All Things Trump: Is it over yet?

[Tero]

[pErvinalia]

Ol' Babs Bush HATED Trump!

Barbara Bush 'Blamed' Donald Trump for Heart 'Crisis' — and Didn't Feel Like a Republican Before She Died, According to Book
https://people.com/politics/barbara-bus ... ump-heart/

According to a new biography about Barbara Bush, the former first lady so disliked President Donald Trump that she kept a Trump countdown clock by her bed — and “blamed” him for a heart health episode she survived in the summer of 2016.

...

According to The Matriarch excerpt, “the tumultuous presidential campaign in general and Trump’s ridicule of son Jeb Bush in particular had riled her.”

“‘Angst,’ she told me,” Page writes.

At the time, Jeb, a former Florida governor, had only recently withdrawn from a bruising and disappointing presidential primary in which Trump had made him a high-profile early target of repeated and personal attacks. After Mrs. Bush appeared in an ad for her son, Trump mocked him in January 2016: “He desperately needed mommy to help him.”

...

According to Page’s book, when Page asked Mrs. Bush last February if she still considered herself a Republican, the matriarch of a Republican dynasty replied: “I’d probably say no today.”

In essence, Page writes, she had been turned away by Trump’s rise, which transformed the Republican party into “a party she no longer recognized.”

Mrs. Bush couldn’t “understand why people” were for Trump, and “expressed astonishment that women could support him,” Page writes.

President George H. W. Bush, her husband, and President George W. Bush, her son, have had similarly sharp thoughts about their successor. In a 2017 book, the 41st president called Trump “a blowhard,” while his son, the 43rd president, said, “This guy doesn’t know what it means to be president.”

The elder Bush even voted for Hillary Clinton — the first time in his life he voted for a Democrat for president, according to Page. Mrs. Bush wrote in her diary that she could not vote for either candidate and instead wrote in Jeb’s name.

Barbara’s disdain for Trump began decades ago, Page writes, and she wrote in her diary in the 1990s that “Trump now means Greed, selfishness and ugly.”

After the 2016 presidential election results were in, Barbara “woke up and discovered, to [her] horror, that Trump had won,” Page writes.

...

Shortly after the election, a friend gave her a presidential countdown clock which showed “how many days, hours, minutes and seconds remained in Trump’s term,” Page writes. The clock stayed in the bedroom, on her bedside table “where she could see it every day” until the day Mrs. Bush died.

Trump is so vile that he even turned Papa Bush into a Democrat!

Bush voted for a Democrat. 42 couldn't even bring himself to do that.

[Tero]

[Sean Hayden]

Because if the White House misrepresents its findings Mueller can say so. If he doesn't then I'm okay with it. Why would any sane person fail to recognize that any report that doesn't conclude Trump is guilty will be interpreted by the Democrats such that Trump really is guilty. Give us the report so that we can tell you what Mueller really found!

Benghazi!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Sean Hayden]

Hell, you don't even need the report. Refuse to give us the report, that'll give us even more Benghazi!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Go home Democrats, Republicans, you're full of shit and nobody cares anymore.

[L'Emmerdeur]

Because if the White House misrepresents its findings Mueller can say so. If he doesn't then I'm okay with it. Why would any sane person fail to recognize that any report that doesn't conclude Trump is guilty will be interpreted by the Democrats such that Trump really is guilty. Give us the report so that we can tell you what Mueller really found!

Everything I've read by people who know him say that Mueller respects the chain of command and plays it entirely by the book. If the White House cites executive privilege to redact sections of the report, I think he's very unlikely to do anything to draw back the veil. You seem to think that he'll suddenly go rogue and fight for truth and justice, damn the rules. I don't know where you're getting that from, but I wouldn't depend on it.

Benghazi!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

That's a very poor analogy. There is plenty of evidence in the public sphere which shows highly dubious decisions by the Trump campaign and Trump himself in relation to 'the Russia thing.' Several members of the campaign had multiple meetings with various Russians both in the government and in its orbit, and then lied about those meetings. There now is no reasonable doubt that the Russian government worked actively via both overt and covert propaganda efforts as well as criminal activity to get Trump elected.

The Mueller investigation only took place after Trump fired the head of the FBI in an attempt to thwart an investigation into the issues that Mueller was appointed to examine. He fucking bragged to the Russians about it. Investigations by Congress into the matter are justified as well in my opinion, given the 'we gotta protect the boss' farces put on by the Republicans when they controlled both houses.

I'm not sure why you want to equate all that to the Benghazi investigations. Maybe you think it shows some sort of 'I'm above all that shit' perspective, but I doubt you're able to articulate why these investigations are in any significant way equivalent to the Benghazi circus. You may not care anymore, and I don't blame you--the situation is tiresome and somewhat nauseating, but that doesn't mean it's meaningless, nor does it mean that it's irrelevant to the future of the United States.

[Sean Hayden]

I'm sorry, it's going rogue to clarify that your report did not claim to find insufficient evidence to prosecute Trump?

