***Official Political Discussion Thread***

https://www.thedailybeast.com/speed...-woodwards-new-book-inside-trumps-white-house

Trump Mocked Sessions’ Accent, Called Him ‘Mentally ******ed’
After learning Robert Mueller had been appointed special counsel last year, Trump went after his attorney general, calling him a “traitor” for recusing himself in the ongoing Russia probe.

Trump reportedly complained that “everyone was out to get” him, and while mocking Sessions’ accent, reportedly said to a staffer, “This guy is mentally ******ed. He’s this dumb Southerner… He couldn’t even be a one-person country lawyer down in Alabama,” according to the excerpt obtained by The Washington Post.
Click to expand...

White House Lawyer Wanted to Prevent ‘Idiot’ Trump from Testifying to Mueller
According to Woodward, Trump’s former personal lawyer, John Dowd, explained to Mueller why he wanted to prevent the president from testifying to the special counsel and his team:

“I’m not going to sit there and let him look like an idiot. And you publish that transcript, because everything leaks in Washington, and the guys overseas are going to say, ‘I told you he was an idiot. I told you he was a goddamn dumbbell. What are we dealing with this idiot for?’ ”

“John, I understand,” Mueller replied to Dowd, according to the book.
Click to expand...

Trump Called Obama a ‘Weak ****’ for Not Acting in Syria
On a related note, according to the excerpts obtained by CNN, Trump told Sen. Lindsey Graham—a golfing buddy of his—that President Barack Obama was a “weak ****” for not taking more decisive action in Syria.
Click to expand...

large.jpg
 
What could possibly go wrong?
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/08/world/americas/donald-trump-venezuela-military-coup.html?action=click&module=Top Stories&pgtype=Homepage
Trump Administration Discussed Coup Plans With Rebel Venezuelan Officers
The Trump administration held secret meetings with rebellious military officers from Venezuela over the last year to discuss their plans to overthrow President Nicolás Maduro, according to American officials and a former Venezuelan military commander who participated in the talks.

Establishing a clandestine channel with coup plotters in Venezuela was a big gamble for Washington, given its long history of covert intervention across Latin America. Many in the region still deeply resent the United States for backing previous rebellions, coups and plots in countries like Cuba, Nicaragua, Brazil and Chile, and for turning a blind eye to the abuses military regimes committed during the Cold War.

The White House, which declined to answer detailed questions about the talks, said in a statement that it was important to engage in “dialogue with all Venezuelans who demonstrate a desire for democracy” in order to “bring positive change to a country that has suffered so much under Maduro.”
But one of the Venezuelan military commanders involved in the secret talks was hardly an ideal figure to help restore democracy: He is on the American government’s own sanctions list of corrupt officials in Venezuela.

He and other members of the Venezuelan security apparatus have been accused by Washington of a wide range of serious crimes, including torturing critics, jailing hundreds of political prisoners, wounding thousands of civilians, trafficking drugs and collaborating with the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia, or FARC, which is considered a terrorist organization by the United States.

American officials eventually decided not to help the plotters, and the coup plans stalled. But the Trump administration’s willingness to meet several times with mutinous officers intent on toppling a president in the hemisphere could backfire politically.

Most Latin American leaders agree that Venezuela’s president, Mr. Maduro, is an increasingly authoritarian ruler who has effectively ruined his country’s economy, leading to extreme shortages of food and medicine. The collapse has set off an exodus of desperate Venezuelans who are spilling over borders, overwhelming their neighbors.

Even so, Mr. Maduro has long justified his grip on Venezuela by claiming that Washington imperialists are actively trying to depose him, and the secret talks could provide him with ammunition to chip away at the region’s nearly united stance against him.

“This is going to land like a bomb” in the region, said Mari Carmen Aponte, who served as the top diplomat overseeing Latin American affairs in the final months of the Obama administration.

Beyond the coup plot, Mr. Maduro’s government has already fended off several small-scale attacks, including salvos from a helicopter last year and exploding drones as he gave a speech in August. The attacks have added to the sense that the president is vulnerable.

Venezuelan military officials sought direct access to the American government during Barack Obama’s presidency, only to be rebuffed, officials said.

Then in August of last year, President Trump declared that the United States had a “military option” for Venezuela — a declaration that drew condemnation from American allies in the region but encouraged rebellious Venezuelan military officers to reach out to Washington once again.

“It was the commander in chief saying this now,” the former Venezuelan commander on the sanctions list said in an interview, speaking on condition of anonymity out of fear of reprisals by the Venezuelan government. “I’m not going to doubt it when this was the messenger.”

