The Official Thread Dedicated to "Trump Winning"

[Spike]

Farmers, ranchers have ‘unprecedented’ meeting with Ag, Interior secretaries

Ten Idaho and farmers and ranchers spent an hour meeting with Agriculture Secretary Sonny Perdue and Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke June 2. They covered a wide range of topics important to the state’s and nation’s farming industries.

Farmers and ranchers described a private meeting with two of President Donald Trump’s cabinet members June 2 as unprecedented and historic.

Instead of addressing the group, U.S. Agriculture Secretary Sonny Perdue and Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke listened and took notes, according to those who were there.

“They just didn’t have an agenda. They truly wanted to listen to us,” said Aberdeen potato farmer Ritchey Toevs. “It was a pro-producer meeting. It was a completely different experience than I’ve ever had.”

“They didn’t really say much. They let us do the talking,” said Jerome dairyman Mike Roth. “I feel like I witnessed a little bit of history today.”

http://www.capitalpress.com/Idaho/2...il&utm_term=0_3bfe2c1612-39fa45c58c-234520405

------------------------------------

The government listening to the people.


MAGA !!

 

[scraps]

Designated Muslim Brotherhood and CAIR as Terrorist Organizations

Is this official or still in motion?

 

[IndySteel]

Eric Trump just killed it on Hannity, awesome segment. I'll post the video if I can find it. He did a perfect job accurately describing the meltdown and implosion of the left. The fact is, the left would rather see Trump fail than America succeed. We can see proof of that right here on this board with the four-headed libtard virus of Trog, Tibs, Elftwat and illiterate 21.

 

[Tim Steelersfan]

Tim, a simple question. To offset the partisanship you accuse me of, why are you not upset about the allegations against Trump if similar allegations against the Clinton's were so upsetting to you? To display the type of consistency you claim I lack, I'd think you'd be leading the charge to get to the bottom of Trump-Russia collusion. If for no other reason than to allow him to clear his name.

Primarily because they are two separate scenarios. As many of us see them.

Clinton: Factually known that the Clinton Foundation took money in the pay to play scheme. Factually known that Bill took $500K from Russia. Factually known that Hillary broke federal laws with her classified emails. Factually known that the Clinton Foundation had direct ties to a registered agent of a Russian bank. These are not allegations. These things happened. They were excused. Ignored by the media. Hidden and swept under the rug by the Obama administration. Or hidden and protected by the corrupt Holder/Cankles DOJ. The fact that the Clinton Foundation pay-for-play was never even pursued should be disturbing as hell. We "know" they took money from our enemies. NBC didn't care. CNN didn't care. And the DOJ didn't pursue it.

Trump: It's alleged he might have had ties to Russia. No factual evidence at all. Nothing. Speculation.

---------------------------

If it turns out that Trump was colluding with Russia, I'd have a problem with it. But I'll excuse it depending on the severity pending. As every Liberal and the MSM did for Hillary's "factually documented" incidents of collusion. Is that not fair? We know these things about the Clintons and Russia. They got a pass. Should Trump not be afforded the same pass for the same level of indiscretion up to the level of the Clintons' offenses? That would be fair I would think. Or, likewise, you could claim that Hillary should go to jail and Trump should be impeached. But you can't have it one way for one, and a different way for the other.

I was never a defender of the Clinton's, say what you will.

By never screaming for her conviction, by never calling for her to be tried, by never damning her for "allegations", while simultaneously telling SN members they were wearing tin foil hats with regards to her indiscretions...you were defending her. You didn't have to come out and implicitly say "Hillary should fry." When others were saying she should fry and you were silent or you belittled those who were calling for her head, you were by default defending her.

There were multiple inquiries into her affairs, including marathon, GOP led hearings on Benghazi. If her Russian connections, the Clinton foundation or her e-mail scandals were criminal in nature, why has she not been charged? If Obama didn't go after her, why doesn't Trump or Sessions?

Why was she not charged? Seriously, are you kidding me? I won't even answer that save for 4 words - Obama, Holder, Lynch, and the MSM.

