THE ERA OF TRUMP
-
- Posts: 26035
- Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2016 6:23 pm
Re: THE ERA OF TRUMP
I should probably add Biden's son has a huge interest in Ukraine gas lines or something like that. Kushner is also Jewish and very wealthy.
-
- Posts: 25283
- Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2016 6:50 am
- Location: Ohio
Re: THE ERA OF TRUMP
Is Trynps administration in revolt, or does he think that somehow this deflects attention away from Sessions?Penner wrote:skankhunt42 wrote:Just heard from a source that Trump's Son - IN - Law had meetings with the Russians. What are the implications of that?
Did you mean this story?
http://www.latimes.com/politics/washing ... story.htmlA White House official said President Trump's son-in-law Jared Kushner and the man who would become national security advisor, Michael Flynn, met with Russia's ambassador to the U.S. in December.
The official called the sit-down at Trump Tower in New York a "brief courtesy meeting." The official wasn't authorized to discuss the matter publicly and insisted on anonymity.
Both are equally likely to my mind.
-
- Posts: 2528
- Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2016 11:09 am
Re: THE ERA OF TRUMP
http://thehill.com/homenews/administrat ... ssia-probe{D}eputy attorney general pick Rod Rosenstein . . . may ultimately make decisions about a DOJ probe into Russia.
The U.S. attorney for Maryland is a George W. Bush appointee who was confirmed by a voice vote in the Senate in 2005 and was one of only three Bush-appointed U.S. attorneys — out of 93 nationwide — kept on by the Obama administration . . . .
Rosenstein is also the nation’s longest serving U.S. attorney.
In 2007, Bush nominated Rosenstein to fill a vacant seat on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, but he never got a hearing or a vote in the Senate.
Maryland’s Democratic senators at the time . . . said he was doing such a good job in his post that he shouldn’t be elevated to the federal bench . . . .
The Washington Post called those arguments unpersuasive in a 2007 editorial and dubbed Rosenstein “a worthy nominee.”
After graduating form Harvard Law School, Rosenstein clerked for Judge Douglas Ginsburg of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit before joining the DOJ in 1990.
He was on the team of prosecutors handling the Whitewater investigation into Bill and Hillary Clinton’s Arkansas business dealings in the mid-1990s . . . and has spent his career as a federal prosecutor cracking down on gang violence and public corruption.
-
- Posts: 2826
- Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2016 8:33 am
Re: THE ERA OF TRUMP
Probably Trump trying to get ahead of the news. Obviously he knows any contact with the Russians is a liability and the best way to end the "suspicion" is to not be seen as hiding it.
We still have ZERO evidence of any illegal or even improper acts.
We still have ZERO evidence of any illegal or even improper acts.
“I've got a phone that allows me to convene Americans from every walk of life, nonprofits, businesses, the private sector, universities to try to bring more and more Americans together around what I think is a unifying theme..." - Obama
-
- Posts: 2443
- Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2016 9:10 am
Re: THE ERA OF TRUMP
Too quick to condemn Sessions? Ya. I admitted I don't like and don't trust the guy. But you shouldn't either. I still believe the scrutiny is justified, there's smoke.Okeefenokee wrote: Nice of you to stop by and hurl falsehoods around. Ok, bye now. See you next time.
You should be happy she's here. I can hear the ball slapping on this forum from California.Okeefenokee wrote: Hey look, penner got a sex change.
-
- Posts: 12950
- Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2016 10:27 pm
- Location: The Great Place
Re: THE ERA OF TRUMP
There's been zero evidence since spring of 2016, and that hasn't stopped any of these tards.kybkh wrote:Probably Trump trying to get ahead of the news. Obviously he knows any contact with the Russians is a liability and the best way to end the "suspicion" is to not be seen as hiding it.
We still have ZERO evidence of any illegal or even improper acts.
GrumpyCatFace wrote:Dumb slut partied too hard and woke up in a weird house. Ran out the door, weeping for her failed life choices, concerned townsfolk notes her appearance and alerted the fuzz.
viewtopic.php?p=60751#p60751
-
- Posts: 2142
- Joined: Thu Dec 01, 2016 4:05 pm
Re: THE ERA OF TRUMP
It's here, at least in some part, the military's counterattack against Bannon. Soft probing attack. Naturally it's only the retired people publicly voice the issue, but a former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff is not a light-weight grumpy retiree, who's words don't mean a thing.
