TRUMP.

[freedomforall]

Pence: Trump will repeal Obama's health law by summer's end


"(President Donald Trump) believes in state-based solutions, not one-size-fits-all Washington answers," Pence said.

[Joel]

decent advice

[eddie]

All that is to say, Trump's impeachment isn't likely to happen as soon as some may have hoped for. Better order another round.

What gives those people that want Trump impeached, the right to call themselves Americans?
Even President Benson stated that for those that refuse to stand up for freedom should have no right to be called citizens of America. Further, he also stated that they would likely have their salvation in jeopardy.
These people wanting to impeach Trump have no respect or honor from true patriots of freedom and liberty, and their selfish actions will bite them on the butt some day.
Haven't they the brains to recognize that even if they get Trump removed, the next POTUS could be even worse? So where does it stop? Why trade what we've got for something potentially worse?
This is like taking a horse and buggy and doing away with the horse leaving the buggy without a way to go forward. Or like a young kid getting behind the wheel of a huge car and driving widely to who knows where, not being able to see over the dash?
Why wasn't Obama impeached? Why wasn't his actions brought to light and dealt with? Why was everyone to darned scared of him as to not say one darn thing about his evil acts, huh? We had eight years of degradation, more and more socialism enacted, unprecedented spending, unconstitutional acts and even treason by this man, but...let's get rid of Trump. Some people make me puke. :ymsick:

Pence? Are you saying that Pence is potentially worse than Trump? Then why did you vote for him? Even if there were no impeachment proceedings (hoping there will be so the murderer can get turned out of the people's house), Trump could slip and fall in the bathtub, and if the accident were fatal, then Pence is your guy. However, now you're saying that Pence might be worse than Trump? Why would you risk voting for him?

Where do you get your information Silvie? I doubt tha FFA voted for Trump, he just can't stand your gibberish. I would however vote for Pence and would be happy if he stood in for Trump. Fortunately you would never be in that position.

[Joel]

:))

[freedomforall]

RIGHT IN MIDDLE OF SPEECH TODAY, TRUMP POINTED AT A VET AND DID THE UNTHINKABLE

[Joel]

[Joel]

[Borris01]

"The Koch brothers are refusing to join the Trump bandwagon, blocking his access to influential tools in their political armory, Politico reported.
According to the report, the Kochs have denied the real estate mogul access to their state-of-the-art data and analytics services. He has also been excluded from their annual grassroots summit next month in Columbus, Ohio, run by Americans for Prosperity (AFP), as well as the annual summer soiree of mega-donors and operatives in Orange Country, California, which will be attended by a number of Trump's rivals.
"Continued stiff-arming by the powerful Koch network could limit Trump's ability to build a professional campaign operation to mobilize supporters ahead of primaries and caucuses," Politico said.
In recent weeks, AFP and Concerned Veterans for America, the Koch-backed groups, have hosted events with former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, Florida Sen. Marco Rubio, and Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul. The Columbus event will feature those candidates as well as Texas Sen. Ted Cruz, Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal, and former Texas Gov. Rick Perry.
Opinions about Trump are mixed among the Koch network of donors, Politico said. Some were offended by Trump's implication that Arizona Sen. John McCain is not a war hero.
It's unclear whether the Koch brothers will take a more formal stance against Trump, Politico said.
"The good news is that Donald Trump doesn't need the Koch brothers, and he can do this perfectly without their assistance," Josh Youssef, chairman of Trump's campaign in Belknap County, New Hampshire, told Politico. "Their motivations are clearly not to break the mold of political insider-ship. Their goal is to keep the wheel spinning. Trump's bad for business for them."
Trump has hired a number of AFP staff to his campaign, including campaign manager Corey Lewandowski who until January ran AFP's national voter-registration effort.
The distance between Trump and the Koch groups suggests an Rachat prêt ideological divide, with Trump eschewing traditional ideological lines and the influential interests behind them.
"I think that's what is sort of scaring a lot of people, especially on both Republican and Democratic sides, because they can't control Trump," Stephen Stepanek, a New Hampshire state legislator who is co-chairing Trump's state campaign, told Politico.
"People are really afraid to speak their mind, and it is actually with the way people react to things and the way that these various groups attack people if they say anything," he said. "We're having our First Amendment, freedom of speech, stepped on, walked all over by these various groups."

