OFFICIAL: Donald Trump thread.

[jaded]

Well well, who would have guessed? Wolff isn't sure if parts of book are true.

http://www.businessinsider.com/micha...ll-true-2018-1

And Bannon is now stating that quotes from the book have been inaccurately reported.


Steve Bannon is trying to make amends.

Faced with a growing backlash, U.S. President Donald Trump's former chief strategist released a statement Sunday reaffirming his support for the commander-in-chief and praising Trump's eldest son as "both a patriot and a good man."

Bannon infuriated Trump with comments to author Michael Wolff describing a June 2016 meeting at Trump Tower in New York between Donald Trump Jr., Trump campaign aides and a Russian lawyer as "treasonous" and "unpatriotic."

But Bannon said Sunday his description was aimed at former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort, who also attended the meeting, and not Trump's son.

"I regret that my delay in responding to the inaccurate reporting regarding Don Jr has diverted attention from the president's historical accomplishments in the first year of his presidency," Bannon said in the statement, first obtained by the news site Axios. Bannon said his support for Trump and his agenda was "unwavering."

http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/bannon-...rump-1.4476894

[siablo14]

IMO the majority of America got tired of sanctimonious liberals telling them how to think/act/feel for the previous 8 or so years, so they went with a successful guy who spoke from the heart (in a blunt, politically incorrect way that people liked) and promised to give them a voice against not only those liberals, but the "elite" as well. It's ironic that Hillary had that great line (that all the ugly women and Don Lemon-type men parroted) about, "Anybody not willing to accept the results of an election is a danger to democracy" when not just her, but her ENTIRE fanbase (mainstream media included) have exactly that ever since he won.

BTW, to all the, "Trump is a racist cuz CNN said so!" types out there, why did unemployment for blacks and latinos BOTH hit historic lows under Trump? Maybe he's racist against whites? ;-) Funny how the first "black" President couldn't accomplish either one of these achievements, even when the majority of both groups voted for his terrorist-aiding ass. Guess he figured that since the media was going to suck him off no matter what, why bother caring about the American people?

Share a link.

[siablo14]

Lmao,,

Did I trigger you..


Why don’t you quote my posts and show the world how much of a POS I am.


If you actually paid attention to my posts, you could see that I have been very critical of trump’s tax plan, healthcare plan, his twitter posts, and against his fcc on net neutrality. I’m literally the only right winger on here that is critical of trump



So go qoute my posts and give a rebuttal like a man..


Or talk smack about me like a transgender without quoting or tagging me like you have already done

That's true..........

[The Big Dunn]

Are maybe they're going after the truth and you aren't liking the results.

Mueller so far has proven to be an expensive thug chasing after leprechauns and rainbows.

And Steele has been proven a liar. And maybe after months of hearings, we finally can get to the bottom of this. It's time for Congress to pull Fusion GPS bank records and see who paid and colluded with the Russians.

They don't seem to be going after the truth. They are attacking the institutions that are involved in the Russia investigation just in case they come back with an indictment of Trump.

If you are ok with this, than so be it. The country doesn't benefit from Republicans doing this.

Everyone that is investigating Trump has likely told a lie at some point in their lives, as have Trump and the Republicans hindering this investigation.

Why is it that Trump supporters let his lies roll of their shoulders but those investigating Trump if they lie, they are suddenly unfit for their jobs and have to be removed from that position?

While you puling Fusion bank records would give us more info, Trump has said that his bank records shouldn't be looked at. Shouldn't the same standard then apply to Dems and Dem organizations being investigated?

We can't just have it where Trump is allowed to block investigation of the records that will help prove whether he did anything illegal and then those the Republicans are investigating can't.

Which brings me back to my point about Republicans and the truth-why do they seem to not want to know the truth about what happened?

[The Big Dunn]

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...-s/1012345001/

Trump administration will end temporary legal immigration status for 200,000 Salvadorans who have been living in the U.S. for nearly two decades, The Washington Post and The New York Times reported, citing unnamed government officials familiar with the decision.

The Department of Homeland Security is expected to make a formal announcement later Monday.

[THREAD-KILLER]

Initial talks underway about Trump interview with Mueller Russian probe

WASHINGTON — Anticipating that Special Counsel Robert Mueller will ask to interview President Donald Trump, the president’s legal team is discussing a range of potential options for the format, including written responses to questions in lieu of a formal sit-down, according to three people familiar with the matter.