Admiral Mike Mullen:
Yep, the generals didn't like Bannon trying to sideline the Joint Chiefs chairman in the NSC. The acting Chairman btw simply refused to bow out. And after the Flynn debacle (and with earlier nominees saying no because of worries about the functioning of the Trump cabinet in general), basically Trump has had then to give McMaster control of the NSC and to decide if he wants to keep Bannon or not. See White House: If McMaster Wants Bannon Gone, Trump Will Consider It.
Now it's extremely unlikely that McMaster would do such drastic measure and roast Bannon out from the NSC. McMaster likely doesn't want to give his boss the next scandal for the media to chew on, which that move would mean. And that kind of move would make McMaster a hero in the anti-Trump camp and the enemy of the alt-right, which basically wouldn't be good for the relationship with the boss. McMasters' central role, as his position says, is to work with Trump. If Bannon goes, he goes when there's elections coming (or something), when he has to focus in his real job. A move that can be denied to be move to kick out Bannon. Besides, the number one issue for McMaster is to get the whole thing functioning, because it seem that Trump will play his foreign policy basically from the military / NSC perspective, not from a civilian perspective.
The real test will be the sooner or later emerging crisis from the outside World, that the NSC has to react. Mattis-McMasters will likely be the powerhouse then as Trump hates the State Department and basically wants to sideline it (which makes Tillerson's role a bit awkward).
How will these two guys work together?
See hereFormer Joint Chiefs chair: McMaster should get Bannon kicked off the National Security Council immediately
Former US Navy Admiral and chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Mike Mullen voiced his "grave concern" about US President Donald Trump's appointment of his chief strategist, Steve Bannon, as a member of the National Security Council.
In an interview with NPR, Mullen said that regardless of Bannon's political goals or his personal record, his presence as a political operative politicizes the NSC, whose primary concerns should always center around national security, and never around political goals like elections or legislation. "Given the gravity of the issues the NSC deals with, it is vital that that body not be politicized, and Bannon's presence as a member of that body politicizes it instantly," said Mullen.
Asked if Mullen, who sat on the NSC under Bush and Obama, had any advice for Trump's new national security adviser, H. R. McMaster, Mullen said McMaster's first priority should be to try and get Bannon off the council. "See if there's a way to move Bannon off the council and then certainly Mr. Bannon can give his advice to the president any other way," said Mullen.
Admiral Mike Mullen:
Yep, the generals didn't like Bannon trying to sideline the Joint Chiefs chairman in the NSC. The acting Chairman btw simply refused to bow out. And after the Flynn debacle (and with earlier nominees saying no because of worries about the functioning of the Trump cabinet in general), basically Trump has had then to give McMaster control of the NSC and to decide if he wants to keep Bannon or not. See White House: If McMaster Wants Bannon Gone, Trump Will Consider It.
Now it's extremely unlikely that McMaster would do such drastic measure and roast Bannon out from the NSC. McMaster likely doesn't want to give his boss the next scandal for the media to chew on, which that move would mean. And that kind of move would make McMaster a hero in the anti-Trump camp and the enemy of the alt-right, which basically wouldn't be good for the relationship with the boss. McMasters' central role, as his position says, is to work with Trump. If Bannon goes, he goes when there's elections coming (or something), when he has to focus in his real job. A move that can be denied to be move to kick out Bannon. Besides, the number one issue for McMaster is to get the whole thing functioning, because it seem that Trump will play his foreign policy basically from the military / NSC perspective, not from a civilian perspective.
The real test will be the sooner or later emerging crisis from the outside World, that the NSC has to react. Mattis-McMasters will likely be the powerhouse then as Trump hates the State Department and basically wants to sideline it (which makes Tillerson's role a bit awkward).
How will these two guys work together?
-
- Posts: 2142
- Joined: Thu Dec 01, 2016 4:05 pm
Re: THE ERA OF TRUMP
doublepost...
Last edited by ssu on Fri Mar 03, 2017 5:20 am, edited 1 time in total.
-
- Posts: 26035
- Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2016 6:23 pm
Re: THE ERA OF TRUMP
ssu wrote:It's here, at least in some part, the military's counterattack against Bannon. Soft probing attack. Naturally it's only the retired people publicly voice the issue, but a former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff is not a light-weight grumpy retiree, who's words don't mean a thing.
See hereFormer Joint Chiefs chair: McMaster should get Bannon kicked off the National Security Council immediately
Former US Navy Admiral and chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Mike Mullen voiced his "grave concern" about US President Donald Trump's appointment of his chief strategist, Steve Bannon, as a member of the National Security Council.
In an interview with NPR, Mullen said that regardless of Bannon's political goals or his personal record, his presence as a political operative politicizes the NSC, whose primary concerns should always center around national security, and never around political goals like elections or legislation. "Given the gravity of the issues the NSC deals with, it is vital that that body not be politicized, and Bannon's presence as a member of that body politicizes it instantly," said Mullen.
