Trump's administration is literally a laughingstock.
Kakistocracy.
yes! aid to other countries? that and bring it back here for our own people. time to cut the world off and let them try and swim on their own!
Legal Experts: White House NDAs Cons ute Felony Bribery For Both Trump And The Signers
According to legal experts the non-disclosure agreements (NDAs) that the Trump Administration required White House staff to sign are felony criminal violations, and put BOTH Trump Administration officials and the signers in serious legal jeopardy.
Much has been written about how the White House staff NDA’s are unprecedented and unenforceable:
Dozens of White House aides have signed NDAs in exchange for working for Trump, who has long relied on such agreements in his business career, according to current and former administration employees.However, these NDAs are not just unenforceable.
But NDAs have not been widely used by past administrations outside the transition time between presidents,
in part because most legal experts believe such agreements are not legally enforceable for public employees.
First, they are a clear violations of the Whistleblower Protection Act:
Simply put, it is illegal for anyone in the Trump administration to impose a nondisclosure agreement on a member of the federal governmentAnd it gets worse, much, much worse. These NDAs cons ute bribery of public officials:
that in any way limits that person’s ability to communicate with Congress and expose waste, fraud, abuse and mismanagement.
18 U.S. Code § 201 - Bribery of public officials and witnessesWhat needs to be understood is that a person’s cons utionally protected right to free speech is a “thing of value,”
…
(c)Whoever—
…
(A) directly or indirectly gives, offers, or promises anything of value to any public official,…for or because of any official act performed or to be performed by such public official...; or
(B) being a public official,...directly or indirectly demands, seeks, receives, accepts, or agrees to receive or accept anything of value personally for or because of any official act performed or to be performed by such official or person;
…
shall be fined under this le or imprisoned for not more than two years, or both.
and hiring a public official is an “official act.”
Further, because the NDAs forbid speech that could be injurious to Trump,
it is a thing of value to Trump in particular, not to the government
who is the actual prospective employer.
As far as the law is concerned,
it is no different from a cash payment to Trump for a government job.
If Trump were requiring that prospective employees pay him $1000 for a job he would be clearly understood to be soliciting a bribe.
Here’s where it gets interesting.
Signing the NDA is therefore
no different from paying the bribe in order to get the job, the thing of value to the prospect.
Again, no different from paying Trump $1000 for a government job.
Former White House ethics counsel:
[Norman] Eisen points to the federal bribery statute (18 U.S.C. 201) as a statutory tripwire that Trump stumbled across.White House staff may not have considered that they were committing a felony,
He says it is also clear that this is a personal concession to Trump,
not to the government (e.g. a policy that says “thou shalt not leak”).
“The thing that makes these NDAs, at least as described,
different is that they continue to vest rights personally in the president even after he leaves office,” he says.
“That shows that this is not a concession being made to the government in exchange for a job,
but a personal one being made to the man who occupies the office.
The president couldn’t of course demand a monetary payment from someone in order to be employed,
and neither should he be able to do this.”
and exposing themselves to two years in federal prison,
when they signed Trump’s NDA to secure their White House job, but they were.
Former director of the Office of Government Ethics:
Walter Shaub says simply thatAdd to that extortion and emoluments violations, as cons utional scholar Laurence Tribe spells out:
“you can’t go around trading things of value for federal appointments.”
What’s apparent here is that
Trump has no idea that working for the American people is different from working for his family operation.
“I’ve argued and believe that the NDAs Trump might have extracted from executive branch employees (if that story proves accurate) areWhat
a form of extortion in terms of what they extract from government employees and have the stench of bribery as well,” he tells me.
“I also see them as akin to the domestic emoluments
a president is flatly forbidden by [Article] II from receiving from any state or from any component of the federal government because,
in effect, they add to the president’s congressionally fixed compensation something that amounts to a personal benefit contributed to him by federal employees as a condition of their jobs.”
He explains that even if “financial supplements to Trump’s White House salary …
aren’t in the form of cash but instead take the form of reputation insurance or enhancement shouldn’t obscure the principle at stake.”
