Donald J Trump - Predsjednik USA All About

[NajdraziVodjaa]

Nije 4 nego 3,5 ipak je to velika razlika mora se u detalj tacno reci cak i 3,5 nije u potpunosti precizno, jebiga treba shvatiti hejtere Trumpa nima svaki dan puno znaci i ove tri i po godine ce njima veoma sporo da prolaze.

[daddy-kool]

In other news...WaPo veceras javlja da se Trump raspituje medju advokatima koga moze pomilovati, ljude iz administracije, familiju, pa cak i sebe.

Dze Nixon da mu javi kako to ide?

Potez definitivno liči na nešto što bi Trump uradio.

[GandalfSivi]

RIP The Spiceman, you'll be missed...

[daddy-kool]

bwahahaha

[jeza u ledja]

Odlazi Spicey, dolazi Mooch.

[Jack Be Nimble]

Spicey

Iako je vec bilo poznato da je dobio nogu, ali nisam htjeo da povjerujem u to. Trump supak sve sjebe sto valja

[Fudo387]

Investigating investigators.
Najnovija genijalna ideja morona okupljenih oko najveceg idiota medju njima. Ko su, ciji su, sto bas oni, cime su zasluzili...?
Diskredituj svakog zivog abnormalnim nebulozama, medije, sigurnosne agencije, senatore, sudije...i pici dalje.
Onom jadniku od glasnogovornika dosadilo da pravi budalu od sebe, dao otkaz. Nakon svake nove epizode SNL njemu skoci secer, opadne pola kose, skoci cir na zeludcu. Kaze, mislio sam da cu izdrzati bar godinu dana, al' nemerem ljudi, vidim odoh u helac.
Cirkus se nastavlja.

[jeza u ledja]

al ovo sa napadima na muellera a i sessionsa, pravo podsjeca na watergate. sve, od mazijanja informacija od dnc tokok kampanje, pa do special investigator, pa i ovo raspitivanje o pardoniranju samog sebe, pa polako proca o impeachment.
reko bi covjek, za ljubitelja historije kakav je trump fa bi znao sudbinu svojih prethodnika
negdje danas cuh, kao konflikt interesa mullerovih istrazitelja sto su donirali clintonovoj u proslosti, kaze jedan danas, kaze trump je donirao vise novca demokratama u proslosti nego svi ovi zajedno

[jeza u ledja]

Naletih na dobar clanak is NY Post of all the places..

Pise ga Rich Lowry, poznati konzervativni kolumnista:

The GOP’s looming health care disaster is the whole party’s fault


The ascension of Donald Trump was supposed to change everything in the GOP. As it happens, perhaps one very important thing hasn’t: The Republicans may well still be The Stupid Party.

That ObamaCare repeal has one or maybe two feet in the grave, depending on how you’re counting, is testament to jaw-dropping disarray and bad faith.

On the cusp of a historic failure, the party has begun the finger-pointing, and it’s hard to argue with any of it. The establishment is right that Trump is incapable of true legislative leadership. The Trumpists are right that the establishment is ineffectual. Conservatives are right that moderates don’t really want to repeal ObamaCare, whatever they’ve said in the past. And pragmatists are right that a few conservatives are beholden to a self-defeating purity.

The Republican members of the world’s greatest deliberative body aren’t covering themselves in glory. Susan Collins of Maine and Rand Paul of Kentucky have always been noes, leaving no margin for error. Mike Lee of Utah and Jerry Moran of Kansas are additional noes on the current repeal-and-replace bill, while Shelley Moore Capito of West Virginia and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska have joined Collins as noes on repeal-only.

At least Collins, an ideological outlier, has been consistent. She voted against the repeal-only bill in 2015, and the GOP leadership never thought she was gettable.

The same can’t be said of her cohorts. Capito and Murkowski both voted for the repeal-only bill a year-and-a-half ago. The only plausible reason they’ve switched now is that they knew the bill would be safely relegated to oblivion by an Obama veto, whereas Trump will now sign any legislation into law.

Then there is another tranche of Republicans, like Rob Portman, who are nervous fence-sitters. The Ohio senator doesn’t have to appear on a ballot again until 2022, yet gives every indication of quailing at taking a tough vote.

