Unfit to Command

[Hawkeye10]

You say that as if there would be any evidence no matter how ironclad that you wouldn't actually just dismiss as bias. You people are like flat-earthers. We could take you up in space and put you in orbit, and you'd still claim you were watching a movie out the window of the space shuttle.

If you refuse to be swayed by incontrovertible evidence you're not going to leave us many options in terms of how to deal with you once this all blows up in your face.

We people who demand evidence when a charge is made, that is we people who believe in justice and demand to stay in reality rather that diving onto our fantasies are starting to get to be far too rare for sure, but it is not that bad yet.

 

[Casper]

I wonder how many Americans would support a military coup?

Congress don't have the balls to do their job and protect us from Comrade Trump.

Will the military step-up?

Of course not. We don't do that here.

We vote. And I have a feeling that the next election will have a record turn out that no electoral college can deny.

The next election is in November and the EC has nothing to say in midterm elections. One at a time, get the House back first, yhen in 2 years maybe the WH.

 

[azgreg]

The general speaks the truth. What's more due to Trump's behavior all Americans should insist on a security clearance background check on the Commander in Chief. President Trump should welcome it.

Maj. General Paul Eaton:



Gen. Eaton is correct. There is no shucking and jiving, no bull****, in what he said. It is fact.


Yeah, OK, previous presidents with non-military experience did not have to be vetted. Previous presidents did not say what Trump said today on camera after meeting in private with Putin after his staff, the American press and most of the free world advised him against doing so. Previous presidents did not have a disgusting history - beginning during the campaign - of appeasement of and fawning over Putin and Russia, let alone a history of publicly disparaging American intelligence agencies while favoring the leader of an adversary.

IF an American soldier, airman, sailor or Marine publicly and frequently displayed the same sentiments as Donald Trump he or she would not receive clearance or would lose clearance, or worse be discharged for the "good of the service". How then is Donald Trump fit to command?

The way today went I'm guessing there's also a poo tape.

 

[Captain America]

The next election is in November and the EC has nothing to say in midterm elections. One at a time, get the House back first, yhen in 2 years maybe the WH.

True dat Casper.

I was referring to the next Presidential election. I should have been more clear.

But you're right. First thing first. I expect a massive blue wave.

 

[yankintx]

The general speaks the truth. What's more due to Trump's behavior all Americans should insist on a security clearance background check on the Commander in Chief. President Trump should welcome it.

Maj. General Paul Eaton:



Gen. Eaton is correct. There is no shucking and jiving, no bull****, in what he said. It is fact.


Yeah, OK, previous presidents with non-military experience did not have to be vetted. Previous presidents did not say what Trump said today on camera after meeting in private with Putin after his staff, the American press and most of the free world advised him against doing so. Previous presidents did not have a disgusting history - beginning during the campaign - of appeasement of and fawning over Putin and Russia, let alone a history of publicly disparaging American intelligence agencies while favoring the leader of an adversary.

IF an American soldier, airman, sailor or Marine publicly and frequently displayed the same sentiments as Donald Trump he or she would not receive clearance or would lose clearance, or worse be discharged for the "good of the service". How then is Donald Trump fit to command?

A security background check along with a mental health exam should be required of all Presidents. Trump is either Russian tool, or seriously delusional.

 

[Parrish]

Now is the time for the translator to turn over their notes.

 

[Grand Mal]

I'm fairly sure that Douglas MacArthur felt the same way about Harry Truman.

The answer to your question is simply this; that the person who holds the office of President is Commander in Chief of the armed forces. Regardless of personal military knowledge or experience, this role is clear in the Constitution.

He will remain "fit to command" as long as he holds office. That's all that needs to be said. :coffeepap:

C'mon. You can't be serious. Are you saying that everyone who was ever relieved of command was fit for that command 5 minutes before he was relieved?

 

[Risky Thicket]

I mean the pee pee tape is not necessarily the kind of compromising information that Putin has. And it's possible that Trump was never threatened.