That sounds very weak to me. If the report is mischaracterized then Mueller can simply say that. He doesn't have to reveal anything.

As for the analogy, it works. Look, the Republicans want to protect Trump so when they got the report they ran with Mueller not finding enough evidence for collusion. That's not even in the ballpark of conspiracy. So why am I seeing so much mud being thrown at Barr? Because Democrats are using this to score points politically.

Don't want to be taken that way, then allow that the defense of Trump was based on no glaringly obvious finding of guilt by Mueller as indicated by a brief look at his report and just ask to see the rest.

[L'Emmerdeur]

I'm sorry, it's going rogue to clarify that your report did not claim to find insufficient evidence to prosecute Trump?

That isn't what I said. Nor did Barr say anything about 'insufficient evidence.'

That sounds very weak to me. If the report is mischaracterized then Mueller can simply say that. He doesn't have to reveal anything.

True enough. However, you were responding to a piece of text about the White House editing the report. They can redact whatever they please and cite executive privilege as their reason. My point was that given Mueller's past record it seems extremely unlikely that he's going to say anything about what they've cut out.

As for the analogy, it works. Look, the Republicans want to protect Trump so when they got the report they ran with Mueller not finding enough evidence for collusion. That's not even in the ballpark of conspiracy. So why am I seeing so much mud being thrown at Barr? Because Democrats are using this to score points politically.

Barr has a well established record of using his position to shield Republicans in the executive branch from the legal consequences of their actions. His job application memo denigrated the Mueller investigation and essentially said that a president cannot commit obstruction of justice through any action like firing a person who's responsible for investigating his actions. Perhaps pointing these facts out is throwing mud, but they seem relevant when it comes to evaluating the letter he wrote.

Don't want to be taken that way, then allow that the defense of Trump was based on no glaringly obvious finding of guilt by Mueller as indicated by a brief look at his report and just ask to see the rest.

Depends on what actually ends up being made public doesn't it? If the White House has redacted sections of the report, you'll be fine with that?

Maybe I'm missing something but I don't see anything you wrote as justifying (or even explaining) your 'Benghazi!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!' reference.

[Sean Hayden]

I was responding to the point that a sane person couldn't trust that an edited report would support Mueller's actual findings. Your response that Mueller would ignore a blatant reversal of his intent for the sake of following orders is a weak argument that causes more problems for your position than it solves.

Or were we really talking about Mueller not speaking out about redacted sections?

The connection to Benghazi is obvious provided you allow me to talk about Benghazi the conspiracy, rather than Benghazi the event.

[Sean Hayden]

Donald Trump Calls on FBI, DOJ to Review ‘Outrageous’ Jussie Smollett Case

--he can't help himself.

[L'Emmerdeur]

I was responding to the point that a sane person couldn't trust that an edited report would support Mueller's actual findings.

Apparently we're reading it differently. It questions why a sane person would rely on the report if it's been edited by the White House. I take that as questioning whether this sane person would believe that an edited report would represent an accurate version of the original report. For instance if the investigation had uncovered borderline criminal activity on the part of the Trump campaign that didn't rise to the level of a prosecutable offense. Or if it had uncovered evidence of a prosecutable offense but the evidence wasn't strong enough to pursue prosecution. I think things of this sort should be made public. However, the White House could very well redact the above or anything else that it considers detrimental to Trump.

The White House can hide plenty of relevant information without changing the bottom line of Mueller's findings. I wouldn't rely on the report to accurately convey the results of the investigation once the White House has been through it with its black marker. Would you?

Your response that Mueller would ignore a blatant reversal of his intent for the sake of following orders is a weak argument that causes more problems for your position than it solves.

Well then its a damn good thing that I didn't say Mueller would ignore a blatant reversal of his intent.

Or were we really talking about Mueller not speaking out about redacted sections?

I clearly was referring to that, yes.

The connection to Benghazi is obvious provided you allow me to talk about Benghazi the conspiracy, rather than Benghazi the event.

Go on then.

[Animavore]

Scumbaggery, destruction, and vandalism.

The government is clearing strips of land inside wildlife habitats for endangered animals, birds and butterflies as part of Trump's promised border wall between the U.S. and Mexico.

https://www.nbcnews.com/leftfield/video ... VO2sG1RDpM

[Animavore]

The US is a lot more corrupt than Americans realize, and the problem goes much deeper than Trump

https://www.businessinsider.com/scandal ... &r=US&IR=T

[Sean Hayden]

Benghazi conspiracies were used by Republicans to try to discredit Obama and later Clinton. Here we are witnessing the creation of a conspiracy of the manipulation of what Mueller's report actually says being used to discredit Trump and his administration.

Regarding the rest, I'd say that if you change the report so as to remove the possibility of concluding Mueller found evidence of Trump colluding with Russia, just not enough to warrant prosecution, that you'd have blatantly distorted Mueller's intent.

[Scot Dutchy]

Remember Orwell. Trump team does.