[Discussion] Hope to Remember The Trump Administration Thread as being 'transparent and honest'

Let's follow and discuss what our newest presidential administration gets up to, the good, the bad, the lawsuits, and the many many indictments.

Judge rules against Trump in fight over president’s financial records

Thread response:

Trump lawyers: “The main investigative committee of the United States House of Representatives have no right to pretend to be the DoJ and investigative things, they’re just supposed to write laws.”

Federal Judge: “f*ck outta my court with your bullsh*t.”

Trump lawyers: Surprised Pikachu.jpg

A lot of my friends on a vet forum are discussing the Gallagher pardon. A few guys pointed out that it was pretty common not to take SS prisoners in WW 2 (especially death camp guards) because the guys were pure evil and not worth mercy. I could see how that same philosophy could apply to ISIS fighters who are just as bad if not worse than the SS.

Now, depending on if it was just the ISIS prisoner, I might be willing to support an amnesty similar to Manning’s punishment. Gallagher does a few years, his crime remains on his record forever, but his sentence is eventually commuted. Of course, if found convicted of shooting innocent civilians I would support life if not the needle.

jdzappa wrote:

Of course, if found convicted of shooting innocent civilians I would support life if not the needle.

Please, not the needle. That video really changed my mind about lethal injection.

No. It isn't ok. There is no excuse for this kind of behavior and it should be prosecuted to the full extend of the law.

This is the same logic ISIS uses so woudl someone say these should be not be charged if caught and found to have killed enemies?

jdzappa wrote:

A lot of my friends on a vet forum are discussing the Gallagher pardon. A few guys pointed out that it was pretty common not to take SS prisoners in WW 2 (especially death camp guards) because the guys were pure evil and not worth mercy. I could see how that same philosophy could apply to ISIS fighters who are just as bad if not worse than the SS.

Now, depending on if it was just the ISIS prisoner, I might be willing to support an amnesty similar to Manning’s punishment. Gallagher does a few years, his crime remains on his record forever, but his sentence is eventually commuted. Of course, if found convicted of shooting innocent civilians I would support life if not the needle.

I mean, aside from the fact that it's a breakdown of all that training and stuff that's supposed to be there to keep soldiers from turning into monsters, isn't that just saying that you're cool with other militaries doing the same to our soldiers? I mean, why bother with the Geneva Convention if you're just extrajudicially murdering bad guys, right?

Tanglebones wrote:
jdzappa wrote:

A lot of my friends on a vet forum are discussing the Gallagher pardon. A few guys pointed out that it was pretty common not to take SS prisoners in WW 2 (especially death camp guards) because the guys were pure evil and not worth mercy. I could see how that same philosophy could apply to ISIS fighters who are just as bad if not worse than the SS.

Now, depending on if it was just the ISIS prisoner, I might be willing to support an amnesty similar to Manning’s punishment. Gallagher does a few years, his crime remains on his record forever, but his sentence is eventually commuted. Of course, if found convicted of shooting innocent civilians I would support life if not the needle.

I mean, aside from the fact that it's a breakdown of all that training and stuff that's supposed to be there to keep soldiers from turning into monsters, isn't that just saying that you're cool with other militaries doing the same to our soldiers? I mean, why bother with the Geneva Convention if you're just extrajudicially murdering bad guys, right?

If i read it correctly, we haven't actually ratified the part of the geneva convention, protocol 1, that prohibits attacks against civilians. We've already tacitly decided not to bother with the geneva convention.

Tanglebones wrote:
jdzappa wrote:

A lot of my friends on a vet forum are discussing the Gallagher pardon. A few guys pointed out that it was pretty common not to take SS prisoners in WW 2 (especially death camp guards) because the guys were pure evil and not worth mercy. I could see how that same philosophy could apply to ISIS fighters who are just as bad if not worse than the SS.

Now, depending on if it was just the ISIS prisoner, I might be willing to support an amnesty similar to Manning’s punishment. Gallagher does a few years, his crime remains on his record forever, but his sentence is eventually commuted. Of course, if found convicted of shooting innocent civilians I would support life if not the needle.

I mean, aside from the fact that it's a breakdown of all that training and stuff that's supposed to be there to keep soldiers from turning into monsters, isn't that just saying that you're cool with other militaries doing the same to our soldiers? I mean, why bother with the Geneva Convention if you're just extrajudicially murdering bad guys, right?

I thought I made it clear in my post - I am not advocating for zero punishment which is why I’m adamant that Trump’s full pardon is wrong. But if Manning can be shown mercy for essentially treason and espionage, I could see a similar policy for somebody who killed known ISIS fighters. Who don’t play by any rule of law and regularly murder all captives.