It's likely that Trump understands that he's done dirty deals with Russians and understands that Putin has the goods on him.

I would expect that a former KGB agent like Putin would ask all Russians for incriminating information "kompromat" on Trump. And it's very likely that money laundering is a possibility.

But it can be as simple as Trump wanting to build a Trump tower in Moscow. He tried to get it done while running for office. No other motive needed. Trump loves money more than he loves his country.

Gambling isn't my thing but if I had to put money of Putin's ownership of Donald Trump I'd bet on:

1. Money laundering

2. Conspiracy

3. Fraud

4. Kinky sex every time he visited Russia


I've read enough to write my own book on Trump's real estate history. Much of it involved American mafia, Russian mafia and thugs from the former Soviet states. Trump has a history of partnering with and employing convicted felons, a number of them have been major Russian hustlers. Trump has been connected to many partners and employees who were/are connected. Cohen is a prime example. Cohen is deeply connected.

Trump's real estate deals and hustling from New York to New Jersey to Toronto to South Florida to Azerbaijan to Panama, etc. are rife with con men and Russian hustlers and sons of Russian hustlers.

One reason it is taking a Mueller's team a while to sort through all the information is Trump's LLCs. He has somewhere just south of a thousand of them and they in turn connect to god knows how many fronts from Russian and criminal people from the nations of the former Soviet Union. It's like trying to untangle a box of coat hangers. Who sent what to whom and why? Was it legal, where did it originate? Can it be proven?

It appears that Trump being a ****ty businessman got himself in deep one or maybe two times too many or more. His only way out was Russian money. Putin and the oligarchs, who don't deal without Putin's knowledge and approval, played Trump, perhaps for years, before they set the hook. Once the hook was set Trump had no way out. And there we are.

 

[Chomsky]

The general speaks the truth. What's more due to Trump's behavior all Americans should insist on a security clearance background check on the Commander in Chief. President Trump should welcome it.

Maj. General Paul Eaton:



Gen. Eaton is correct. There is no shucking and jiving, no bull****, in what he said. It is fact.


Yeah, OK, previous presidents with non-military experience did not have to be vetted. Previous presidents did not say what Trump said today on camera after meeting in private with Putin after his staff, the American press and most of the free world advised him against doing so. Previous presidents did not have a disgusting history - beginning during the campaign - of appeasement of and fawning over Putin and Russia, let alone a history of publicly disparaging American intelligence agencies while favoring the leader of an adversary.

IF an American soldier, airman, sailor or Marine publicly and frequently displayed the same sentiments as Donald Trump he or she would not receive clearance or would lose clearance, or worse be discharged for the "good of the service". How then is Donald Trump fit to command?

An odd fact of life, is that Presidents need not have security clearance.

And to go one further, neither do his staff. The FBI issues a background security report on individuals, but they don't grant or deny clearance. The administration (read: Trump) decides upon whether they will provide clearance to their staff. And nothing can force them to deny any clearance they'd like to grant.

This is similar to the intel agencies providing data to the President, but it's his choice as to whether he decides to act on said data - or not.

And building upon all of his, the President can declassify and share state secrets about anyone or anything he so chooses. It's his prerogative.

 

[MrMike]

Ahem... jeez, no reason to think his view might be a tad politically partisan eh?

:lamo

"In 2008 Eaton served as an advisor to Senator Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign. Following Clinton's concession of the Democratic primary, Eaton has made several appearances in support of Senator Barack Obama's presidential campaign. "

 

[Chomsky]

Everyone talks about compromising information but the answer is far far simpler.

1. Profit. Russia is critical to Trump's businesses. Russian condo buyers and Russian banks for loans. Remember, he signed a letter of intent to build a Trump tower in Russia.

2. Money laundering. It's very likely that Trump engaged in money laundering for Russians. He understands that Putin and the Russians can destroy him with the information they have.

3. Trump fears - or knows - Mueller will come after him. In this event, if Trump legitimizes Mueller and his investigation, Trump legitimizes his own demise.

 

[Chomsky]

I'm fairly sure that Douglas MacArthur felt the same way about Harry Truman.