Her case remains open. Have you read the news in the past week? There are considerations of re-investigating the email situation and the Clinton Foundation remains an open target.

One can only pray.

 

[Tibs]

On Trump being his own worst enemy, from that bastion of liberal leftist thought, Fox News:


<script type="text/javascript" src="//video.foxnews.com/v/embed.js?id=5461827756001&w=466&h=263"></script><noscript>Watch the latest video at <a href="//video.foxnews.com">video.foxnews.com</a></noscript>

 

[Tibs]

now, back to the subject What has Trump Winning done?

You forgot to list one, something I will give the President credit for, dropping that MOAB on the Afghan terrorist caves. That was friggin' awesome, the right tool for the right job.

 

[Tibs]

Her case remains open. Have you read the news in the past week? There are considerations of re-investigating the email situation and the Clinton Foundation remains an open target.

Great, if she's complicit in any criminal wrongdoing, I hope they throw the book at her. If only you'd share the same sentiment when it comes to the allegations against Trump, all would be good in the world.

 

[IndySteel]

Eric Trump clip:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/06/07/eric-trump-attacks-on-president-show-ugliness-washington-dc.html

 

[Steelin]

If it DOES get reported, it will be done as a "Vast Right Wing Conspiracy."

Or my favorite "a witch hunt".

 

[Tim Steelersfan]

Great, if she's complicit in any criminal wrongdoing, I hope they throw the book at her. If only you'd share the same sentiment when it comes to the allegations against Trump, all would be good in the world.

As I said above Tibs....how does all of this sit with you?

--------------------------------------------------------
If Robert M. finds that Trump accepted a $500,000 payment from Russia, he should be given a pass right? The Clintons accepted $500K payments.

If Robert M. finds that Trump, prior to the Presidency, was accepting payments from Russia and Saudi Arabia in exchange for future meetings with the President himself, should he get elected, but he should be given a pass. Hillary did this as Secretary of State. Pay to play politically is acceptable by Democrat and MSM standards and therefore should be for ALL Presidents, regardless of party affiliation.

If Robert M. finds that one of Trump's top advisors has a brother who is a registered agent of a bank in Moscow, he should be given a pass. This Clintons did this.

If Robert M. finds out that Trump promised Putin he would ship 20% of our uranium stores to Russia in exchange for millions of dollars, he should be given a pass. The Clintons established this as fair practice.
---------------------------------------------------------

But let's be brutally honest. Truly dig deep and be honest. If you found out that Trump accepted $500K from Russia, you would be enraged. If you found out that he took money prior to the election in exchange for future meetings of influence with Russia, you would implode. You would scream for his impeachment.

Yet you said nary a word about the Clintons.

This is the double standard exposed. You're no different than any Liberal or the mainstream media. Democrats are allowed to get away with all forms of illegalities and corruption. Republicans can't eat steak well done.

 

[Ron Burgundy]

On Trump being his own worst enemy, from that bastion of liberal leftist thought, Fox News:


<script type="text/javascript" src="//video.foxnews.com/v/embed.js?id=5461827756001&w=466&h=263"></script><noscript>Watch the latest video at <a href="//video.foxnews.com">video.foxnews.com</a></noscript>

Still better than the alternative, although I voted for Rand Paul in the primary.

 

[Tibs]

Tim there's no point in having this conversation if you've already decided for yourself where I stand on these issues. This isn't a judge and jury situation where I have to prove anything to you. I stand by everything I've ever posted on this board, I will say that.

I'm happy that the Justice Dept had the balls to appoint a special prosecutor on this case. There has to be enough hard evidence in their possession to do so. At this stage, I'm willing to see the process through. I'll let Robert Mueller decide what is right and wrong based on the evidence and testimony he procurs during the investigation.

And no, I will not go back in time and pretend I'm outraged by the Clintons. I don't give two ***** about them. They have no relevance to what is currently happening in government. As I've said before, if there is enough evidence of criminality with anything related to the Clintons, their Foundation or their financial dealings with Russia or whoever else, they should be prosecuted ASAP to the full extent of the law.