Also, I thought I clearly stated that just killing innocent civilians is always wrong.

Gallagher is reported to have shot teenage girls for fun, so I'm not really inclined to give him much of a break.

It's yet another play to his base: He's issuing a pardon to a vet (AMERICA!!!!!) that even his own squad says crossed the line. It's another "America First, f*ck You" move that only appeals to people who use terms like "towel head" and "sand ni****." There's no reason for this other than to make 99% of the world angry at the US.

It's repugnant. But of course it is.

https://www.foxnews.com/us/decorated...

Investigators allege while the teen was receiving medical treatment from SEAL medics, Gallagher walked up and stabbed him in his neck and side with a knife, killing the fighter. Then, they say, he posed for photographs with the fighter’s body, holding his head in one hand and his blade in the other – and sent one of the images to a fellow SEAL with the caption “I got him with my hunting knife.”

And when some of the SEALs in Gallagher’s platoon tried to report his alleged misdeeds, they were met with death threats – from Gallagher himself, prosecutors reportedly claimed.

He sounds like the kind of asshole Trump would pardon. Hard pass. I’d find better friends if this is the kind of bs they were trying to defend.

Gremlin wrote:

Gallagher is reported to have shot teenage girls for fun, so I'm not really inclined to give him much of a break.

I originally thought there were conflicting reports about whether that happened, but it looks like there is enough credible evidence. Which of course is a whole different story.

I also need to say my friends aren’t Neo Nazis running around talking about murdering sand n’s, and I certainly would never tolerate that sort of language. And they are all on board with a life sentence if Gallagher randomly killed civilians.

At this point I think I just need to say I don’t and never have supported Trump’s blanket pardon. Since that seems to be getting lost here I’m going to go ahead and say I will support whatever the military convicts him of.

jdzappa wrote:
Gremlin wrote:

Gallagher is reported to have shot teenage girls for fun, so I'm not really inclined to give him much of a break.

I originally thought there were conflicting reports about whether that happened, but it looks like there is enough credible evidence. Which of course is a whole different story.

I also need to say my friends aren’t Neo Nazis running around talking about murdering sand n’s, and I certainly would never tolerate that sort of language. And they are all on board with a life sentence if Gallagher randomly killed civilians.

At this point I think I just need to say I don’t and never have supported Trump’s blanket pardon. Since that seems to be getting lost here I’m going to go ahead and say I will support whatever the military convicts him of.

It was your support for 'if it was just the ISIS prisoner', him receiving an amnesty, that made me blanch.

Jayhawker wrote:

https://www.foxnews.com/us/decorated...

Investigators allege while the teen was receiving medical treatment from SEAL medics, Gallagher walked up and stabbed him in his neck and side with a knife, killing the fighter. Then, they say, he posed for photographs with the fighter’s body, holding his head in one hand and his blade in the other – and sent one of the images to a fellow SEAL with the caption “I got him with my hunting knife.”

And when some of the SEALs in Gallagher’s platoon tried to report his alleged misdeeds, they were met with death threats – from Gallagher himself, prosecutors reportedly claimed.

He sounds like the kind of asshole Trump would pardon. Hard pass. I’d find better friends if this is the kind of bs they were trying to defend.

Death threats to the other members of his unit seems like a good way to either get no back up or be a unfortunate blue on blue incident.

Tanglebones wrote:
jdzappa wrote:
Gremlin wrote:

Gallagher is reported to have shot teenage girls for fun, so I'm not really inclined to give him much of a break.

I originally thought there were conflicting reports about whether that happened, but it looks like there is enough credible evidence. Which of course is a whole different story.

I also need to say my friends aren’t Neo Nazis running around talking about murdering sand n’s, and I certainly would never tolerate that sort of language. And they are all on board with a life sentence if Gallagher randomly killed civilians.

At this point I think I just need to say I don’t and never have supported Trump’s blanket pardon. Since that seems to be getting lost here I’m going to go ahead and say I will support whatever the military convicts him of.

It was your support for 'if it was just the ISIS prisoner', him receiving an amnesty, that made me blanch.

Gotcha. I support long prison time no matter what, but I was trying to argue that given just how heinous ISIS is, I could see shades of grey in the heat of battle.

Then again, if your own men hate your guts for being a loose cannon, there most likely is no gray area whatsoever.

jdzappa wrote:

I thought I made it clear in my post - I am not advocating for zero punishment which is why I’m adamant that Trump’s full pardon is wrong. But if Manning can be shown mercy for essentially treason and espionage, I could see a similar policy for somebody who killed known ISIS fighters. Who don’t play by any rule of law and regularly murder all captives.