He adds that these concerns are, of course, in addition to “First Amendment issues with enforcing the NDAs through prior restraints.”
we have is a criminal administration
behaving in a criminal manner and
not surprisingly breaking all sorts of laws in the process.
Anyone that joins this criminal organization is unavoidably swept into criminal conduct and at extreme risk for serious criminal penalties.
https://www.dailykos.com/stories/201...tail=emaildkre
Only 6 more yearsLegal Experts: White House NDAs Cons ute Felony Bribery For Both Trump And The Signers
According to legal experts the non-disclosure agreements (NDAs) that the Trump Administration required White House staff to sign are felony criminal violations, and put BOTH Trump Administration officials and the signers in serious legal jeopardy.
Much has been written about how the White House staff NDA’s are unprecedented and unenforceable:
Dozens of White House aides have signed NDAs in exchange for working for Trump, who has long relied on such agreements in his business career, according to current and former administration employees.However, these NDAs are not just unenforceable.
But NDAs have not been widely used by past administrations outside the transition time between presidents,
in part because most legal experts believe such agreements are not legally enforceable for public employees.
First, they are a clear violations of the Whistleblower Protection Act:
Simply put, it is illegal for anyone in the Trump administration to impose a nondisclosure agreement on a member of the federal governmentAnd it gets worse, much, much worse. These NDAs cons ute bribery of public officials:
that in any way limits that person’s ability to communicate with Congress and expose waste, fraud, abuse and mismanagement.
18 U.S. Code § 201 - Bribery of public officials and witnessesWhat needs to be understood is that a person’s cons utionally protected right to free speech is a “thing of value,”
…
(c)Whoever—
…
(A) directly or indirectly gives, offers, or promises anything of value to any public official,…for or because of any official act performed or to be performed by such public official...; or
(B) being a public official,...directly or indirectly demands, seeks, receives, accepts, or agrees to receive or accept anything of value personally for or because of any official act performed or to be performed by such official or person;
…
shall be fined under this le or imprisoned for not more than two years, or both.
and hiring a public official is an “official act.”
Further, because the NDAs forbid speech that could be injurious to Trump,
it is a thing of value to Trump in particular, not to the government
who is the actual prospective employer.
As far as the law is concerned,
it is no different from a cash payment to Trump for a government job.
If Trump were requiring that prospective employees pay him $1000 for a job he would be clearly understood to be soliciting a bribe.
Here’s where it gets interesting.
Signing the NDA is therefore
no different from paying the bribe in order to get the job, the thing of value to the prospect.
Again, no different from paying Trump $1000 for a government job.
Former White House ethics counsel:
[Norman] Eisen points to the federal bribery statute (18 U.S.C. 201) as a statutory tripwire that Trump stumbled across.White House staff may not have considered that they were committing a felony,
He says it is also clear that this is a personal concession to Trump,
not to the government (e.g. a policy that says “thou shalt not leak”).
“The thing that makes these NDAs, at least as described,
different is that they continue to vest rights personally in the president even after he leaves office,” he says.
“That shows that this is not a concession being made to the government in exchange for a job,
but a personal one being made to the man who occupies the office.
The president couldn’t of course demand a monetary payment from someone in order to be employed,
and neither should he be able to do this.”
and exposing themselves to two years in federal prison,
when they signed Trump’s NDA to secure their White House job, but they were.
Former director of the Office of Government Ethics:
Walter Shaub says simply thatAdd to that extortion and emoluments violations, as cons utional scholar Laurence Tribe spells out:
“you can’t go around trading things of value for federal appointments.”
What’s apparent here is that
Trump has no idea that working for the American people is different from working for his family operation.
“I’ve argued and believe that the NDAs Trump might have extracted from executive branch employees (if that story proves accurate) areWhat
a form of extortion in terms of what they extract from government employees and have the stench of bribery as well,” he tells me.
“I also see them as akin to the domestic emoluments
a president is flatly forbidden by [Article] II from receiving from any state or from any component of the federal government because,
in effect, they add to the president’s congressionally fixed compensation something that amounts to a personal benefit contributed to him by federal employees as a condition of their jobs.”