The answer to your question is simply this; that the person who holds the office of President is Commander in Chief of the armed forces. Regardless of personal military knowledge or experience, this role is clear in the Constitution.

He will remain "fit to command" as long as he holds office. That's all that needs to be said. :coffeepap:

Well, "in legal terms" is what you really meant to say - I believe.

But you are indeed right.

 

[Chomsky]

The problem is that security clearances derive FROM the President. While it is all delegated in practice, in theory the purpose of a security clearance is to inform the President what information an individual can have access to when there is a need to know. By default the information originally “belongs” to the President. It doesn’t make sense to argue over whether or not a President can grant access to himself.

Well said! Excellent!

It's amazing how many people don't know this. I said even more about it, in post #34 above.

 

[Chomsky]

bull**** ..............

It's true. It's up to Congress (or the 25th A) to remove him, otherwise.

 

[Chomsky]

Just because somebody's elected doesn't mean they're fit for office. At that juncture they have proved only one thing ; that they are able to get elected. but does that mean thwy're able to govern? History proves over and over and over again that it's not true

Yes, but in Constitutional terms the will of the voters is to be respected. It's up to Congress to impeach, or his cabinet to 25th A him.

 

[azgreg]

Gambling isn't my thing but if I had to put money of Putin's ownership of Donald Trump I'd bet on:

1. Money laundering

2. Conspiracy

3. Fraud

4. Kinky sex every time he visited Russia


I've read enough to write my own book on Trump's real estate history. Much of it involved American mafia, Russian mafia and thugs from the former Soviet states. Trump has a history of partnering with and employing convicted felons, a number of them have been major Russian hustlers. Trump has been connected to many partners and employees who were/are connected. Cohen is a prime example. Cohen is deeply connected.

Trump's real estate deals and hustling from New York to New Jersey to Toronto to South Florida to Azerbaijan to Panama, etc. are rife with con men and Russian hustlers and sons of Russian hustlers.

One reason it is taking a Mueller's team a while to sort through all the information is Trump's LLCs. He has somewhere just south of a thousand of them and they in turn connect to god knows how many fronts from Russian and criminal people from the nations of the former Soviet Union. It's like trying to untangle a box of coat hangers. Who sent what to whom and why? Was it legal, where did it originate? Can it be proven?

It appears that Trump being a ****ty businessman got himself in deep one or maybe two times too many or more. His only way out was Russian money. Putin and the oligarchs, who don't deal without Putin's knowledge and approval, played Trump, perhaps for years, before they set the hook. Once the hook was set Trump had no way out. And there we are.

As I've said before, everybody involved in New York real estate above the Century 21 level is crooked.

 

[TurtleDude]

An odd fact of life, is that Presidents need not have security clearance.

And to go one further, neither do his staff. The FBI issues a background security report on individuals, but they don't grant or deny clearance. The administration (read: Trump) decides upon whether they will provide clearance to their staff. And nothing can force them to deny any clearance they'd like to grant.

This is similar to the intel agencies providing data to the President, but it's his choice as to whether he decides to act on said data - or not.

And building upon all of his, the President can declassify and share state secrets about anyone or anything he so chooses. It's his prerogative.

this is true. and having had five background checks (initial one and then another every five years), I know about this process. BTW Obama's White house had more waivers than any up to then. As to Trump, I don't know-I haven't been with DOJ at any time Trump has been president

 

[Chomsky]

Just because somebody's elected doesn't mean they're fit for office. At that juncture they have proved only one thing ; that they are able to get elected. but does that mean thwy're able to govern? History proves over and over and over again that it's not true

Yes, but in our Republic the will of the voters is given great deference. The voters may want a criminal to lead them. They may think some candidate is the perfect criminal for the job.

This all gets pretty sticky fast, but the voters' will carries great weight - as it should!

 

[Chomsky]

Now is the time for the translator to turn over their notes.

Apparently he is going to be debriefed, I believe by DOJ - but don't quote me on the exact agency. Maybe it's State. I earlier in the day saw it scrolled across CNN in the caption.

