Trump wanted to personally make $2 million per room leasing government building: WSJ reports investors ‘balked’

https://www.rawstory.com/2020/01/tr...rnment-building-wsj-reports-investors-balked/

 

I see that Lt. Colonel Vindman has been removed from his post!

Thinskin

 

Probably for the best so he dosn't end up Epsteined.

 

Well of course us tax payers have no right to know how our money is being spent. The mad king dictator is above all laws and the Constitution.

Mnuchin begs Democrats to wait until after the election to disclose how much the Secret Service spends on Trump’s travel

https://www.rawstory.com/2020/01/mn...h-the-secret-service-spends-on-trumps-travel/

 

Trump and his kids: LOOK!!! LOOK!!! ITS THE BIDENS!!! LOOK LOOK AT HOW CORRUPT THEY ARE!!!!!

Donald Trump Jr and Ivanka knowingly defrauded condo buyers — and wriggled out of prosecution: New book

https://www.rawstory.com/2020/01/do...ers-and-wriggled-out-of-prosecution-new-book/

 

Trump is draining the swamp his supporters will tell you. Yeah, ya know, just bullshit. Trump is the fucking corrupt blob that just keeps oozing out, corrupting everything it touches. And is blind brainwashed parrot supporters pretend they can't see that. To be a Trump cult follower all you have to do is be willing to suspend disbelief.

Where's a great revolutionary when you need one?

Trump Tax Break That Benefited the Rich Is Being Investigated

https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-tax-break-benefited-rich-130541444.html

 

Why this is the strangest "revolution" I have ever seen. The only thing that has changed is Trump took the fucking swamp and turned it into The Blob. And get this that means the "great revolutionary" is winning.

Trump Admin Considers Changing Law That Bans Bribes for Overseas Business

https://www.thedailybeast.com/trump...at-bans-bribes-for-overseas-business?ref=home

 

If you guys really did watch Rachel Maddow you would know she foreshadowed what was going to happen next. And its happening now. Lev Parnas is a criminal trying to save his own hide. So no one should just take his word for anything. So what Maddow did between the first and second show was take the date of when Parnas said he met with Trump and compared it to the President's scheduled and it showed Trump was at that place at the time Parnas said.

And now that is spreading exponentially though the rest of the press. Parnas doesn't just tell a story because he also gives names, dates, and places. And those can be investigated and cross referenced and reported as checking out. They are probably just taking the easy ones now because there is no rhyme or reason to it. The real story is the things Parnas is saying are being verified. And everyone wants to get in on the story.

This one still needs for verification but the odds are heavily in favor of Parnas telling the truth because all Trump and everyone around him does is lie and The Trump Blob touches and corrupts everyone and everything it touches.

Lev Parnas details ‘intimate’ cannabis industry dinner with Jared Kushner and Ivanka Trump

[

*Betsy Swan used to be Betsy Woodruff. I would remember that name if I was you. She's written for the Daily Beast for quite a while now. And she has a pretty inedible track record of breaking big stories that always end up being proven beyond reasonable doubt.


https://www.rawstory.com/2020/01/le...y-dinner-with-jared-kushner-and-ivanka-trump/

 

Just look at that Joe Biden and his kid.They are so corrupt. Just ask a great revolutionary.

Trump’s ‘shocking and deeply disturbing’ foreign conflicts of interest detailed in new report

https://www.rawstory.com/2020/01/tr...conflicts-of-interest-detailed-in-new-report/

 

Quick observation;
The despicables must be smoking a lot of something, or maybe drinking something.

Cause, violation of the emoluments clause is so much easier to prove (if true) than some bogus "abuse of power" or "obstruction of congress" thingy. And, obstruction of Congress is, in Shooters view, an oxymoron. Every time Congress is in session, they obstruct themselves.

So really, if the evidence is so compelling and obvious, why isn't Trump charged with violation of the emoluments clause?

 

And so this is alright @shootersa?

Among the conflicts include “state-owned companies in China, Saudi Arabia and South Korea” that are building Trump resorts, as well as countries that “are constructing roads and donating public land for new developments” at Trump properties. The report cites recently disclosed documents showing that “the Trump administration authorized foreign governments to rent condos in Trump World Tower in New York.”

 

If true, rear admiral butt nugget, why wouldn't the despicables use violation of the emoluments clause rather than some bogus "abuse of power" or "obstruction of congress" thing?
Easier and simpler to prove, don't you agree?
You know, IF TRUE

 

AP FACT CHECK: Distortions in Trump's legal defense


WASHINGTON (AP) — President Donald Trump's defense against impeachment charges, as laid out in his legal argument released Monday, has distortions at its core.