Lawyers for Trump have been discussing with FBI investigators a possible interview by the special counsel with the president as part of the inquiry into whether Trump’s campaign colluded with Russia during the 2016 election.

The discussions were described by one person with direct knowledge as preliminary and ongoing. Trump’s legal team is seeking clarification on whether the president would be interviewed directly by Mueller, as well as the legal standard for when a president can be interviewed, the location of a possible interview, the topics and the duration. But the president’s team is also seeking potential compromises that could avoid an interview altogether, two of those interviewed told NBC News.

With the possibility now looming that the president himself could be subject to an interview by the FBI or Mueller’s investigators, Trump’s legal team has been debating whether it would be possible to simply avoid it. One individual familiar with the strategy said those internal discussions within Trump’s legal team began shortly after the president’s former campaign manager, Paul Manafort, was indicted in late October for money laundering in connection with his business dealings with Ukraine.

WASHINGTON — Anticipating that Special Counsel Robert Mueller will ask to interview President Donald Trump, the president’s legal team is discussing a range of potential options for the format, including written responses to questions in lieu of a formal sit-down, according to three people familiar with the matter.

Lawyers for Trump have been discussing with FBI investigators a possible interview by the special counsel with the president as part of the inquiry into whether Trump’s campaign colluded with Russia during the 2016 election.

The discussions were described by one person with direct knowledge as preliminary and ongoing. Trump’s legal team is seeking clarification on whether the president would be interviewed directly by Mueller, as well as the legal standard for when a president can be interviewed, the location of a possible interview, the topics and the duration. But the president’s team is also seeking potential compromises that could avoid an interview altogether, two of those interviewed told NBC News.

With the possibility now looming that the president himself could be subject to an interview by the FBI or Mueller’s investigators, Trump’s legal team has been debating whether it would be possible to simply avoid it. One individual familiar with the strategy said those internal discussions within Trump’s legal team began shortly after the president’s former campaign manager, Paul Manafort, was indicted in late October for money laundering in connection with his business dealings with Ukraine.

Trump’s legal team sat down with representatives from the special counsel’s office in late December. Two of Trump’s lawyers, Ty Cobb and John Dowd, declined comment. A third lawyer, Jay Sekulow, did not respond to a request for comment. Peter Carr, spokesperson for the special counsel’s office, declined to comment.

In addition to the possibility of suggesting the president submit written responses in place of an interview, a second person familiar with the president’s legal strategy said another possibility being contemplated was an affidavit signed by the president affirming he was innocent of any wrongdoing and denying any collusion. It was not clear what such an affidavit might state regarding the president’s firing of former FBI Director James Comey in May 2017 at a time when Comey was leading the Russia probe.

Justice Department veterans cast doubt on the possibility that Mueller, who served as FBI director for 12 years, would forgo the chance to interview the president directly.

“Prosecutors want to see and hear folks in person,” said Chuck Rosenberg, former U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia and chief of staff to FBI Director Comey. “They want to probe and follow up. Body language and tone are important,” said Rosenberg, now an NBC News analyst. “And they want answers directly from witnesses, not from their lawyers. The odds of prosecutors agreeing to written responses are somewhere between infinitesimally small and zero."

Criminal defense attorney Alan Dershowitz called the Trump team’s maneuvers “gamesmanship. It's what any criminal defense attorney would do."

"I would never let the prosecution interview my client,” said Dershowitz, “but I don't represent the president of the United States, and presidents don't want to plead the Fifth. So this route makes sense."

Dershowitz added that the defense's strategy does not mean they are presuming Trump is guilty of wrongdoing.

The White House and Justice Department initially tried to portray the Comey firing as a result of Comey’s handling of the investigation into Clinton. But in an interview with Lester Holt of NBC News two days after the firing, Trump tied his actions directly to Comey’s investigation of Russia. Comey later testified that Trump tried unsuccessfully to get Comey to drop his investigation into Michael Flynn, Trump’s first national security adviser.

The president has continued to insist publicly that he is not under investigation and has described the Justice Department investigation as a “hoax” and a conspiracy cooked up by the FBI in concert with his political opponents.

But the intelligence community has been definitive that Russia attacked the integrity of the 2016 election and sought to push the outcome in Trump’s favor. While Trump said during the campaign that he was not aware of any of his aides meeting with Russians, multiple members of his own family and inner circle have since acknowledged that they did.