 

[Chomsky]

this is true. and having had five background checks (initial one and then another every five years), I know about this process. BTW Obama's White house had more waivers than any up to then. As to Trump, I don't know-I haven't been with DOJ at any time Trump has been president

Of course, Turtle. I wouldn't lie to you!

 

[Risky Thicket]

Yes, but in Constitutional terms the will of the voters is to be respected. It's up to Congress to impeach, or his cabinet to 25th A him.

Indeed it is, but even after today I can't see Congress doing much of anything. Putin owns Trump. Trump owns the GOP. We simply don't know why. The only recourse left is to vote the GOP out in November and vote Trump out in 2020.

It would be a hell of a great thing if the GOP were to primary Trump prior to 2020 but even after today I don't see it happening.

 

[TurtleDude]

Of course, Turtle. I wouldn't lie to you!

That sounds like a Dave Stewart song!

 

[TurtleDude]

Indeed it is, but even after today I can't see Congress doing much of anything. Putin owns Trump. Trump owns the GOP. We simply don't know why. The only recourse left is to vote the GOP out in November and vote Trump out in 2020.

It would be a hell of a great thing if the GOP were to primary Trump prior to 2020 but even after today I don't see it happening.

what's going to happen to people like you if Trump wins in 2020?

 

[Chomsky]

Gambling isn't my thing but if I had to put money of Putin's ownership of Donald Trump I'd bet on:

1. Money laundering

2. Conspiracy

3. Fraud

4. Kinky sex every time he visited Russia


I've read enough to write my own book on Trump's real estate history. Much of it involved American mafia, Russian mafia and thugs from the former Soviet states. Trump has a history of partnering with and employing convicted felons, a number of them have been major Russian hustlers. Trump has been connected to many partners and employees who were/are connected. Cohen is a prime example. Cohen is deeply connected.

Trump's real estate deals and hustling from New York to New Jersey to Toronto to South Florida to Azerbaijan to Panama, etc. are rife with con men and Russian hustlers and sons of Russian hustlers.

One reason it is taking a Mueller's team a while to sort through all the information is Trump's LLCs. He has somewhere just south of a thousand of them and they in turn connect to god knows how many fronts from Russian and criminal people from the nations of the former Soviet Union. It's like trying to untangle a box of coat hangers. Who sent what to whom and why? Was it legal, where did it originate? Can it be proven?

It appears that Trump being a ****ty businessman got himself in deep one or maybe two times too many or more. His only way out was Russian money. Putin and the oligarchs, who don't deal without Putin's knowledge and approval, played Trump, perhaps for years, before they set the hook. Once the hook was set Trump had no way out. And there we are.

I do believe the above is very possible. And Trump's hanging-out with guys like Felix Slater, and doing loans through Bayrock & Deutshe Bank, leads credence to your claims.

I really wonder if any of this was discussed with Putin? If Trump did indeed use an American translator, he surely knew the translator could be summoned by Mueller. I also wonder if there will be a transcript or recording? Ordinarily there is a transcript, but Trump may have nixed it.

Here's one last item: What if you're the translator, and you hear something untoward? Now that's a helluva' position to be in!

 

[Risky Thicket]

Apparently he is going to be debriefed, I believe by DOJ - but don't quote me on the exact agency. Maybe it's State. I earlier in the day saw it scrolled across CNN in the caption.

See? Here again if that happens, due to Trump's refusal to permit other Americans in the meeting, another precedent will have been established. Translators have something close to a sacred vow they take. It is to them a vow of honor. (I've known a couple.) Once that honor is breached it will be damned difficult for government officials to completely trust translators to remain silent and uninvolved after their assignment is completed. People will have reason to be wary.

Loss of assured confidentiality is another of the unintended consequences that result in Trump's continued insistence to ignore protocol and established procedures. So much is disrupted because of Trump's ignorance or arrogance or both. It can't all be reassembled, good as new, the minute he walks away. A price will be paid.