In a series of covert meetings abroad, which began last fall and continued this year, the military officers told the American government that they represented a few hundred members of the armed forces who had soured on Mr. Maduro’s authoritarianism.

The officers asked the United States to supply them with encrypted radios, citing the need to communicate securely, as they developed a plan to install a transitional government to run the country until elections could be held.

American officials did not provide material support, and the plans unraveled after a recent crackdown that led to the arrest of dozens of the plotters.

Relations between the United States and Venezuela have been strained for years. The two have not exchanged ambassadors since 2010. After Mr. Trump took office, his administration increased sanctions against top Venezuelan officials, including Mr. Maduro himself, his vice president and other top officials in the government.

The account of the clandestine meetings and the policy debates preceding them is drawn from interviews with 11 current and former American officials, as well as the former Venezuelan commander. He said at least three distinct groups within the Venezuelan military had been plotting against the Maduro government.

One established contact with the American government by approaching the United States Embassy in a European capital. When this was reported back to Washington, officials at the White House were intrigued but apprehensive. They worried that the meeting request could be a ploy to surreptitiously record an American official appearing to conspire against the Venezuelan government, officials said.

But as the humanitarian crisis in Venezuela worsened last year, American officials felt that having a clearer picture of the plans and the men who aspired to oust Mr. Maduro was worth the risk.

“After a lot of discussion, we agreed we should listen to what they had to say,” said a senior administration official who was not authorized to speak about the secret talks.

The administration initially considered dispatching Juan Cruz, a veteran Central Intelligence Agency official who recently stepped down as the White House’s top Latin America policymaker. But White House lawyers said it would be more prudent to send a career diplomat instead.

The American envoy was instructed to attend the meetings “purely on listening mode,” and was not authorized to negotiate anything of substance on the spot, according to the senior administration official.

After the first meeting, which took place in the fall of 2017, the diplomat reported that the Venezuelans didn’t appear to have a detailed plan and had showed up at the encounter hoping the Americans would offer guidance or ideas, officials said.

The former Venezuelan commander said that the rebellious officers never asked for an American military intervention. “I never agreed, nor did they propose, to do a joint operation,” he said.

He claimed that he and his comrades considered striking last summer, when the government suspended the powers of the legislature and installed a new national assembly loyal to Mr. Maduro. But he said they aborted the plan, fearing it would lead to bloodshed.

They later planned to take power in March, the former officer said, but that plan leaked. Finally, the dissidents looked to the May 20 election, during which Mr. Maduro was re-elected, as a new target date. But again, word got out and the plotters held their fire.

It is unclear how many of these details the coup planners shared with the Americans. But there is no indication that Mr. Maduro knew the mutinous officers were talking to the Americans at all.

For any of the plots to have worked, the former commander said, he and his comrades believed they needed to detain Mr. Maduro and other top government figures simultaneously. To do that, he added, the rebel officers needed a way to communicate securely. They made their request during their second meeting with the American diplomat, which took place last year.

The American diplomat relayed the request to Washington, where senior officials turned it down, American officials said.

“We were frustrated,” said the former Venezuelan commander. “There was a lack of follow-through. They left me waiting.”

The American diplomat then met the coup plotters a third time early this year, but the discussions did not result in a promise of material aid or even a clear signal that Washington endorsed the rebels’ plans, according to the Venezuelan commander and several American officials.

Still, the Venezuelan plotters could view the meetings as tacit approval of their plans, argued Peter Kornbluh, a historian at the National Security Archive at George Washington University.

“The United States always has an interest in gathering intelligence on potential changes of leadership in governments,” Mr. Kornbluh said. “But the mere presence of a U.S. official at such a meeting would likely be perceived as encouragement.”

In its statement, the White House called the situation in Venezuela “a threat to regional security and democracy” and said that the Trump administration would continue to strengthen a coalition of “like-minded, and right-minded, partners from Europe to Asia to the Americas to pressure the Maduro regime to restore democracy in Venezuela.”

American officials have openly discussed the possibility that Venezuela’s military could take action.

On Feb. 1, Rex W. Tillerson, who was secretary of state at the time, delivered a speech in which he said the United States had not “advocated for regime change or removal of President Maduro.” Yet, responding to a question afterward, Mr. Tillerson raised the potential for a military coup.

“When things are so bad that the military leadership realizes that it just can’t serve the citizens anymore, they will manage a peaceful transition,” he said.

Days later, Senator Marco Rubio of Florida, who has sought to shape the Trump administration’s approach toward Latin America, wrote a series of Twitter posts that encouraged dissident members of the Venezuelan armed forces to topple their commander in chief.

