RUSSIA/РОССИЯ THREAD—ASSANGE CHRGD W/ SPYING—DJT IMPEACHED TWICE-US TREASURY SANCTS KILIMNIK AS RUSSIAN AGNT
- Thread starter ☑︎#VoteDemocrat
- Start date
The Wash. Post just did an article on john Kelly blowing up at trump. In the article it states how kellys influence has diminished since he took over as white house chief of staff.. but there was one interesting part that made me go huh?
The recurring and escalating clashes between the president and his chief of staff trace the downward arc of Kelly’s eight months in the White House. Both his credibility and his influence have been severely diminished, administration officials said, a clear decline for the retired four-star Marine Corps general who arrived with a reputation for integrity and a mandate to bring order to a chaotic West Wing.
Kelly neither lurks around the Oval Office nor listens in on as many of the president’s calls, even with foreign leaders. He has not been fully consulted on several recent key personnel decisions. And he has lost the trust and support of some of the staff, as well as angered first lady Melania Trump, who officials said was upset over his sudden dismissal of Johnny McEntee, the president’s 27-year-old personal aide.
Trump fires White House assistant John McEntee, who promptly rejoins Trump’s campaign
How are we supposed to believe 'sources' like this? One random Twitter person citing another random Twitter person (citing a Turkish person, citing a Russian defense official, citing the PM of Russia...)
We aren't. Start at the top of the chain and think about how unlikely the Russians are telling the truth about anything in this situation.
Opinion | Is Trump lying about the hush money?
Is Trump lying about the hush money?
By Editorial Board
REGARDING THE tawdry story of President Trump’s involvement with Stephanie Clifford, a.k.a. Stormy Daniels, it’s important to distinguish the aspects that present legitimate matters of public interest from those that do not.
Dishonorable as it might have been, an extramarital affair 12 years ago between then-private citizen Donald Trump and Ms. Clifford belongs in the latter category. A $130,000 hush-money payment from Mr. Trump’s lawyer to Ms. Clifford in the waning days of the 2016 campaign, however, raises some pertinent issues. First, there’s the possibility, admittedly legally debatable, that the payment was intended to influence the election and thus constituted an undisclosed — i.e., prohibited — campaign donation. More significant, though, is the question of where, exactly, that $130,000 came from. The only thing worse than a president subject to blackmail from a former partner in an illicit affair would be a president secretly beholden to a person who paid a huge amount of money to save him from being blackmailed about that affair.
In that regard, Mr. Trump only exacerbated the problem by flatly claimingThursday that he did not know in advance about the hush-money agreement and that he did not know the source of the $130,000. After these statements, only two possibilities remain. First, Mr. Trump could be lying: He did, in fact, know about his lawyer Michael Cohen’s efforts to buy Ms. Clifford’s silence, and he did eventually reimburse Mr. Cohen for the $130,000 the lawyer says he facilitated out of his own funds, or knows who did. Second, Mr. Trump is telling the truth, and someone else, whose identity remains unknown, both to him and to everyone but Mr. Cohen, put up the cash, thus acquiring secret but substantial leverage over the president of the United States.
Neither of these alternatives remotely corresponds to the ethical standards we expect a chief executive to meet. Ironically, the first — that Mr. Trump is lying — at least has the advantage of being consistent with most of the known facts, which strongly imply that he did have a dalliance with Ms. Clifford and that he has been desperately trying to cover it up, just as many other powerful men before him have tried to cover up their affairs. Come to think of it, if Mr. Trump has nothing to hide, why is his lawyer fighting to keep the legal dispute with Ms. Clifford behind the closed doors of an arbitration proceeding rather than let it play out publicly in court?
The American people do not have a right to know all the details of what went on between Mr. Trump and Ms. Clifford in their personal lives many years ago. They do have a right to know, however, whether their president is lying to them now, or if he has received what amounts to a large financial subsidy from a secret personal benefactor. Unless and until Mr. Trump directs his lawyer to identify the source of the $130,000, both of these sorry scenarios will remain within the realm of plausibility.
Hilary depressed everyone herself. She laughed at everything we wanted. Trump said he'd give his supporters whatever they want. Who do you fukking think would win?