The former Office of Management and Budget director’s calling card is fiscal conservatism, yet he blanches at the prospect of scaling back Medicaid. He is a wonk, yet appears to be outsourcing his policy thinking to Gov. John Kasich.

For Rand Paul, clearly, a perhaps once-in-a-generation opportunity to significantly reform two entitlement programs isn’t as important as scoring cheap points against his colleagues in the cause of getting as many cable hits as possible. For a purist, he can’t keep his story straight. At first, he insisted repeal had to be accompanied by replace. Now, he’s back to saying just repeal. Whatever it is, Paul will find a reason to oppose.

Lee is a thoughtful, public-interested conservative who isn’t a showboater. He has an outsize influence on the prospects of the bill because he’s one of the few Republicans willing to be the decisive vote against it.

If he’s opposed, other senators can slipstream behind him and declare against as well. This is what happened this week when Moran joined Lee in public opposition.

This is why it’s particularly important that the Utah senator keep the big picture in view; torpedoing the entire effort over a relatively technical question about the insurance risk pools — Lee’s current posture — would be a disastrous mistake.

It’s not just senators who are falling down. The repeal effort hasn’t had meaningful leadership or air cover from the top.

Upon taking office, President Trump didn’t have an agenda, only slogans and attitudes. No one will ever accuse him of sweating the details. The president has very little idea what’s in the health care bill, and doesn’t particularly care. This prevents him from helpfully engaging in detailed negotiations, and he hasn’t made a public case for the bill except in tweets and at the highest level of generality.

He tends to be all over the map — one day passage of the House bill is a marvelous accomplishment to be celebrated at the White House; the next, the very same bill is “mean.”

Repeal was never going to be easy. The law has created facts on the ground that are inherently difficult to undo. Mitch McConnell has 52 Republican senators, whereas Harry Reid had 60 — an enormous difference that tends to be unappreciated. But Reid held all his members.

At the end of the day, the most important difference between the parties on health care may be that the Democrats had a vision that they were thoroughly committed to and were astonishingly courageous in effecting.

No one had more to lose from sticking with the forced march toward passage of ObamaCare than Nancy Pelosi, and yet no one was as devoted to the cause.

Like the Democrats in 2009, Republicans have a historic opportunity that will quickly vanish unless it is seized. A majority is a terrible thing to waste. Six months in, Republicans are giving every indication that is exactly what they might do, to their everlasting disgrace.

[jeza u ledja]

A da prica o tome da Trump razmislja o mogucnosti pomilovanja, potvrdio je i sam na Twitteru danas.

From failing New York Times


Trump Says He Has ‘Complete Power’ to Pardon

NORFOLK, Va — President Trump on Saturday asserted the “complete power to pardon” relatives, aides and possibly even himself in response to investigations into Russia’s meddling in last year’s election, as he came to the defense of Attorney General Jeff Sessions just days after expressing regret about appointing him.

Mr. Trump suggested in a series of early morning messages on Twitter that he had no need to use the pardon power at this point but left the option open. Presidents have the authority to pardon others for federal crimes, but legal scholars debate whether a president can pardon himself. Mr. Trump’s use of the word “complete” seemed to suggest he did not see a limit to that authority.

“While all agree the U.S. President has the complete power to pardon, why think of that when only crime so far is LEAKS against us,” he wrote on Twitter. “FAKE NEWS.”

The Washington Post reported in recent days that the president and his advisers had discussed pardons as a special counsel intensifies an investigation into whether associates of Mr. Trump and his campaign conspired with Russia to intervene in the 2016 presidential campaign.

Mr. Trump also responded on Saturday to an article by The Post reporting that Mr. Sessions may have discussed campaign activities and policy with the Russian ambassador, Sergey I. Kislyak, last year, despite his public statements to the contrary. In the article, The Post cited intercepted communications between Mr. Kislyak and his home office in Moscow. Mr. Trump excoriated the newspaper and expressed no concern about his attorney general’s conduct.

“A new INTELLIGENCE LEAK from the Amazon Washington Post, this time against A.G. Jeff Sessions,” Mr. Trump wrote. “These illegal leaks, like Comey’s, must stop!”