“Soldiers eat out of garbage cans & their families go hungry in Venezuela while Maduro & friends live like kings & block humanitarian aid,” Mr. Rubio wrote. He then added: “The world would support the Armed Forces in #Venezuela if they decide to protect the people & restore democracy by removing a dictator.”

In a speech in April, when he was still White House policy chief for Latin America, Mr. Cruz issued a message to the Venezuelan military. Referring to Mr. Maduro as a “madman,” Mr. Cruz said all Venezuelans should “urge the military to respect the oath they took to perform their functions. Honor your oath.”

As the crisis in Venezuela worsened in recent years, American officials debated the pros and cons of opening lines of dialogue with rebellious factions of the military.

“There were differences of opinion,” said Ms. Aponte, the former top Latin America diplomat under Mr. Obama. “There were people who had a lot of faith in the idea that they could bring about stability, help distribute food, work on practical stuff.”

But others — including Ms. Aponte — saw considerable risk in building bridges with leaders of a military that, in Washington’s assessment, has become a pillar of the cocaine trade and human rights abuses.

Roberta Jacobson, a former ambassador to Mexico who preceded Ms. Aponte as the top State Department official for Latin America policy, said that while Washington has long regarded the Venezuelan military as “widely corrupt, deeply involved in narcotics trafficking and very unsavory,” she saw merit in establishing a back channel with some of them.

“Given the broader breakdown in institutions in Venezuela, there was a feeling that — while they were not necessarily the answer — any kind of democratic resolution would have had to have the military on board,” said Ms. Jacobson, who retired from the State Department this year. “The idea of hearing from actors in those places, no matter how unsavory they may be, is integral to diplomacy.”

But whatever the rationale, holding discussions with coup plotters could set off alarms in a region with a list of infamous interventions: the Central Intelligence Agency’s failed Bay of Pigs invasion to overthrow Fidel Castro as leader of Cuba in 1961; the American-supported coup in Chile in 1973, which led to the long military dictatorship of Augusto Pinochet; and the Reagan administration’s covert support of right-wing rebels known as the contras in Nicaragua in the 1980s.

In Venezuela, a coup in 2002 briefly deposed Mr. Maduro’s predecessor, Hugo Chávez. The United States knew a plot was being hatched but warned against it, according to a classified document that was later made public. The coup took place anyway and the George W. Bush administration opened a channel to the new leader. Officials then backed away from the new government after popular anger rose against the coup and countries in the region loudly denounced it. Mr. Chávez was reinstated as president.

In the latest coup plot, the number of military figures connected to the plan dwindled from a high of about 300 to 400 last year to about half that after a crackdown this year by Mr. Maduro’s government.

The former Venezuelan military officer worries that the 150 or so comrades who have been detained are probably being tortured. He lamented that the United States did not supply the mutineers with radios, which he believes could have changed the country’s history.

“I’m disappointed,” he said. “But I’m the least affected. I’m not a prisoner.”
Click to expand...


Relevant earlier article I recalled from July 4 2018:
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...-trump-pressed-aides-about-venezuela-invasion
Trump Pressed Aides on Venezuela Invasion, U.S. Official Says
 
to borrow from Bill Maher, this is the week that:

1) Woodward confirms that many people in Trump's orbit despise him and think he's unfit for the office.

2) A senior official confirms in the NYT op-ed that Trump is a lunatic who can't be trusted.

3) Two people standing right behind Trump at his rally (his "safe space") are bored and, during the actual speech, are seen saying "what?" to much of what he says. More importantly, it confirms that the rallies are staged.

4) Nearly everyone who has worked on Trump's campaign has flipped and is ready to throw him under the bus to get a reduced jail sentence.

This confirms Donald has no true friend in life. What does it profit a man....
 
plansb said:
I bet the trump ppl would .love the made in usa nb line, and then see the price tag. :lol: then its back to the offshore made nb monarchs :lol:
Click to expand...

I used to rock MiUSA/MiUK NB a lot. Then 2016 and the PR fiasco happened, and they had to go. While I miss rocking 1500s, I can't go back to NB in this climate.
 
gry60 said:
I used to rock MiUSA/MiUK NB a lot. Then 2016 and the PR fiasco happened, and they had to go. While I miss rocking 1500s, I can't go back to NB in this climate.
Click to expand...
Never was a big nb guy, i didnt even know about that **** in 2016. Now the trump nb memes make sense :lol
 
itsaboutthattime said:
Under armour struggling with this one too

Click to expand...