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/koch-b ... z3hIONvQvG" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Bonjour, merci pour l'information

[Joel]

[Joel]

http://pushtrumpoffacliffagain.com/

[Joel]

[larsenb]

This has been posted here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=9823&start=4710#p794650, but also belongs on the Trump thread, which has essentially been taken over by 1-2 snide, anti-Trump posters.

Outstanding speech by Roger Stone!! This really ramps up my enthusiasm for the Trump camp. It also dovetails with the article written by Donald Trump in support of western ranchers, including the Bundys, going up against the BLM, etc., which appeared in the Reno Gazette about a year ago.

I wasn't aware of any of the other 14 Republican candidates ever mentioning this controversy. Donald Trump was the only one.

[larsenb]

Still another plus for the Trump camp. This is an outstanding move, IMHO. First posted here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=9823&p=794657#p794657

TRUMP ENDS CIA PROGRAM ARMING ANTI-ASSAD ‘REBELS’ Obama-era program saw US weapons repeatedly reach jihadists
Mikael Thalen | Infowars.com - JULY 19, 2017

https://www.infowars.com/trump-ends-cia ... ad-rebels/

Extract here:

The covert CIA program training and arming Syrian rebels to fight the government of Bashar al-Assad has been ended by President Trump, U.S. officials tell the Washington Post.

The decision to phase out the Obama-era program was reportedly made by Trump during a White House meeting last month with CIA Director Mike Pompeo and national security adviser H.R. McMaster.

“Officials said the phasing out of the secret program reflects Trump’s interest in finding ways to work with Russia, which saw the anti-Assad program as an assault on its interests,” the Post states. “The shuttering of the program is also an acknowledgment of Washington’s limited leverage and desire to remove Assad from power.” . . . .

Trump’s decision was followed by the recent announcement of a cease-fire in southwest Syria with Russia. Trump also stated earlier this month the potential for a second cease-fire in the region.

“We are working on the second cease-fire in a very rough part of Syria,” Trump said. “If we get that and a few more, all of a sudden we are going to have no bullets being fired in Syria.”

The new policy appears to conflict with recent statements made by Secretary of State Rex Tillerson and US Ambassador to the United Nations Nikki Haley. In April Tillerson asserted that he saw “no role” for Assad in a future Syria while Haley that same month said the administration does not see the possibility of peace with the Syrian leader still in power.

While some officials speaking to the Post decried Trump’s decision, arguing it empowered Russia over the US in the region, the CIA program proved highly-controversial since its inception given countless reports revealing so-called “moderate rebels” jihadi ties.

In September 2015 a group of US-backed rebels known as Division 30 were found to have handed their weapons over to Syrian al-Qaeda affiliate Jahbat al-Nusra only one week after entering the country.

The Free Syrian Army, a group funded and armed by the Obama administration, admitted in 2014 to fighting alongside numerous terrorist organizations in Syria including the Islamic State.

“We are collaborating with the Islamic State and the Nusra Front by attacking the Syrian Army’s gatherings in… Qalamoun,” Bassel Idriss, commander of an FSA-run rebel brigade, said. “Let’s face it: The Nusra Front is the biggest power present right now in Qalamoun and we as FSA would collaborate on any mission they launch as long as it coincides with our values.”

Several factions of the FSA including Ahl Al Athar, Ibin al-Qa’im and Aisha were also reported to have pledge their allegiance to the terror group as well.

Agence France-Presse reported in 2014 that moderate rebel groups backed by the White House even went as far as to sign a non-aggression pact with the Islamic State in order to focus their efforts against the Assad government.

In May of 2015 a declassified government document obtained by conservative watchdog Judicial Watch also revealed the Obama administration moved forward with support for Salafist groups despite predicting it would lead to the rise of an entity like the Islamic State.