Also, I thought I clearly stated that just killing innocent civilians is always wrong.

This is why America isn't an exceptional nation. Or an exceptional people. We are the richest, arguably the most powerful country in the history of the planet. We have the luxury of treating our prisoners humanely AND civilians humanely.

DSGamer wrote:

This is why America isn't an exceptional nation. Or an exceptional people. We are the richest, arguably the most powerful country in the history of the planet. We have the luxury of treating our prisoners humanely AND civilians humanely.

And yet do neither.

Jonman wrote:
DSGamer wrote:

This is why America isn't an exceptional nation. Or an exceptional people. We are the richest, arguably the most powerful country in the history of the planet. We have the luxury of treating our prisoners humanely AND civilians humanely.

And yet do neither.

and explicitly refuse to commit to doing so.

What could possibly go wrong when you put someone in charge of an agency they know absolutely nothing about and then cut their budget about 20%.

I don’t want to get down in the weeds of doing my job. I’m just here for the paycheck.

Dear God that was hard to watch. Incredible...

And Biden gets the nickname sleepy Joe?

Oreos?

It's a given that Ben Carson is a cretin; why he is in government is anyone's guess. However, to his credit, he did already say he was unqualified to run any federal agency. Actually admitting his limitations places him no higher than the top 50 most cretinous members of the administration.

Carson is the worst but let’s face it he is still way more qualified to be President than Trump.

I don't know about that. I'd say they're equally unqualified.

Remember when they stood waiting in the wings together to go on stage for a presidential debate even though both their names were called? I wish we lived in a world where everyone just left them there and forgot about them. Or at least a world where people had common sense enough to not vote for someone who couldn't figure out when to go on stage for their presidential debate.

I figured someone was manipulating him. Fox and friends host is behind these pardons.

Confidential draft IRS memo says tax returns must be given to Congress unless president invokes executive privilege

WaPo wrote:

A confidential Internal Revenue Service legal memo says tax returns must be given to Congress unless the president takes the rare step of asserting executive privilege, according to a copy of the memo obtained by The Washington Post.

The memo contradicts the Trump administration’s justification for denying lawmakers’ request for President Trump’s tax returns, exposing fissures in the executive branch.

Trump has refused to turn over his tax returns but has not invoked executive privilege. Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin has instead denied the returns by arguing there is no legislative purpose for demanding them.

But according to the IRS memo, which has not been previously reported, the disclosure of tax returns to the committee “is mandatory, requiring the Secretary to disclose returns, and return information, requested by the tax-writing Chairs.”

The 10-page document says the law “does not allow the Secretary to exercise discretion in disclosing the information provided the statutory conditions are met” and directly rejects the reason Mnuchin has cited for withholding the information.

“[T]he Secretary’s obligation to disclose return and return information would not be affected by the failure of a tax writing committee . . . to state a reason for the request,” it says. It adds that the “only basis the agency’s refusal to comply with a committee’s subpoena would be the invocation of the doctrine of executive privilege.”

Not that we needed confirmation but man... Barr is so deep in the tank for Trump it's disgusting.

WASHINGTON (AP) — Attorney General William Barr is taking on another item from President Donald Trump’s agenda, railing against judges who issue rulings blocking nationwide policies.

In a speech Tuesday night, Barr took aim at the broad judicial power, arguing that federal judges who have issued the so-called nationwide injunctions are hampering Trump’s efforts on immigration, health care and other issues with “no clear end in sight.”

No you idiot... it's the rule of law, something that YOU are supposed to be upholding.

Archangel wrote:

It's a given that Ben Carson is a cretin; why he is in government is anyone's guess. However, to his credit, he did already say he was unqualified to run any federal agency. Actually admitting his limitations places him no higher than the top 50 most cretinous members of the administration.

He's in government because he's hit the wall on malpractice suits and can't really afford to continue being a surgeon.

JC wrote:

Not that we needed confirmation but man... Barr is so deep in the tank for Trump it's disgusting.

WASHINGTON (AP) — Attorney General William Barr is taking on another item from President Donald Trump’s agenda, railing against judges who issue rulings blocking nationwide policies.

In a speech Tuesday night, Barr took aim at the broad judicial power, arguing that federal judges who have issued the so-called nationwide injunctions are hampering Trump’s efforts on immigration, health care and other issues with “no clear end in sight.”

No you idiot... it's the rule of law, something that YOU are supposed to be upholding.

But they're impeding the President doing what he wants! At best, judges should only be able to exert authority over their district, so that federal laws are enforced in a patchwork manner! Or even better, they just shouldn't be able to overrule the President at all!