of wiretap applications (and one lawyer altering an email). These are process errors

Really??   To a lawyer fraud is a "process error"?  Well, as the Church Lady would say "How convenient".

[FJAG]

Errors like omitting to disclose exculpatory information in the applications, or altering a document to reflect the opposite that it actually means.  All 17 significant errors somehow favoured and furthered the investigators.  What are the odds?  Slim to none.   

Here is what AG Barr had to say: "FBI officials misled the FISA court, omitted critical exculpatory facts from their filings, and suppressed or ignored information negating the reliability of their principal source,” he added. “The inspector general found the explanations given for these actions unsatisfactory.”

This is where Durham comes in, and motive will be determined in his investigation.   

Dismissing this is being disingenuous of what really happened here.     

I'm really quite surprised Barr is capable of saying anything considering how far his nose is up Trumps ***. Horowitz conducted a comprehensive investigation which found the Russia investigation as legally justified regardless of the issues raised in the investigation's findings. The only purpose of the Durham investigation is to come to a different White House directed conclusion.

Really??   To a lawyer fraud is a "process error"?  Well, as the Church Lady would say "How convenient".

C'mon Bruce. You know full well what I meant. The action of the lawyer (and I actually read the Horowitz report, so I know what it was) were part of the investigation process. The thing he did, which was clearly a mistake on his part (and it will be up to a court to determine if it was fraudulent) was part of the investigative process but does not undermine the conclusion drawn by Horowitz that the Russian Investigation was legally justified. The number of convictions and guilty pleas arising out of it should make that obvious to any disinterested observer.

Seventeen "errors" in an investigation of the scope of this one with the numerous individuals involved (especially since some of these errors are merely repetitions of the same error made on previous FISA applications) is not proof of a Deep State conspiracy to overthrow a constitutionally elected president except to those people who want to ignore the actual conclusion of the Horowitz report in favour of furthering their belief in conspiracy theories.

(For anyone who wants to read the report, you can download it from here: https://www.cnn.com/2019/12/09/politics/inspector-general-justice-department-report-russia-fbi/index.html

 

[QV]

For anyone interested, AG Barr was interviewed on NBC a few days ago, it’s on YouTube, he gives a decent summary of the situation including differentiating between Horowitz’s role and Durham’s role.  His head certainly isn’t up anyone’s *** and it’s not ok for a crack team of investigators and lawyers to make all these one sided “errors”.  This is big and it’s going to get ugly for those involved. 

[Brad Sallows]

>I'm really quite surprised Barr is capable of saying anything considering how far his nose is up Trumps ***.

Well, there's the mark of a fair-minded observer giving a dispassionate analysis that is worth paying any attention to.

The IG's lane is to comment on whether policy and procedure were followed.  He doesn't read minds and can't meaningfully comment on partisan bias, without statements to that effect by the parties concerned.  Other than the Page-Strzok emails, I doubt much of that exists.  But the uses of the "Steele dossier" will continue to soil the reputations of everyone who used it, regardless how much fart-catching is attempted.

The orange man bad zealots will wave the IG's report and disparage Durham's efforts pre-emptively.  Meanwhile, another opportunity to set guidelines raising the bar considerably higher for poking noses into a presidential election campaign is ignored.

Kevin Williamson at NRO quoted a bit of Horowitz.

"Errors were made by three separate, hand-picked investigative teams; on one of the most sensitive FBI investigations; after the matter had been briefed to the highest levels within the FBI; even though the information sought through the use of FISA authority related so closely to an ongoing presidential campaign; and even though those involved with the investigation knew that their actions were likely to be subjected to close scrutiny."

Just mistakes any competent careful professional would make.  Somewhere on the spectrum between "rigorously legitimate" and "deep state conspiracy" there is a lot of room for putting thumbs on scales, or merely being incompetent in a convenient direction.