I understand why but the sheer pettiness of these kind of reactions still amaze me. Bunch of snowflakes of the highest order.
Also reminds me of another article I read on The Hill yesterday.
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-brief...es-surge-after-kaepernick-ads-revealed-report
Nike's online sales surge after Kaepernick ads revealed: report
Nike’s online sales appear to have surged in the week since it announced Colin Kaepernick as the face of its latest ad campaign.

According to data released from Edison Trends, a digital commerce research company based in Silicon Valley, online sales for the sportswear brand grew 31 percent from last Sunday through Tuesday.

They noted that the growth is also a 17 percent gain over the number recorded for the same period in 2017, the new report found.

“There was speculation that the Nike/Kaepernick campaign would lead to a drop in sales, but our data over the last week does not support that theory,” the company said in a statement obtained by Fortune magazine.
The signing of Kaepernick, who was the first NFL player to protest racial inequality and police brutality by taking a knee during the national anthem before games, generated backlash from critics of the protest movement.
President Trump, a frequent critic of the anthem protests, also spoke out against the ad campaign.

"Just like the NFL, whose ratings have gone WAY DOWN, Nike is getting absolutely killed with anger and boycotts," the president tweeted Wednesday.

A small private college in Missouri said earlier this week it will end its use of uniforms displaying the Nike logo due to the athletic brand's decision. And a store in Colorado has said it will be removing all Nike merchandise following the move.

The brand’s stock initially fell more than 3 percent following the announcement of their endorsement deal with Kaepernick, who was the first NFL player to protest racial inequality and police brutality by taking a knee during the national anthem before games.

The stock has since risen but has not fully recovered in the past few days.

In the new Nike ad, Kaepernick says, “Believe in something, even if it means sacrificing everything.” He remains a free agent quarterback, unable to get a job in the NFL since the end of 2016 after becoming the face of the protest movement.

Edison Trends said it analyzed purchases from 3 million Americans’ email receipts to amass the data in addition to reviewing the purchases of any Nike products from over 200 U.S. retail outlets over the three-day stretch.

Apex Marketing Group said that the controversy has led to the company receiving $43 million worth of media exposure.
Click to expand...



Unrelated side note but I'm not quite sure what exactly The Hill does. It's easily one of my most frequented media outlets but that's pretty much only because they rehost damn near everything from other outlets. No other media outlet does this, at least not anywhere remotely close to the extent of The Hill's rehosting. Maybe an exaggeration but it feels like the majority of their content is simple rehosting and reporting on small matters that would probably be a footnote in an article on a different media outlet.
 
Note that Bloomberg is using a single source so perhaps take this with a bigger grain of salt than the usual. Not seeing anything about this yet in the WSJ, which has been getting scoop after scoop on the SDNY investigation.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...ce-campaign-finance-probe-by-u-s?srnd=premium
Trump Executives Face U.S. Campaign-Finance Probe, Source Says
Federal prosecutors in Manhattan are investigating whether anyone in the Trump Organization violated campaign-finance laws, in a follow-up to their conviction last month of Michael Cohen, according to a person familiar with the matter.

The inquiry, not previously reported, shows that the Manhattan U.S. attorney’s office doesn’t intend to stand down following the guilty plea from Trump’s longtime personal lawyer. Manhattan prosecutors are working on a parallel track to U.S. Special Counsel Robert Mueller, who is tasked with examining Russian interference in the presidential election and who is referring other matters as they arise to appropriate sections of the Justice Department.
Representatives of the prosecutors in New York declined to comment, while officials for the Trump Organization didn’t immediately respond to several requests for comment.

Among other crimes, Cohen admitted to violating campaign finance laws. He acknowledged that he paid off a woman who claimed to have had an affair with the president, saying he did it at the direction of the candidate himself and that Trump’s company then repaid him. Notably, the president said the next day that Cohen’s acts weren’t a crime. Whether others in Trump’s orbit were complicit -- steering money to benefit his campaign without making proper disclosures or by exceeding federal limits -- is not yet clear. No one else has been charged.

The Trump Organization is a stable of private companies heavily invested in real estate that’s been run by the president’s sons, Donald Trump Jr. and Eric Trump, since he took office.

Central to the inquiry will be longtime Chief Financial Officer Allen Weisselberg, who has already provided narrow cooperation with authorities over Cohen’s activities and hush agreements, according to the person. It’s not clear whether Weisselberg is a focus of the continuing inquiry.

Weisselberg didn’t respond to emails and phones calls seeking comment.

Last month, prosecutors said in indicting Cohen that two Trump company executives -- one of whom is believed to be Weisselberg -- approved the improper payments to Cohen in violation of campaign-finance laws. Investigators are looking at those people and others who may have been aware of the activities, according to the person.