“[T]he Pentagon foresaw the likely rise of the ‘Islamic State’ as a direct consequence of this strategy, and warned that it could destabilize Iraq,” journalist Nafeez Ahmed wrote. “Despite anticipating that Western, Gulf state and Turkish support for the ‘Syrian opposition’ — which included al-Qaeda in Iraq — could lead to the emergence of an ‘Islamic State’ in Iraq and Syria (ISIS), the document provides no indication of any decision to reverse the policy of support to the Syrian rebels. On the contrary, the emergence of an al-Qaeda affiliated ‘Salafist Principality’ as a result is described as a strategic opportunity to isolate Assad.”

Michael T. Flynn, the former Defense Intelligence Agency director for the Obama administration – who resigned as national security adviser for the Trump administration this year – stated during an interview with Al Jazeera in 2015 that the Obama administration made a “willful decision” to support terrorist groups in the fight against Assad.

“I think it was a decision. I think it was a willful decision,” Flynn said.

[freedomforall]

Sean Hannity Exposes Obama - More Proof Of Illegal Acts During Barack Obama’s Administration

[Silver]

Still another plus for the Trump camp. This is an outstanding move, IMHO. First posted here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=9823&p=794657#p794657

[/quote]

Shallow analysis, again, from the Trump supporters who are so desperate to remove the bloody smear across the Murderer In Chief's face. He's getting rid of the CIA program because he's got boots on the ground, and not just in Syria. There's talk of going back to Libya now. Warmongers!

[larsenb]

Still another plus for the Trump camp. This is an outstanding move, IMHO. First posted here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=9823&p=794657#p794657

Shallow analysis, again, from the Trump supporters who are so desperate to remove the bloody smear across the Murderer In Chief's face. He's getting rid of the CIA program because he's got boots on the ground, and not just in Syria. There's talk of going back to Libya now. Warmongers!

One can always count on Silver making still another round in the same groove.

[eddie]

Still another plus for the Trump camp. This is an outstanding move, IMHO. First posted here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=9823&p=794657#p794657

Shallow analysis, again, from the Trump supporters who are so desperate to remove the bloody smear across the Murderer In Chief's face. He's getting rid of the CIA program because he's got boots on the ground, and not just in Syria. There's talk of going back to Libya now. Warmongers!

One can always count on Silver making still another round in the same groove.

Like a broken record..

[eddie]

Still another plus for the Trump camp. This is an outstanding move, IMHO. First posted here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=9823&p=794657#p794657

Shallow analysis, again, from the Trump supporters who are so desperate to remove the bloody smear across the Murderer In Chief's face. He's getting rid of the CIA program because he's got boots on the ground, and not just in Syria. There's talk of going back to Libya now. Warmongers!
[/quote]

Kick A$$ Trump!

[Silver]

Still another plus for the Trump camp. This is an outstanding move, IMHO. First posted here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=9823&p=794657#p794657

Shallow analysis, again, from the Trump supporters who are so desperate to remove the bloody smear across the Murderer In Chief's face. He's getting rid of the CIA program because he's got boots on the ground, and not just in Syria. There's talk of going back to Libya now. Warmongers!

One can always count on Silver making still another round in the same groove.

That's me, the guy who would just like the killing of brown people to stop. How silly of me.

[Elizabeth]

Only brown people? Mmmm

That's me, the guy who would just like the killing of brown people to stop. How silly of me.

[Elizabeth]

"President Donald Trump will reportedly end the CIA program authorized by former President Barack Obama in 2013 that armed Syrian rebel groups against forces allied with Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.

“It was never sufficient, and it was a bad substitute for American seriousness in getting Assad to do what Obama told him to do: step aside,” said Fred Hof, director of the Atlantic Council’s Rafik Hariri Center and former special adviser for transition in Syria.

The decision comes just three months after Trump ordered the U.S. Navy to launch dozens of cruise missiles from the USS Ross and the USS Porter at a Syrian airfield that Assad reportedly used to carry out a chemical attack that killed dozens of civilians in Syria." http://www.westernjournalism.com/trump- ... tyalliance
.