Trump through his lawyers assails Democrats for trying to upend the results of an election, which is precisely the point of impeachment in the Constitution. The case asserts Trump committed no crime, a benchmark for impeachment that the Constitution's authors avoided adopting in a well-documented debate.

A look at some statements by Trump and his legal team as opening arguments approach in the Senate impeachment trial:

TRUMP's legal brief: “Anyone having the most basic respect for the sovereign will of the American people would shudder at the enormity of casting a vote to impeach a duly elected President. ... House Democrats were determined from the outset to find some way — any way — to corrupt the extraordinary power of impeachment for use as a political tool to overturn the result of the 2016 election and to interfere in the 2020 election."

THE FACTS: This is an odd reading of constitutional history. Removing a duly elected president is exactly the goal of the Constitution's impeachment clause, not a perversion of it.

The Constitution gives the House the sole power to impeach a president, which the House has done, and the Senate the responsibility of convicting or acquitting that president, which the Senate trial will do.

___

TRUMP, on Democrats who want witnesses to testify: “They didn’t want John Bolton and others in the House. They were in too much of a rush. Now they want them all in the Senate. Not supposed to be that way!” — tweet Monday.

THE FACTS: That's false. Bolton, Trump's former national security adviser, refused to testify. Democrats wanted him to. But they chose not to pursue a subpoena and risk an extended struggle in court. Bolton has signaled his willingness to testify at the Senate trial if he's subpoenaed.

___

TRUMP's legal brief: “The practical application of the Impeachment Clause by Congress supports the conclusion that an impeachable offense requires especially egregious conduct that threatens the constitutional order and, specifically, that it requires a violation of established law.”

THE FACTS: Egregious conduct, yes. But impeachment does not require a crime to have been commited.

The Constitution's framers had a vigorous and well-documented debate over just that point.

Constitutional scholars say the grounds for impeachment and removal from office — "Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors” — are a catch-all designed to redress any consequential abuse of power so long as that abuse hurts the country at large.

Months after the 1787 Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia, Alexander Hamilton explained in the Federalist Papers that a commonly understood crime need not be the basis of impeachment. Offenses meriting that step “are of a nature which may with peculiar propriety be denominated POLITICAL, as they relate chiefly to injuries done immediately to the society itself.”

To be sure, the commission of an actual crime can strengthen the hand of those seeking to remove a president, and the articles of impeachment against Trump do not accuse him of a crime.

Even so, the Government Accountability Office, a nonpartisan investigative arm of Congress, concluded last week that the Trump administration broke the law by freezing military aid to Ukraine that Congress had approved.

Its report said “the President is not vested with the power to ignore or amend any such duly enacted law." The money was held up last summer on orders from Trump but released in September after Congress pushed for its release and a whistleblower's complaint about Trump's July call with the Ukrainian leader became public.

___

TRUMP: “Individuals who have stated for the record that they spoke to the President about the subject actually exonerate him. Ambassador to the European Union Gordon Sondland stated that when he asked the President what he wanted from Ukraine, the President said: ‘I want nothing. I want no quid pro quo.’” — Trump's initial legal response, released Saturday by his lawyers.

THE FACTS: He omits key context on what Sondland told House investigators.

As one of the officials most deeply involved in trying to get Ukraine to do Trump's bidding, Sondland testified that there was indeed a quid pro quo in the matter and “everyone was in the loop.” Specifically, Sondland said it was understood that Ukraine's new president would only get a meeting with Trump in the Oval Office if he publicly pledged to investigate the Bidens and the Democrats.

“Was there a ‘quid pro quo?’ Sondland asked in his statement to the House Intelligence Committee. ”As I testified previously, with regard to the requested White House call and White House meeting, the answer is yes."

Moreover, on the more serious matter of withholding military aid to Ukraine unless the country investigated Democrats, Sondland testified that a this-for-that explanation was the only one that made sense to him.

Testimony from other officials shored up the picture of a president and his associates systematically trying to get Ukraine to do what Trump wanted during a period when the military assistance approved by Congress was put on hold without explanation.

___

TRUMP: “House Democrats ran a fundamentally flawed and illegitimate process that denied the President every basic right, including the right to have counsel present, the right to cross-examine witnesses.” — response to impeachment charges Saturday.