Asked if Mullen, who sat on the NSC under Bush and Obama, had any advice for Trump's new national security adviser, H. R. McMaster, Mullen said McMaster's first priority should be to try and get Bannon off the council. "See if there's a way to move Bannon off the council and then certainly Mr. Bannon can give his advice to the president any other way," said Mullen.
Admiral Mike Mullen:
Yep, the generals didn't like Bannon trying to sideline the Joint Chiefs chairman in the NSC. The acting Chairman btw simply refused to bow out. And after the Flynn debacle (and with earlier nominees saying no because of worries about the functioning of the Trump cabinet in general), basically Trump has had then to give McMaster control of the NSC and to decide if he wants to keep Bannon or not. See White House: If McMaster Wants Bannon Gone, Trump Will Consider It.
Now it's extremely unlikely that McMaster would do such drastic measure and roast Bannon out from the NSC. McMaster likely doesn't want to give his boss the next scandal for the media to chew on, which that move would mean. And that kind of move would make McMaster a hero in the anti-Trump camp and the enemy of the alt-right, which basically wouldn't be good for the relationship with the boss. McMasters' central role, as his position says, is to work with Trump. If Bannon goes, he goes when there's elections coming (or something), when he has to focus in his real job. A move that can be denied to be move to kick out Bannon. Besides, the number one issue for McMaster is to get the whole thing functioning, because it seem that Trump will play his foreign policy basically from the military / NSC perspective, not from a civilian perspective.
The real test will be the sooner or later emerging crisis from the outside World, that the NSC has to react. Mattis-McMasters will likely be the powerhouse then as Trump hates the State Department and basically wants to sideline it (which makes Tillerson's role a bit awkward).
How will these two guys work together?
-
- Posts: 26035
- Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2016 6:23 pm
Re: THE ERA OF TRUMP
TheReal_ND wrote:ssu wrote:It's here, at least in some part, the military's counterattack against Bannon. Soft probing attack. Naturally it's only the retired people publicly voice the issue, but a former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff is not a light-weight grumpy retiree, who's words don't mean a thing.
See hereFormer Joint Chiefs chair: McMaster should get Bannon kicked off the National Security Council immediately
Former US Navy Admiral and chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Mike Mullen voiced his "grave concern" about US President Donald Trump's appointment of his chief strategist, Steve Bannon, as a member of the National Security Council.
In an interview with NPR, Mullen said that regardless of Bannon's political goals or his personal record, his presence as a political operative politicizes the NSC, whose primary concerns should always center around national security, and never around political goals like elections or legislation. "Given the gravity of the issues the NSC deals with, it is vital that that body not be politicized, and Bannon's presence as a member of that body politicizes it instantly," said Mullen.
Asked if Mullen, who sat on the NSC under Bush and Obama, had any advice for Trump's new national security adviser, H. R. McMaster, Mullen said McMaster's first priority should be to try and get Bannon off the council. "See if there's a way to move Bannon off the council and then certainly Mr. Bannon can give his advice to the president any other way," said Mullen.
Admiral Mike Mullen:
Yep, the generals didn't like Bannon trying to sideline the Joint Chiefs chairman in the NSC. The acting Chairman btw simply refused to bow out. And after the Flynn debacle (and with earlier nominees saying no because of worries about the functioning of the Trump cabinet in general), basically Trump has had then to give McMaster control of the NSC and to decide if he wants to keep Bannon or not. See White House: If McMaster Wants Bannon Gone, Trump Will Consider It.
Now it's extremely unlikely that McMaster would do such drastic measure and roast Bannon out from the NSC. McMaster likely doesn't want to give his boss the next scandal for the media to chew on, which that move would mean. And that kind of move would make McMaster a hero in the anti-Trump camp and the enemy of the alt-right, which basically wouldn't be good for the relationship with the boss. McMasters' central role, as his position says, is to work with Trump. If Bannon goes, he goes when there's elections coming (or something), when he has to focus in his real job. A move that can be denied to be move to kick out Bannon. Besides, the number one issue for McMaster is to get the whole thing functioning, because it seem that Trump will play his foreign policy basically from the military / NSC perspective, not from a civilian perspective.
The real test will be the sooner or later emerging crisis from the outside World, that the NSC has to react. Mattis-McMasters will likely be the powerhouse then as Trump hates the State Department and basically wants to sideline it (which makes Tillerson's role a bit awkward).
How will these two guys work together?