Weisselberg cooperated with the Cohen probe, with limited immunity. Known for his loyalty to Trump after decades of working together, Weisselberg would almost certainly be reluctant to go further, though it’s unclear if he has been pressed to do so.

In an interview last week with Bloomberg, Trump said Weisselberg’s cooperation related to “a very limited period of time” and called him a “wonderful guy” who didn’t create legal jeopardy for the president.

Weisselberg has already been interviewed by the New York Attorney General’s office as part of the state’s investigation of alleged improprieties at Trump’s charitable foundation. The attorney general filed a civil suit against Trump and three of his children in June claiming that they treated the charity like a “piggy bank” and that at least $2.8 million in charitable funds was directed to the 2016 campaign. The Foundation has denied the allegations and said the suit was politically motivated.

For Trump and his legal team, led by Rudy Giuliani, the Mueller investigation has drawn the most attention and angry tweets. But the parallel inquiry in Manhattan poses its own distinct threat to the president.

The Cohen plea filing said the reimbursements he received were classified as “legal expenses” and not as payments related to the campaign. By law, services to the campaign must be reported and are governed by spending limits.

Cohen faces five years in prison for five counts of tax evasion, one count of bank fraud and two counts of campaign finance violations involving payments to former Playboy model Karen McDougal and Stephanie Clifford, an adult film actress better known as Stormy Daniels. The president has denied having affairs with the women.

In January 2017, Cohen sought reimbursement for $130,000 that he had paid Clifford. He submitted an invoice from his consulting firm to Trump’s company for that amount and $50,000 for “tech services” related to the campaign.

The $50,000 payment for campaign-related services appears to violate campaign finance rules, though Cohen’s guilty plea was limited to the two women’s payments. Prosecutors and FBI agents need to determine if the Trump real estate companies or his trust made campaign-related payments without disclosing them properly to election officials.

In announcing Cohen’s guilty plea last month outside of federal court in Manhattan, Deputy U.S. Attorney Robert Khuzami said ‘‘we will not fear prosecuting additional campaign finance cases.”
Click to expand...
 
Belgium said:
I understand why but the sheer pettiness of these kind of reactions still amaze me. Bunch of snowflakes of the highest order.
Also reminds me of another article I read on The Hill yesterday.
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-brief...es-surge-after-kaepernick-ads-revealed-report
Nike's online sales surge after Kaepernick ads revealed: report
Nike’s online sales appear to have surged in the week since it announced Colin Kaepernick as the face of its latest ad campaign.

According to data released from Edison Trends, a digital commerce research company based in Silicon Valley, online sales for the sportswear brand grew 31 percent from last Sunday through Tuesday.

They noted that the growth is also a 17 percent gain over the number recorded for the same period in 2017, the new report found.

“There was speculation that the Nike/Kaepernick campaign would lead to a drop in sales, but our data over the last week does not support that theory,” the company said in a statement obtained by Fortune magazine.
The signing of Kaepernick, who was the first NFL player to protest racial inequality and police brutality by taking a knee during the national anthem before games, generated backlash from critics of the protest movement.




Unrelated side note but I'm not quite sure what exactly The Hill does. It's easily one of my most frequented media outlets but that's pretty much only because they rehost damn near everything from other outlets. No other media outlet does this, at least not anywhere remotely close to the extent of The Hill's rehosting. Maybe an exaggeration but it feels like the majority of their content is simple rehosting and reporting on small matters that would probably be a footnote in an article on a different media outlet.
Click to expand...

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

KingdomFlatbush
Am I wrong for still being annoyed about this?
2
Replies
45
Views
2K
Comparison Ford
Comparison Ford
tupac003
***Official Los Angeles Dodgers 2024 Thread*** Thank you Fat Joe: Los Angeles Dodgers World Series Champions!!!!
340 341 342
Replies
9K
Views
552K
Benny Hinn
Benny Hinn
aNYone
OFFICIAL NFL THREAD 2024-25: Week XI
550 551 552
Replies
14K
Views
360K
finessence
finessence

Latest News

View All News

Thread Gallery

View Full Gallery

The ultimate sneaker enthusiast community.

Site contents may not be incorporated into AI training data or any other derivative works without prior express written consent.

Links to participating merchants may generate referral or affiliate commissions that help support our community. See our policies for details. NikeTalk is NOT affiliated with Nike Inc. in any way, shape, or form. All opinions expressed herein do not necessarily reflect those of Nike, Inc.

© 1999-2024 NikeTalk.com

Share this page

| Xenforo Add-ons © by ©XenTR | Media embeds via s9e/MediaSites
Back
Top Bottom