[Silver]

https://www.antiwar.com/blog/2017/07/20 ... ghanistan/

Rep. Walter Jones Appeals to President Trump To Get US Out of Afghanistan
Rep. Walter Jones Posted on July 20, 2017
President Donald J. Trump
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW

Washington, D.C. 20500

Dear Mr. President:

Many of us in the U.S. House of Representatives believe we have been denied our sacred duty to debate and declare war. You could say that I am disappointed by this. Disappointed because after 16 years in Afghanistan, Congress deserves another vote on this conflict. Disappointed because almost $1 trillion of taxpayers’ money has been spent with no direct goal or strategy. And most importantly, I am disappointed because we continue to lose American lives.

Sir, I am writing today because you seem to have had a change of heart on this issue:

1. In August of 2011, you agreed with Ron Paul and said the US was “wasting lives and money in Iraq and Afghanistan.”

2. In 2012, you referred to Afghanistan as a “complete waste,” and declared it was “time to come home.”

3. The next year, you said on Twitter, “Do not allow our very stupid leaders to sign a deal that keeps us in Afghanistan through 2024 – with all costs by U.S.A…”

4. You also tweeted that year, “Let’s get out of Afghanistan. Our troops are being killed by the Afghanis we train and we waste billions there. Nonsense! Rebuild the USA.”

Mr. President, I agree with those remarks, and so does the 31st Commandant of Marines Corps, my friend, and unofficial advisor, General Chuck Krulak. As he said in a recent email to me, “NO ONE has ever conquered Afghanistan…and many have tried. We will join the list of Nations that have tried and failed.”

Mr. President, that is why I am asking you to review this thinking before approving any troop level increases from General Mattis. I believe you would see great benefit and wisdom in asking Congress to debate and vote on troop level increases as well. You would then have the American people and their elected officials share a decision to send more of our sons and daughters into harm’s way. Once you come to a consensus, I suggest you publicly go before the American people and US military to explain the benchmarks you choose for Afghanistan. Previous administrations have not been able to clarify those endpoints, which is unfair to taxpayers and our troops. In the end, we all share this responsibility, and it is time that not only Congress but also the American people have a say. Sixteen years is enough!

Afghanistan is the graveyard of empires! We do not want a tombstone to read “United States of America.”

Respectfully,

Walter B. Jones
Member of Congress (R-NC)

[Silver]

"President Donald Trump will reportedly end the CIA program authorized by former President Barack Obama in 2013 that armed Syrian rebel groups against forces allied with Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.

“It was never sufficient, and it was a bad substitute for American seriousness in getting Assad to do what Obama told him to do: step aside,” said Fred Hof, director of the Atlantic Council’s Rafik Hariri Center and former special adviser for transition in Syria.

The decision comes just three months after Trump ordered the U.S. Navy to launch dozens of cruise missiles from the USS Ross and the USS Porter at a Syrian airfield that Assad reportedly used to carry out a chemical attack that killed dozens of civilians in Syria." http://www.westernjournalism.com/trump- ... tyalliance
.

Talking about ending a CIA-administered program is meaningless, Elizabeth, when there are boots on the ground now in Syria. Donald still gets his daily supply of blood-letting, only this time US troops are doing it instead of so-called Syrian rebels.

[Silver]

This is what our bombs are doing in the Middle East.

for trump supporters.jpg (151.86 KiB) Viewed 2124 times

William Astore on Silencing War Criticism
Posted on July 18, 2017

Grisly photos that show war as it is, in this case a dead Iraqi from Desert Storm, are not shown by the U.S. media

Jesse Ventura, former governor of Minnesota (1999-2003), was a hot media commodity as the Bush/Cheney administration was preparing for its invasion of Iraq in 2003. Ventura, a U.S. Navy veteran who gained notoriety as a professional wrestler before he entered politics, was both popular and outspoken. MSNBC won the bidding war for his services in 2003, signing him to a lucrative three-year contract to create his own show – until, that is, the network learned he was against the Iraq war. Ventura’s show quickly went away, even as the network paid him for three years to do nothing.

I heard this revealing story from a new podcast, the TARFU Report, hosted by Matt Taibbi and Alex Pareene. By his own account, Jesse Ventura was bought off by the network, which back then was owned by General Electric, a major defense contractor that was due to make billions of dollars off the war.