He explains that even if “financial supplements to Trump’s White House salary …
aren’t in the form of cash but instead take the form of reputation insurance or enhancement shouldn’t obscure the principle at stake.”
He adds that these concerns are, of course, in addition to “First Amendment issues with enforcing the NDAs through prior restraints.”
we have is a criminal administration
behaving in a criminal manner and
not surprisingly breaking all sorts of laws in the process.
Anyone that joins this criminal organization is unavoidably swept into criminal conduct and at extreme risk for serious criminal penalties.
https://www.dailykos.com/stories/201...tail=emaildkre
John Dean
✔@JohnWDean
Memo To Trump’s White House Staff: FYI.
Very few people who worked at Nixon’s White House later included that fact on their resumes.
It doesn’t do much for a career to be on the wrong side of history,
nor to have worked for the worst president in American history.
12:19 AM - Aug 17, 2018
"awesome" career advice from John Dean
GOP consultant Rick Wilson crushes ‘politically spent’ Steve Bannon for trying to ‘slither back into the spotlight’
Bannon is going to keep trying to slither back into the political spotlight,” Wilson added,”
“He wants Trump to be a nationalist populist because
Steve Bannon is an authoritarian-curious kind of guy
who has infected the Republican party with an anti-conservative pro-nationalist message —
and for a while, Trump was their avatar.”
“This is Bannon trying to come back,” he concluded dismissively.
Wilson later
called out President Trump for destroying the dignity of the presidency,
adding the president,
“Rage tweets on the toilet in the morning while he’s engaged in petty tabloid and reality TV beefs with people.”
https://www.rawstory.com/2018/08/gop...e+Raw+Story%29
Donald Trump and the Rise of Patriotism
When Donald Trump says he is anti-establishment he means that
he is against the protections of nature, poor people, peace, immigrants, minorities and women the state has traditionally provided, however lamely.
Donald Trump has replaced the concept of a government with the concept of a fascist oligarch state.
The focus of trade deals is “winning”.
The number one purpose of the United State government is not to provide for its people, but to keep immigrants out.
Environmental protections of the land in the United States are a joke to Trump,
as the only purpose is the growth of global business, a.k.a the 1%.
Remarkably, many people do not care.
The only product Donald Trump has delivered on is hate,
and this appears to be enough for almost everyone in the Republican party.
Donald Trump has proven that
patriotism represents
xenophobia,
environmental degradation,
global oligarchs,
fundamentalism,
police and
the military.
There is nothing else he stands for.
Clearly Trump is a nationalist, in a rather new way.
He is focused only on winning and self-interest. He doesn’t care about anything else.
https://www.counterpunch.org/2018/08/17/donald-trump-and-the-rise-of-patriotism/
New York Times Anything but ‘Failing’
CNN:
“In his tweet, Trump again called the Times ‘failing,’
but the newspaper actually reported a healthy second-quarter profit.
Two years ago today, he also called the Times ‘failing’ and ‘dying.’
The Times‘ stock is up nearly 77% since that tweet.”
http://www.pensitoreview.com/2018/08/20/new-york-times-anything-but-failing/
...
Last edited by boutons_deux; 08-20-2018 at 02:00 PM.
"he is against the protections of nature, poor people, peace, immigrants, minorities and women"
Nature - most Americans put higher importance in economy
Poor people - economy is booming
Peace - He just met with Kim....
Immigrants - he married one. Democrats still unable to comprehend illegal immigration =/= immigration
Minorities - treatment of majority is more important
Women - ?
I don't get the knock on Trump for "speaks perfect English" - if that mattered to him would he marry 2 women with very strong foreign accents and listen to that all day long?
Of course you don't.
Actually, that's something my dh considered - whether he could listen to my accent for the rest of his life.
So you're used to that kind of thing.
Why do you think he said the officer spoke perfect English? What was he implying with that statement?
"He's great. Very articulate."
so you are suppose to read minds and imply things now
That's what's speech is for dumb .
There are currently 10 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 10 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