TRUMP: “'We demand fairness' shouts Pelosi and the Do Nothing Democrats, yet the Dems in the House wouldn’t let us have 1 witness, no lawyers or even ask questions." — tweet on Jan. 13, referring to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.

THE FACTS: Not true. The House Judiciary Committee, which produced the articles of impeachment, invited Trump or his legal team to come. He declined.

Absent White House representation, the hearings proceeded as things in Congress routinely do: Time is split between Democratic and Republican lawmakers to ask questions and engage in the debate. Lawyers for Democrats and Republicans on the committee presented the case for and against the impeachment articles and members questioned witnesses, among them an academic called forward by Republicans.

The first round of hearings was by the House Intelligence Committee and resembled the investigative phase of criminal cases, conducted without the participation of the subject of the investigation. Trump cried foul then at the lack of representation, then rejected representation when the next committee offered it.

 

Shooter will wait for the movie.
It comes out tomorrow .

 

The US Air Force recently acquired a new $64 million Gulfstream private jet for VIP government officials — see inside

• The US Air Force's 89th Airlift Wing provides travel for top government employees including the President of the United States
  
  
• The wing primarily uses a fleet of modified civilian aircraft including the Boeing 747-200 used as Air Force One.
  
  
• Its newest aircraft, a military variant of a Gulfstream G550, was delivered to Joint Base Andrews in late December
  
  
• Visit Business Insider's homepage for more stories.
  

The US Air Force operates a VIP transportation system for the government's top employees.

Most known for flying the president of the US on Air Force One, the Air Force also flies elected officials, cabinet secretaries, and even top generals on a fleet of VIP-configured aircraft.

As part of the Air Force's Special Air Mission, the 89th Airlift Wing based at Joint Base Andrews near Washington, DC operates a VIP fleet with the stated mission of "Enabling national interests through global transportation for America's senior leaders."

Its most frequent flyers include the president, vice president, first lady, secretary of state, secretary of defense, and chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, a spokesperson for the wing told Business Insider.

The aircraft in its fleet are primarily civilian aircraft sometimes modified for military use and receive military designations, as seen with Air Force One being a modified Boing 747-200 designated as the VC-25A.

The 89th Airlift Wing recently took delivery of its newest aircraft, a Gulfstream 550 designated as a C-37B, just before Christmas. The US Navy's website says that the aircraft cost $64 million.

Though the interior of the recently-received aircraft hasn't officially been released, the Air Force provided Business Insider with photos of one of its other Gulfstream C-37Bs.

Here's a look inside one of the aircraft that the government's top officials use to jet around the world.

With seating for up to 18, according to Gulfstream, there are a variety of configurations to choose from with the G550.



Now what makes this so funny is the fact that the G550 at its top of the line sells new for $48,000,000 to private buyers.

 

Are you saying this is not true? Its quite straight forward. Are you denying that state owned companies in China, Saudi Arabia, and South Korea are building Trump resorts? As well as constructing roads and donating public land for new developments? What doubts are there about that?

Among the conflicts include “state-owned companies in China, Saudi Arabia and South Korea” that are building Trump resorts, as well as countries that “are constructing roads and donating public land for new developments” at Trump properties. The report cites recently disclosed documents showing that “the Trump administration authorized foreign governments to rent condos in Trump World Tower in New York.”

 

Shooter is asking, IF TRUE, why isn't violation of the emoluments clause one of the charges against Trump?

A much easier charge to prove, don't you agree? Wouldn't it be a more appropriate charge than "abuse of power" or "obstruction of congress"?

Was Pelosi not paying attention?

 

D.C. sues Trump organization, alleging inflated inaugural party bills

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/...lleging-inflated-inaugural-party-bills-102123

 

Trump is good at some things. Like coming up with ways to make us taxpayers put more of our tax dollars in his pockets.

Trump accused of ‘ripping off’ taxpayers after his golf resort jacks up room rate before his visit

https://www.rawstory.com/2020/01/tr...f-resort-jacks-up-room-rate-before-his-visit/

 

How does this work? Well Trump walks around Mar a Lago telling his buddies that something big is about to happen. That tells Trump's buddies there is going to be some kind of military response so they call their brokers and start buying stock in companies because they just got an insider tip. Trump also manipulates the stock markets with his tweets. And people around him know how the markets will react and sell and buy accordingly.

Are Trump and his circle manipulating the markets for personal gain? Here’s the evidence

https://www.rawstory.com/2020/01/ar...markets-for-personal-gain-heres-the-evidence/