Of course, Ventura was hardly the only war critic to run afoul of GE/NBC. Phil Donahue, the famous talk show host, saw his highly rated show canceled when he gave dissenters and antiwar voices a fair hearing. Ashleigh Banfield, a reporter who covered the Iraq war, gave a speech in late April 2003 that criticized the antiseptic coverage of the war (extracts to follow below). For her perceptiveness and her honesty, she was reassigned and marginalized, demoted and silenced.

So much for freedom of speech, as well as the press.

[Joel]

Trump team seeks to control, block Mueller’s Russia investigation

Some of President Trump’s lawyers are exploring ways to limit or undercut special counsel Robert S. Mueller III’s Russia investigation, building a case against what they allege are his conflicts of interest and discussing the president’s authority to grant pardons, according to people familiar with the effort.

Trump has asked his advisers about his power to pardon aides, family members and even himself in connection with the probe, according to one of those people. A second person said Trump’s lawyers have been discussing the president’s pardoning powers among themselves.

Trump’s legal team declined to comment on the issue. But one adviser said the president has simply expressed a curiosity in understanding the reach of his pardoning authority, as well as the limits of Mueller’s investigation.

“This is not in the context of, ‘I can’t wait to pardon myself,’ ” a close adviser said.

With the Russia investigation continuing to widen, Trump’s lawyers are working to corral the probe and question the propriety of the special counsel’s work. They are actively compiling a list of Mueller’s alleged potential conflicts of interest, which they say could serve as a way to stymie his work, according to several of Trump’s legal advisers.

A conflict of interest is one of the possible grounds that can be cited by an attorney general to remove a special counsel from office under Justice Department regulations that set rules for the job.

The president is also irritated by the notion that Mueller’s probe could reach into his and his family’s finances, advisers said.

Trump has been fuming about the probe in recent weeks as he has been informed about the legal questions that he and his family could face. His primary frustration centers on why allegations that his campaign coordinated with Russia should spread into scrutinizing many years of Trump dealmaking. He has told aides he was especially disturbed after learning Mueller would be able to access several years of his tax returns.

Trump has repeatedly refused to make his tax returns public after first claiming he could not do so because he was under audit or after promising to release them after an IRS audit was completed. All presidents since Jimmy Carter have released their tax returns.

Further adding to the challenges facing Trump’s outside lawyers, the team’s spokesman, Mark Corallo, resigned on Thursday, according to two people familiar with his departure. Corallo did not respond to immediate requests for comment.

“If you’re looking at Russian collusion, the president’s tax returns would be outside that investigation,” said a close adviser to the president.

Jay Sekulow, one of the president’s private lawyers, said in an interview Thursday that the president and his legal team are intent on making sure Mueller stays within the boundaries of his assignment as special counsel. He said they will complain directly to Mueller if necessary.

“The fact is that the president is concerned about conflicts that exist within the special counsel’s office and any changes in the scope of the investigation,” Sekulow said. “The scope is going to have to stay within his mandate. If there’s drifting, we’re going to object.”

Sekulow cited Bloomberg News reports that Mueller is scrutinizing some of Trump’s business dealings, including with a Russian oligarch who purchased a Palm Beach mansion from Trump for $95 million in 2008.

“They’re talking about real estate transactions in Palm Beach several years ago,” Sekulow said. “In our view, this is far outside the scope of a legitimate investigation.”

The president has long called the FBI investigation into his campaign’s possible coordination with the Russians a “witch hunt.” But now, Trump is coming face-to-face with a powerful investigative team that is able to study evidence of any crime it encounters in the probe — including tax fraud, lying to federal agents and interference in the investigation.

“This is Ken Starr times 1,000,” said one lawyer involved in the case, referring to the independent counsel who oversaw an investigation that eventually led to House impeachment proceedings against President Bill Clinton. “Of course, it’s going to go into his finances.”

Following Trump’s decision to fire FBI Director James B. Comey — in part because of his displeasure with the FBI’s Russia investigation — Deputy Attorney General Rod J. Rosenstein appointed Mueller as special counsel in a written order. That order gave Mueller broad authority to investigate links between the Russian government and the Trump campaign, as well as “any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation” and any crimes committed in response to the investigation, such as perjury or obstruction of justice.