And quite frankly I don't care one bit what you think about me. Call me names, do what you need to do. But do realize, by ranting and raving about the Clintons, all the while turning a blind eye to the allegations against Trump, that puts you smack dab in the middle of the dreaded Double Standard you accuse me of.

 

[Tim Steelersfan]

Tim there's no point in having this conversation if you've already decided for yourself where I stand on these issues.

I haven't decided. You've demonstrated. We've seen your lack of outrage over more heinous crimes committed by your party for long enough. There's no trial. You're on display and always have been. You're a partisan, period.

And no, I will not go back in time and pretend I'm outraged by the Clintons. I don't give two ***** about them. They have no relevance to what is currently happening in government.

Two things: It matters. Precedence. But Liberals sweep away precedence because a double standard must exist. My candidate may commit crime, yours may not.

Next, you care about what happens now in Government because you hate who's in government. You didn't give two ***** what the prior administration did as far as crossing lines because it was your guy.

And quite frankly I don't care one bit what you think about me. Call me names, do what you need to do. But do realize, by ranting and raving about the Clintons, all the while turning a blind eye to the allegations against Trump, that puts you smack dab in the middle of the dreaded Double Standard you accuse me of.

I sense you ready to crawl back under your bed with your cats again...stiffen up that jelly backbone Tibs. I've called you no names.

I recognize there is a difference between the Democrats and Clinton, and Trump. We have factual evidence of Clintonian wrong-doing a paper mile long that was not pursued as it should have been by the prior illegitmate President and his corrupt administration. Trump faces "allegations." Nothing more. No evidence.

If and when there is evidence of Trump collusion with Russia AND I excuse it, then it will be a double standard. Until then it's not a double standard. Clearly you can see this.

I refuse to be outraged over "allegations" supported by zero evidence - especially considering a Hillary insider has told us in his book that the Russian collusion theory was literally created in John Podesta's mind. To be outraged over known Clinton collusion but not outraged over a theory is not a double standard.

The record stands. You didn't give a **** then about Clinton corruption supported by evidence because it was your party. Now you're choking on your panties over theories because it's not your party. You have selective outrage and it's 100% partisan. And therefore zero credibility. Party first, America whenever.

 

[Tibs]

Tim, let me repeat:

As I've said before, if there is enough evidence of criminality with anything related to the Clintons, their Foundation or their financial dealings with Russia or whoever else, they should be prosecuted ASAP to the full extent of the law.

I can't be any clearer than that. You state there is so much hard evidence against them. My response is, great, they should be prosecuted without further ado. I won't defend them one iota. So call me partisan all you want.

If and when there is evidence of Trump collusion with Russia AND I excuse it, then it will be a double standard.

I welcome your open-mindedness on this issue. I also won't jump the gun on what your reaction will be if and when such allegations are proven true. Let's wait that one out. I've gone on record saying I'll stand down and apologize if Mueller clears Trump and his team of any wrongdoing.

I've called you no names.

Maybe not names per se, but when you write this:

I sense you ready to crawl back under your bed with your cats again...stiffen up that jelly backbone Tibs.

I take that to be a direct personal attack. But that's alright, it's a free world.

 

[Tim Steelersfan]

TMy response is, great, they should be prosecuted without further ado. I won't defend them one iota. So call me partisan all you want.

I won't respond to this any further for two reasons:

Once again you've hijacked and derailed a thread in your never-ending, obtuse, "gotta have the last word and post more than anyone" style.

Two, the points have been made and your actions speak louder than words. You're a partisan hack who doesn't care about America when your party is putting America at risk through financial dealings that risk us all or by exposing our national secrets.

Above, you make this point again: They should have been prosecuted. They weren't under the former corrupt administration. When we showed outrage then, you showed none. When we demanded it be dealt with, you posted pictures of tin foil hats.

No further evidence is needed Tibs. As I've said, you're partisan, blind eye tactics have been evident for years.