The president was equating the report in The Post, which is owned by Jeff Bezos, the founder of Amazon, to a decision by James B. Comey, whom Mr. Trump fired as F.B.I. director, to leak contents of a memo he wrote describing a conversation he had with the president. Mr. Comey has said the memo was unclassified and therefore not illegal to disclose.

The message about the Post story was quickly followed by one assailing The New York Times. “The Failing New York Times foiled U.S. attempt to kill the single most wanted terrorist, Al-Baghdadi,” he wrote. “Their sick agenda over National Security.”

Mr. Trump did not specify what he meant, but he may have been referring to a Fox News report, a version of which aired about 25 minutes before the president’s tweet, about comments by a top commander at a conference on Friday.

Gen. Tony Thomas, head of the military’s Special Operations Command, said at the Aspen Security Forum that American forces were “particularly close” to Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, the leader of the Islamic State, after a 2015 raid recovered information about the militant group.

“That was a very good lead,” General Thomas said, according to the Fox report. “Unfortunately, it was leaked in a prominent national newspaper about a week later and that lead went dead.”

Fox reported that the general appeared to be referring to a June 2015 report by The Times that said American intelligence agencies had “extracted valuable information” from the raid. The story reported that United States forces had recovered “laptops, cellphones and other materials,” including four to seven terabytes of data. It also said that Mr. Baghdadi and other Islamic State leaders had used their wives to pass information to one another to avoid electronic surveillance.

The Pentagon raised no objections with The Times before the story was published, and no senior American official ever complained publicly about it until now.

The Russian military said last month that it might have killed Mr. Baghdadi in an airstrike in Syria, but Defense Secretary Jim Mattis said on Friday that he believed Mr. Baghdadi was still alive. A White House spokesman did not immediately respond to a request for clarification about the president’s tweet.

Mr. Trump’s posts came shortly before he was scheduled to fly to Norfolk, Va., where he was to preside over the commissioning of the Gerald R. Ford, the nation’s newest aircraft carrier.

The Post reported that Mr. Kislyak told superiors in Moscow that he had discussed campaign-related matters, including policy issues important to Moscow, with Mr. Sessions during the campaign, contrary to Mr. Sessions’s public assertions. Mr. Sessions, who was advising Mr. Trump on foreign policy at the time, met at least twice with Mr. Kislyak and failed to disclose those contacts during his Senate confirmation hearings. After news reports about them were published, he said the meetings were not related to the campaign.

Sarah Isgur Flores, a Justice Department spokeswoman, said in a statement to The Post and other news organizations that she could not comment “on the reliability of what anonymous sources describe in a wholly uncorroborated intelligence intercept.” She added that Mr. Sessions “never met with or had any conversations with any Russians or any foreign officials concerning any type of interference with any campaign or election.” She did not deny that Mr. Sessions discussed campaign or policy issues more generally with Mr. Kislyak.

The revelation of Mr. Sessions’s meetings with Mr. Kislyak in March prompted the attorney general to recuse himself from overseeing the Justice Department investigation into Russian meddling in last year’s election and any possible collusion with associates of Mr. Trump. The president has been upset about that recusal ever since and told The Times in an interview on Wednesday that he never would have appointed Mr. Sessions had he known the attorney general would step aside.

In the interview, Mr. Trump faulted Mr. Sessions for his misleading testimony. “Jeff Sessions gave some bad answers,” the president said. “He gave some answers that were simple questions and should have been simple answers, but they weren’t.”

In his tweets on Saturday morning, he offered no concern that Mr. Sessions had not been fully forthcoming. Instead, as he often does, Mr. Trump tried to turn attention back to his opponent from last year.

“So many people are asking why isn’t the A.G. or Special Council looking at the many Hillary Clinton or Comey crimes,” he wrote, referring to Robert S. Mueller III, the special counsel now leading the Russia inquiry. “33,000 e-mails deleted?”

He added: “What about all of the Clinton ties to Russia, including Podesta Company, Uranium deal, Russian Reset, big dollar speeches etc.”