Mueller’s probe has already expanded to include an examination of whether Trump obstructed justice in his dealings with Comey, as well as the business activities of Jared Kushner, Trump’s son-in-law.

Trump’s team could potentially challenge whether a broad probe of Trump’s finances prior to his candidacy could be considered a matter that arose “directly” from an inquiry into possible collusion with a foreign government.

The president’s legal representatives have also identified what they allege are several conflicts of interest facing Mueller, such as donations to Democrats by some of his prosecutors.

Another potential conflict claim is an allegation that Mueller and Trump National Golf Club in Northern Virginia had a dispute over membership fees when Mueller resigned as a member in 2011, two White House advisers said. A spokesman for Mueller said there was no dispute when Mueller, who was FBI director at the time, left the club.

Trump also took public aim on Wednesday at Attorney General Jeff Sessions and Rosenstein, whose actions led to Mueller’s appointment. In an interview with the New York Times Wednesday, the president said he never would have nominated Sessions if he knew he was going to recuse himself from the case.

Some Republicans in frequent touch with the White House said they viewed the president’s decision to publicly air his disappointment with Sessions as a warning sign that the attorney general’s days were numbered. Several senior aides were described as “stunned” when Sessions announced Thursday morning he would stay on at the Justice Department.

Another Republican in touch with the administration described the public steps as part of a broader effort aimed at “laying the groundwork to fire” Mueller.

“Who attacks their entire Justice Department?” this person said. “It’s insane.”

Law enforcement officials described Sessions as increasingly distant from the White House and the FBI because of the strains of the Russia investigation.

Traditionally, Justice Department leaders have sought to maintain a certain degree of autonomy from the White House as a means of ensuring prosecutorial independence.

But Sessions’s situation is more unusual, law enforcement officials said, because he has angered the president for apparently being too independent while also angering many at the FBI for his role in the president’s firing of Comey.

As a result, there is far less communication among those three key parts of the government than in years past, several officials said.

Currently, the discussions of pardoning authority by Trump’s legal team are purely theoretical, according to two people familiar with the ongoing conversations. But if Trump pardoned himself in the face of the ongoing Mueller investigation, it would set off a legal and political firestorm, first around the question of whether a president can use the constitutional pardon power in that way.

“This is a fiercely debated but unresolved legal question,” said Brian C. Kalt, a constitutional law expert at Michigan State University who has written extensively on the question.

The power to pardon is granted to the president in Article II, Section 2, of the Constitution, which gives the commander in chief the power to “grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.” That means pardon authority extends to federal criminal prosecution but not to state level or impeachment inquiries.

No president has sought to pardon himself, so no courts have reviewed it. Although Kalt says the weight of the law argues against a president pardoning himself, he says the question is open and predicts such an action would move through the courts all the way to the Supreme Court.

“There is no predicting what would happen,” said Kalt, author of the book, “Constitutional Cliffhangers: A Legal Guide for Presidents and Their Enemies.” It includes chapters on the ongoing debate over whether presidents can be prosecuted while in office and on whether a president can issue a pardon to himself.

Other White House advisers have tried to temper Trump, urging him to simply cooperate with the probe and stay silent on his feelings about the investigation.

On Monday, lawyer Ty Cobb, newly brought into the White House to handle responses to the Russian probe, convened a meeting with the president and his team of lawyers, according to two people briefed on the meeting. Cobb, who is not yet on the White House payroll, was described as attempting to instill some discipline in how the White House handles queries about the case. But Trump surprised many of his aides by speaking at length about the probe to the New York Times two days later. Cobb, who officially joins the White House team at the end of the month, declined to comment for this article.

Some note that the Constitution does not explicitly prohibit a president from pardoning himself. On the other side, experts say that by definition a pardon is something you can only give to someone else. There is also a common-law canon that prohibits individuals from serving as a judge in their own case. “For example, we would not allow a judge to preside over his or her own trial,” Kalt said.

A president can pardon an individual at any point, including before the person is charged with a crime, and the scope of a presidential pardon can be very broad. President Gerald Ford pardoned former president Richard M. Nixon preemptively for offenses he “committed or may have committed” while in office.