Your present outrage is selective and not "American." If your outrage were American, you'd have shown universal concern regardless party affiliation. Party first Comrade.

 

[Tim Steelersfan]

Back to winning. Have you seen this? More of Obama's "dirty" legacy is being torn down. Boom! Can you believe Obama instituted this criminal act as policy?

-------------------------------------------------

DOJ ends Holder-era ‘slush fund’ payouts to outside groups

The Justice Department announced Wednesday it will no longer allow prosecutors to strike settlement agreements with big companies directing them to make payouts to outside groups, ending an Obama-era practice that Republicans decried as a “slush fund” that padded the accounts of liberal interest groups.

In a memo sent to 94 U.S. attorneys' offices early Wednesday, Attorney General Jeff Sessions said he would end the practice that allowed companies to meet settlement burdens by giving money to groups that were neither victims nor parties to the case.

Sessions said the money should, instead, go to the Treasury Department or victims.

“When the federal government settles a case against a corporate wrongdoer, any settlement funds should go first to the victims and then to the American people—not to bankroll third-party special interest groups or the political friends of whoever is in power,” Sessions said in a statement.

Conservatives have long fought the policy introduced under the Obama administration. Earlier this year, Republican lawmakers introduced legislation that would prohibit the Department of Justice from requiring defendants to donate money to outside groups, after concerns that the settlements bypass congressional appropriations processes.

“This bill is oversight and action. Congress must not tolerate Justice Department political appointees using settlements to funnel money to their liberal friends,” Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee Bob Goodlatte, R-Va., who introduced the bill, said in a statement. “This is also an institutional issue. Once direct victims have been compensated, deciding what to do with additional funds recovered from defendants becomes a policy question properly decided by elected representatives in Congress, not agency bureaucrats or prosecutors.”

Paul Larkin, a senior legal research fellow at The Federalist Society, described the practice as “improper and unlawful.” He also said the practices were barred by the Appropriations Clause, Antideficiency Act, and the Miscellaneous Receipts Act.

“No private lawyer could give away a client’s settlement money, and no government lawyer may do so either. It is time for this unlawful practice to end,” Larkin wrote in 2016.

“Unfortunately, in recent years the Department of Justice has sometimes requires or encouraged defendants to make these payments to third parties as a condition of settlement,” Sessions added. “With this directive, we are ending this practice and ensuring that settlement funds are only used to compensate victims, redress harm, and punish and deter unlawful conduct.”

Bank of America, for example, was required to pay nonprofit organizations as part of a record $17 billion settlement to resolve an investigation into its role in the sale of mortgage-backed securities before the 2008 financial crisis. The agreement was struck under then-Attorney General Eric Holder’s Justice Department.

The receiving groups included organizations that provide housing counseling, foreclosure prevention and community redevelopment assistance.

Gibson Guitar Corp. also had to contribute to the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation to resolve a criminal investigation into allegations it illegally imported exotic wood.

It's hard to say what kind of cases could be impacted by the change and how. The new policy allows only for restitution to victims or payment that "directly remedies the harm that is sought to be addressed."

U.S. Chamber of Commerce Institute for Legal Reform President Lisa A. Rickard commended Sessions' decision for directing DOJ officials to "seek justice" in a manner "consistent with pubic interest," adding: "Not how much money they can generate for outside interest groups unconnected with the underlying enforcement action."

 

[Tibs]

I won't respond to this any further for two reasons: Once again you've hijacked and derailed a thread in your never-ending, obtuse, "gotta have the last word and post more than anyone" style. Two, the points have been made and your actions speak louder than words. You're a partisan hack who doesn't care about America when your party is putting America at risk through financial dealings that risk us all or by exposing our national secrets. Above, you make this point again: They should have been prosecuted. They weren't under the former corrupt administration. When we showed outrage then, you showed none. When we demanded it be dealt with, you posted pictures of tin foil hats. No further evidence is needed Tibs. As I've said, you're partisan, blind eye tactics have been evident for years. Your present outrage is selective and not "American." If your outrage were American, you'd have shown universal concern regardless party affiliation. Party first Comrade.