Mrs. Clinton was investigated last year by the F.B.I. for using a private server to route official email. More than 30,000 messages that she and her team deemed personal and unrelated to her service as secretary of state were deleted. As F.B.I. director, Mr. Comey said Mrs. Clinton had acted irresponsibly but that he would not seek criminal charges against her.

The president also referenced his eldest son, Donald Trump Jr., who met with several Russian figures during last year’s campaign after being promised incriminating information about Mrs. Clinton.

“My son Donald openly gave his e-mails to the media & authorities whereas Crooked Hillary Clinton deleted (& acid washed) her 33,000 emails!” he wrote.

The younger Mr. Trump released emails setting up the Russia meeting only after being informed that The Times had obtained them and was about to publish them itself.

[dale cooper]

Hoće sam sebe da pomiluje? Kako li se Nixon nije sjetio toga.
Mogu zamisliti face advokata kada se raspitivao za opcije.

[NajdraziVodjaa]

The Washington Post reported in recent days that the president and his advisers had discussed pardons as a special counsel intensifies an investigation into whether associates of Mr. Trump and his campaign conspired with Russia to intervene in the 2016 presidential campaign.

Mene ipak najvise fascinira kako ovi mediji i to uglavnom ovi sto su kontra Trumpa u bobu znaju sta je Trump nekidan pricao unutar 4 zida sa svojim savjetnicima

[jeza u ledja]

The Washington Post reported in recent days that the president and his advisers had discussed pardons as a special counsel intensifies an investigation into whether associates of Mr. Trump and his campaign conspired with Russia to intervene in the 2016 presidential campaign.

Mene ipak najvise fascinira kako ovi mediji i to uglavnom ovi sto su kontra Trumpa u bobu znaju sta je Trump nekidan pricao unutar 4 zida sa svojim savjetnicima

Zato sto to neko od njih curi u medije. Curi sa svih strana, a onda Trump, glupan, to potvrdjuje (kao i njegov sin). Ja fino napisah jos u januaru da ce tako biti, jednostavno okuplja se sa takvim ljudima koji samo gledaju ko ce kome noz u ledja da zabije. Lojalnost - nula poena. A kako bi i bili lojalni kad Trump ima nula lojalnosti prema njima. Najnoviji primjer je Sean Spicer, sam covjek otisao. Malo prije toga Jeff Sessions, jedan od prvih njegovih fanova, neki dan Trump sere o njemu.

Bob Muller polako ali sigurno cini Trumpa sve nerzvonijim, pogotovo kad su poceli kopati po njegovim financijama. E tu je najveca prpa.

Usput, za razliku od smijesnih medija poput Breitbarta i InfoWars, i Washington Post i New York Times iza svega imaju stvarne izvore informacija za svoje tvrdnje. E to je razlika izmedju fake news i pravog novinarstva.

[NajdraziVodjaa]

Pa dobro ko su im ti stvarni izvori za ovu vijest ako postoje?


Jah Trump glup, naivan okruzen nelojalnim ljudima koji jedva cekaju da ukopaju sebe i otrce u New York Times i Washington Post da odaju informacije, nema druge nego vjerovati ovome...jer nemoguce je da Times i Post lazu ne bi oni...

[jeza u ledja]

Pitas ko su im stvarni izvori i onda kazes nisu ludi da sebe ukopaju.

Iza svake informacije koju ove novine objave stoji neko ko im je to dojavio. Nije to jedna osoba, vec hipter ljudi. Dokaz da su info mahom tacne dobijas svake sedmice kad nesto izleti, pa se onda Trump zali da neko curi informacije. Sta ce procuriti ako nije tacno? Imas milion dokaza, ovo za sina mu je najbolji primjer. Dobili info pa ga pitali ima li sta da prokomentira, on se pravio lud, pa sljedeci dan mu dali jos malo dokaza, on se opet pravi lud, pa mu na kraju rekli imamo sve crno na bijelo bolan, pa on brze-bolje to objavi.