Some of the president’s own actions following his inauguration, including the handling of the White House departure of Flynn and the firing of Comey in May 2017, have caused the probe to widen to include the possibility of obstruction of justice related to the initial investigation. The special counsel is also delving into the actions of some of the Trump children and the president’s son-in-law, who were involved in the campaign and the presidential transition, the decision to fire Comey and public statements regarding a meeting with Russian individuals during the campaign.

In June 2017, Trump disputed Comey’s testimony to Congress that the president attempted to interfere in the FBI’s investigation of Flynn and said he was “100 percent” willing to testify under oath about his conversations with Comey. Asked by a reporter Saturday if he was willing to speak with Mueller and his team, Trump initially said “yeah,” but it was unclear whether he was committing to an interview or acknowledging the question. He did not elaborate. Instead, he reasserted that there was no collusion between his campaign and Russia and sought to focus attention on his former Democratic opponent.

"Just so you understand, there's been no collusion, there's been no crime, and in theory everybody tells me I'm not under investigation. Maybe Hillary (Clinton) is, I don't know, but I'm not," he told reporters at Camp David. "But we have been very open. We could have done it two ways. We could have been very closed, and it would have taken years. But you know, sort of like when you've done nothing wrong, let's be open and get it over with.“

“Because, honestly, it's very, very bad for our country,” the president said. “It's making our country look foolish. And this is a country that I don't want looking foolish. And it's not going to look foolish as long as I'm here."

Hillary Clinton, who lost the 2016 election to Trump, sat for a daylong interview at FBI headquarters during the campaign as part of a separate probe into whether she mishandled government email. The FBI found no evidence of a crime but Trump continued to cite the interview throughout the campaign and called for her imprisonment.

Robert Dallek, a presidential historian, said any risk in Trump speaking to the special counsel under oath depends on what he would say.

“It very much depends on whether the president has things to hide. If there’s really nothing to hide, then I would think there’s no danger in him sitting down with anyone and speaking freely to them,” Dallek said. "But if there are things to hide, obviously there are risks."

Former President Bill Clinton, who was under investigation by an independent counsel, testified under oath and on camera before a federal grand jury for some four hours in 1998 in connection with a relationship he had with a White House intern and previous relationships with other women while married. The dramatic testimony drew widespread national attention and, under questioning about the intimate nature of his relationship with Monica Lewinsky, Clinton appeared uncomfortable and halting at times.

But Dallek couldn’t recall another sitting president in discussions to be interviewed in a criminal investigation during his first year in office.

"This has never happened before," Dallek said. "Maybe later in the administration, but in the first year to be under this kind of scrutiny and attack, it’s devastating to an administration."

A signed Affidavit?



His lawyers know he's an idiot and he'll incriminate himself within 5 minutes.

[1bad65]

His lawyers know he's an idiot and he'll incriminate himself within 5 minutes.

Remember buddy, that "idiot" beat your 30+ year lifer politician at her own game.

Keep underestimating him. It makes it that much more funny every time you grubers predict his demise and then he keeps on rolling.

[The Big Dunn]

A signed Affidavit?

His lawyers know he's an idiot and he'll incriminate himself within 5 minutes.

Trump needs to be forced to testify under oath. He should get no special privileges. Its' bad enough that republicans are going about defending him by trying to undermine the credibility of those conducting the investigation.

Sadly, trump supporters will be ok with this. If Trump won fairly, then he should be able to prove it under oath. He shouldn't be allowed to withhold testimony or circumvent the process.

[Motorcity Cobra]

A signed Affidavit?



His lawyers know he's an idiot and he'll incriminate himself within 5 minutes.

A walking perjury machine

Trump needs to be forced to testify under oath. He should get no special privileges. Its' bad enough that republicans are going about defending him by trying to undermine the credibility of those conducting the investigation.

Sadly, trump supporters will be ok with this. If Trump won fairly, then he should be able to prove it under oath. He shouldn't be allowed to withhold testimony or circumvent the process.

No lawyer would allow Trump to interview under oath. With his history or lying in depositions & constant lies it would be malfeasance. I would love to see it tho

[1bad65]

He should allow himself to be questioned under oath. Then every question he doesn't like he should just answer with "I can't recall" over and over like Hillary did.

Y'all grubers heads would explode.