 

[SCSteeler4life]

back to winning. Have you seen this? More of obama's "dirty" legacy is being torn down. Boom! Can you believe obama instituted this criminal act as policy?

-------------------------------------------------

doj ends holder-era ‘slush fund’ payouts to outside groups

the justice department announced wednesday it will no longer allow prosecutors to strike settlement agreements with big companies directing them to make payouts to outside groups, ending an obama-era practice that republicans decried as a “slush fund” that padded the accounts of liberal interest groups.

in a memo sent to 94 u.s. Attorneys' offices early wednesday, attorney general jeff sessions said he would end the practice that allowed companies to meet settlement burdens by giving money to groups that were neither victims nor parties to the case.

Sessions said the money should, instead, go to the treasury department or victims.

“when the federal government settles a case against a corporate wrongdoer, any settlement funds should go first to the victims and then to the american people—not to bankroll third-party special interest groups or the political friends of whoever is in power,” sessions said in a statement.

Conservatives have long fought the policy introduced under the obama administration. Earlier this year, republican lawmakers introduced legislation that would prohibit the department of justice from requiring defendants to donate money to outside groups, after concerns that the settlements bypass congressional appropriations processes.

“this bill is oversight and action. Congress must not tolerate justice department political appointees using settlements to funnel money to their liberal friends,” chairman of the house judiciary committee bob goodlatte, r-va., who introduced the bill, said in a statement. “this is also an institutional issue. Once direct victims have been compensated, deciding what to do with additional funds recovered from defendants becomes a policy question properly decided by elected representatives in congress, not agency bureaucrats or prosecutors.”

paul larkin, a senior legal research fellow at the federalist society, described the practice as “improper and unlawful.” he also said the practices were barred by the appropriations clause, antideficiency act, and the miscellaneous receipts act.

“no private lawyer could give away a client’s settlement money, and no government lawyer may do so either. It is time for this unlawful practice to end,” larkin wrote in 2016.

“unfortunately, in recent years the department of justice has sometimes requires or encouraged defendants to make these payments to third parties as a condition of settlement,” sessions added. “with this directive, we are ending this practice and ensuring that settlement funds are only used to compensate victims, redress harm, and punish and deter unlawful conduct.”

bank of america, for example, was required to pay nonprofit organizations as part of a record $17 billion settlement to resolve an investigation into its role in the sale of mortgage-backed securities before the 2008 financial crisis. The agreement was struck under then-attorney general eric holder’s justice department.

The receiving groups included organizations that provide housing counseling, foreclosure prevention and community redevelopment assistance.

Gibson guitar corp. Also had to contribute to the national fish and wildlife foundation to resolve a criminal investigation into allegations it illegally imported exotic wood.

It's hard to say what kind of cases could be impacted by the change and how. The new policy allows only for restitution to victims or payment that "directly remedies the harm that is sought to be addressed."

u.s. Chamber of commerce institute for legal reform president lisa a. Rickard commended sessions' decision for directing doj officials to "seek justice" in a manner "consistent with pubic interest," adding: "not how much money they can generate for outside interest groups unconnected with the underlying enforcement action."

winning !

 

[Tibs]

As I've said, you're partisan... Party first Comrade.

LOL, sorry I couldn't skip over this. You calling me a partisan hack, is well...

 

[Steelin]

Hahahahahahack

 

[Tibs]

Getting back to delzjc's posts, this sums up where I think we are currently with the Trump presidency. As you can imagine, it's not a pretty picture.

The article picks up from today's release of Comey's written statement.

Donald Trump’s presidency has thrown America into crisis.

There are two levels to this crisis. The first is the crisis of legitimacy at the highest levels of the American government. As Ben Wittes, editor of Lawfare, writes, “Comey is describing here conduct that a society committed to the rule of law simply cannot accept in a president.” He continues:

This document is about ... whether we can trust the President — not the President in the abstract, but the particular embodiment of the presidency in the person of Donald J. Trump — to supervise the law enforcement apparatus of the United States in fashion consistent with his oath of office. I challenge anyone to read this document and come away with a confidently affirmative answer to that question.