Bannon hoce da podmetne Priebusu, pusti nesto u medije. Kushner hoce da podmetne Donaldu Junioru, pusti nesto u medije. Itd itd. A sam Trump je navikao tako da radi, pusti ljude ispod njega da se kolju i koji pobijedi njemu bolje. (zar nije tako nesto islo i na onom Apprentice? ).
Na kraju, ljudi koji cure informacije ne moraju biti uopste "njegovi ljudi". To je ono sto ovi tvoji zovu "deep state", a ostali ljudi zovu "continous government". Znaci hiljade ljudi koji rade u kakvim agencijama, ministarstvima, sekretarijatima, biroima, itd itd.
Ne radi se o deset ljudi u Bijeloj kuci pa da se mogu kriti informacije. Neko potpise neki dokument, neko vodi neki razgovor, postoje zapisi, postoje asistenti, sekretari, podsekretari, boga pitaj. Uglavnom, ljudi koji cijeli zivot rade na takvim mjestima i znaju sta je normalno, a sta ne, ili jednostavno hoce Trumpa da zajebu.

[jefferson]

Pa dobro ko su im ti stvarni izvori za ovu vijest ako postoje?


Jah Trump glup, naivan okruzen nelojalnim ljudima koji jedva cekaju da ukopaju sebe i otrce u New York Times i Washington Post da odaju informacije, nema druge nego vjerovati ovome...jer nemoguce je da Times i Post lazu ne bi oni...

Tvoj post otkriva koliko znas kako neka organizacija (bilo kakva) sa vise od dva covjeka funkcionise.

[NajdraziVodjaa]

Ukratko receno rade protuzakonito i odaju povjerljive informacije novinarima...naravno pod uslovom ako to sve nisu izmisljotine Posta i Timesa.

[jeza u ledja]

Ukratko receno rade protuzakonito i odaju povjerljive informacije novinarima...naravno pod uslovom ako to sve nisu izmisljotine Posta i Timesa.

mislis nesto ko wikileaks i clintonini emailovi

[Point.]

Ukratko receno rade protuzakonito i odaju povjerljive informacije novinarima...naravno pod uslovom ako to sve nisu izmisljotine Posta i Timesa.

mislis nesto ko wikileaks i clintonini emailovi

Ah to je vec nesto drugo. Killary je liberalna neo vjestica, sotona sa dojkama, Putinov nemesis i krava.

[jefferson]

Ukratko receno rade protuzakonito i odaju povjerljive informacije novinarima...naravno pod uslovom ako to sve nisu izmisljotine Posta i Timesa.

Sto se tice Posta i Timesa, kazem ti opet, veze nemas kako organizacija neka (bilo koja) sa vise od dva covjeka funkcionise.
Sto se tice rada protiv zakona i odavanja povjerljivih informacija, pa to je americka tradicija kao sto je i Dan Zahvalnosti.

[daddy-kool]

http://www.newsweek.com/trump-voters-re ... one-638462

ovo nije normalno

TRUMP VOTERS, REPUBLICANS OVERALL ACTUALLY DON'T CARE IF THE PRESIDENT SHOOTS SOMEONE ON FIFTH AVENUE: POLL

[NajdraziVodjaa]

Ukratko receno rade protuzakonito i odaju povjerljive informacije novinarima...naravno pod uslovom ako to sve nisu izmisljotine Posta i Timesa.

mislis nesto ko wikileaks i clintonini emailovi

da, bas na to mislim kao sto su se digli svi da istrazuju kako su procurili mailovi koji kompromituju Clinton a nikog niej briga sto je radila protuzakonito isto tako treba ispitati ko to iz Bijele kuce odaje novinarima informacije jer ne prilici ozbiljnoj drzavi da neki novinarcic zna sta predsjednik prica sa savjetnicima (naravno opet naglasavam ako je istina da oni imaju izvor koji im odaje mada mene ne bi cudilo i da lazu navikli smo na njihove lazi)

[jeza u ledja]

Ukratko receno rade protuzakonito i odaju povjerljive informacije novinarima...naravno pod uslovom ako to sve nisu izmisljotine Posta i Timesa.

mislis nesto ko wikileaks i clintonini emailovi

da, bas na to mislim kao sto su se digli svi da istrazuju kako su procurili mailovi koji kompromituju Clinton a nikog niej briga sto je radila protuzakonito isto tako treba ispitati ko to iz Bijele kuce odaje novinarima informacije jer ne prilici ozbiljnoj drzavi da neki novinarcic zna sta predsjednik prica sa savjetnicima (naravno opet naglasavam ako je istina da oni imaju izvor koji im odaje mada mene ne bi cudilo i da lazu navikli smo na njihove lazi)

"Navikao" si na lazi iz New York Times i Washington Post? Ma jasta si.