Trump’s behavior, in Comey’s telling, is more befitting of a Mafioso than a president. He asks, repeatedly, for loyalty, and shows no evident understanding of the norms or institutions that bind American presidents. His actions would be worrying if they came from the regional manager of a Scranton paper firm; they are terrifying coming from the most powerful man in the world.

But the crisis does not end with Comey. This is the 138th day of Donald Trump’s presidency, and what do we have to show for it? No major legislation has passed, nor is any major legislation close to passage. Of Trump’s major priorities, only 8 percent of Americans want the House-passed (and Trump-endorsed) American Health Care Act signed into law, and a majority oppose the White House’s decision to pull out of the Paris climate agreement.

America’s deepest alliances are fraying, and Trump’s recent visit to Europe left German Chancellor Angela Merkel — a politician known for her understatement, not her overstatement — to say that “the times in which we could completely depend on others are, to a certain extent, over.”

At the center of all this, Trump is running a chaotic and understaffed government. He has named nominees for only 80 of the 558 key appointments he needs to fill, and only 40 of them have cleared Senate confirmation. Last night brought news that Attorney General Jeff Sessions was considering resigning, and last week brought news that Trump’s communications director had been fired. Trump is tweeting out criticisms of his own Justice Department, investigators are digging into first son-in-law Jared Kushner’s contacts with Russia, and chief eldest child Ivanka Trump has wrested the cover of US Weekly for a profile focusing on her disagreements with her father. Amid all this, Trump’s approval rating is down to a miserable 38 percent.

This isn’t a reality show, and it’s not a pulp novel. This is the most powerful country the world has ever known being run by a man singularly unqualified to run it. Our president lacks legitimacy, our government is paralyzed, our problems are going unsolved. As we abdicate global leadership, both our allies and our enemies step into the void we leave unfilled. Meanwhile, at home, we are discussing whether the president obstructed justice within his first 100 days in office, and anxiously awaiting the Senate’s questioning of former FBI Director Comey.

America is not being made great. It is being made weak, and it is only getting worse.

Donald Trump’s presidency is an American crisis
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/6/7/15758816/donald-trump-comey-crisis

 

[Spike]

They are FINISHED!

Revolution!


(CA) Dem Lawmaker Walks Out of Town Hall Event After Crowd Starts Chanting “We Love Trump!”

 

[Spike]

While you were focused on COMEY, Trump nominated another group of CONSERVATIVE Judges


Trump nominates new slate of federal judges

President Trump announced a new round of 11 judicial nominations Wednesday, including three nominees for high-profile federal appeals courts.

One of the nominees, Colorado Supreme Court Justice Allison H. Eid, is being tapped by the president to fill a vacancy on the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals created when Justice Neil M. Gorsuch was confirmed for the Supreme Court in April.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/jun/7/donald-trump-nominates-new-slate-federal-judges/

-----------------------

Liberal nightmare: Trump could appoint half of the federal judiciary with CONSERVATIVE judges

 

[scraps]

Department of Education Taps Free-Speech Warrior to Oversee Colleges

DeVos signals fight for campus freedom, hires veteran of political-correctness battles

http://www.lifezette.com/polizette/...taps-free-speech-warrior-to-oversee-colleges/

 

[Tim Steelersfan]

Getting back to delzjc's posts, this sums up where I think we are currently with the Trump presidency. As you can imagine, it's not a pretty picture.

The article picks up from today's release of Comey's written statement.



Donald Trump’s presidency is an American crisis
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/6/7/15758816/donald-trump-comey-crisis

Mods,

can you move this and all of the other Trump-Russian-Comey articles/commentary/bluster in this thread that Tibs posts over into the Russian thread and keep Tibs rants and raves about Trump's misgivings in those threads? They don't belong here. Thanks.