Clintonini emailovi su hackovani od strane ruskih hakera. U stvari nebitno u ovoj prici jesu li Rusi ili neko treci. Situaciju oko Trumpa izbacuju u javnost njegovi ljudi, nije znaci nikakvo hakiranje, kradja podataka, itd. Diskutabilno je uopste da li je to nelegalno, jer ne radi se o drzavnim tajnama niti o kradji informacija.
I kazem opet, ne radi se o jednoj ili dvije osobe, nego jednostavno curi na sve strane, i to ne nuzno kao dio sinhronizovanog napada, vec od raznih ljudi sa razlicitim ciljevima. Ako je nesto nelegalno, nikakav problem da se to istrazi. Devedeset posto tih ljudi su svakako ili Trumpovi ljudi ili Republikanci.

[jeza u ledja]

http://www.newsweek.com/trump-voters-re ... one-638462

ovo nije normalno

TRUMP VOTERS, REPUBLICANS OVERALL ACTUALLY DON'T CARE IF THE PRESIDENT SHOOTS SOMEONE ON FIFTH AVENUE: POLL

Ma mislim, lako se glupirat u ovakvim anketama, jel.

Ali ja sam siguran da mnogi Trumpovi glasaci uopste ne mare za ove optuzbe u vezi Rusije, sve i da su tacne, a pogotovo ne mislim da u slucaju isplivavanja nekih jasnih dokaza ce mnogi od njih uopste vjerovati, vec ce misliti da mu je sve "namjesteno". Tu onda ostaje pitanje koliki je benefit od eventualnog impeachovanja Trumpa za njegove protivnike? Ako se znacajan broj Trumpovih glasaca sam ne uvjeri u svoju glupost oni ce nastaviti ovako glasati. S druge strane novi predsjednik bi bio Pence, a to bi znacilo mnogo laksi put ka sprovodjenju ultradesnicarske agende Republikanaca. No vjerovatno bi i to bilo bolje nego unistavanje institucije od strane sadasnjeg imbecila na vlasti, ne znam...
Nekako bi idealno bilo da se sve istrage, dokazi i to izbace u narednih godinu dana, taman pred izbore, , a da Republikanci u HoR sjede na rukama i nista ne rade i onda budu kaznjeni u novembru. Onda ga oni mogu impeachovati. (no to ce se tesko desiti s obzirom na sta lice granice distrikata).
Ja bih volio da demokratski proces isprica svoju pricu, da se glasaci uvjere za sta su glasali.

Nixon nikad nije izgubio podrsku otprilike 25% glasaca, znaci i kad su izasle trake i sve (to je nekad bilo na jesen prve godine tog mandata). I onda kad je dao ostavku, sljedece ljeto, i dalje ga je podrzavala cetvrtina glasaca. Na trakama je snimljeno izmedju ostalog da je htio zaustaviti istragu o Watergate skandalu, tj. upadu u istoimeni hotel koji je bio stab Demokratske stranke i u kojeg su agenti povezani (uspostavice se poslije) sa Nixonovom kampanjom postavili sisteme za prisluskivanje, a sve ovo u jeku kampanje, u ljeto 1972-e. Nixon je ponovo izabran i sljedecih godinu dana je pokusavao obstruirati istragu o ovom upadu, na kraju je upravo zbog tog obstruiranja specijalnog istrazivaca morao dati otkaz. Interesantno, u julu 1973-e Nixonova podrska po Gallupu je bila 38%, bas kao i Trumpova podrska danas u istom trenutku mandata.

[NajdraziVodjaa]

Clinton su hakirali americki hakeri, ruski su obicna izmisljotina kojom pokusavaju da opravdaju debakl koji su dozivjeli na izborima.