WTF Community

Day 784

Updated 3/14/2019 12:14 PM PDT

1/ The Senate voted to overturn Trump's national emergency declaration at the southern border, setting up Trump to issue the first vetoes of his presidency. The resolution passed 59-41 – with 12 Republicans joining every Democrat. The measure, which already passed the House, now heads to Trump, who has promised to veto the legislation and effectively kill it since neither chamber appears to have enough support to overcome Trump's promised veto with a two-thirds majority vote. (New York Times/ CNBC / Washington Post / Politico / Associated Press / Reuters / NBC News)

This is a companion discussion topic for the original entry at

Beto will announce he’s running for President Thursday.


Under any other president, this menacing public statement would be the top story of the day, but somehow Trump has managed to make threats of violence against his opponents just another off-hand remark that elicits nothing more than eye rolls. We shouldn’t be shrugging off threats like this; we should be outraged. I hope the House takes up a motion to admonish the President for his threats. :angry:

One of Donald Trump’s favorite riffs is a wish, cast as a warning, that his supporters inside and outside the state security services will unleash violence on his political opponents if they continue to oppose the administration. The specifics of the riff don’t vary much. Trump laments that his opponents are treating him unfairly, praises the toughness and strength of his supporters — a category that combines the police, military, and Bikers for Trump, which he apparently views as a Brownshirt-like militia — and a prediction that his supporters will at some point end their restraint.

He does it again in a new interview with Breitbart:

I actually think that the people on the right are tougher, but they don’t play it tougher. Okay? I can tell you I have the support of the police, the support of the military, the support of the Bikers for Trump – I have the tough people, but they don’t play it tough — until they go to a certain point, and then it would be very bad, very bad.


Big win for Democrats!

The Senate voted 59-41 on Thursday to cancel President Donald Trump’s national security declaration to fund a wall on the border, picking up the support of 12 Republicans to put the measure over the top.

Trump has vowed to veto the measure, which would block him from making an end run around Congress to obtain billions of federal dollars to build the wall that has been set aside for other purposes.



Yahoo News March 14, 2019

Senate votes to block Trump’s ‘emergency’ at border; veto looms

The Senate voted Thursday to block President Trump’s declaration of a national emergency intended to allow funding of a border wall with a dozen GOP senators going against the White House. Trump said he would veto the measure, which passed the House by a large margin last month.

The final margin was 59-41. Republican senators voting for the resolution and against Trump were Susan Collins of Maine, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, Roy Blunt of Missouri, Lamar Alexander of Tennessee, Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania, Kentucky’s Rand Paul, Rob Portman of Ohio, Marco Rubio of Florida, Jerry Moran of Kansas, Roger Wicker of Mississippi, and Mitt Romney and Mike Lee of Utah.


House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadle (D-N.Y.) says he expects close to half of the 81 people and entities included in his panel’s documents requests to comply by the Monday deadline.

But he also said a few witnesses are fighting the requests.

We’ve had close to half, I’m told, have indicated that they will comply with the request without a subpoena,” Nadler told The Hill. “And then we’ve had a few people who have said give us a subpoena and we will comply — meaning give me an excuse, give me a friendly subpoena.

“We’ve got a couple of people who say we are going to fight it,” he continued, noting that it is only “a handful.”

Asked if he plans to go to court if some refuse to cooperate, Nadler described that decision as situational.

“We will see. It depends on how important they are and what else we have," Nadler told The Hill.

The chairman, however, signaled that he will not aggressively issue subpoenas in order to obtain such information.

We are not in the business … of issuing subpoenas. The purpose is to get information to analyze it,” Nadler separately told reporters.

I’m disappointed that Nadler is not taking a tougher stance on obtaining the requested documents. Why would anyone comply if they can just say “pass” and then face only a marginal chance of receiving a follow-up subpoena?

Nadler says he won’t “aggressively issue subpoenas” – meanwhile, for the past two years, Republicans have been aggressively shielding Trump. I, for one, helped vote in a Democratic House majority with the very expectation that they would aggressively root out the truth about Trump. So far, the Democrats, including Nadler, have made some strong strategic moves, but I’m concerned by this new, ineffectual rhetoric from the Judiciary Committee Chair.


I’ve been wondering why the Republicans haven’t agreed to vote enmass. Does 45 really have enough contacts to bring down all of them? He would look pretty silly taking all of them on at once.


President Donald Trump allegedly turned his charitable foundation into a wing of his White House campaign, according to a Thursday court filing by New York’s attorney general.

State Attorney General Letitia James filed the 37-page lawsuit, which seeks $2.8 million in restitution. The suit also requests an order banning Trump, as well as Donald Trump, Jr. Eric Trump and Ivanka Trump, from operating any charities in New York for 10 years.

According to the Associated Press , the filing is in response to an earlier court submission from the foundation’s lawyers, who contend that the lawsuit against the charity is “both flimsy and politically motivated.”

News of this suit follows a December 2018 decision to dismantle the Donald J. Trump Foundation, as well as a Feb. 28 call by Rep. Maxine Waters to investigate the foundation as part of the probe she is leading into the president’s finances.

“I think that’s an area that should be looked at because I think the foundation has been used by him to avoid paying taxes," Waters told Politico.

The lawsuit alleges the foundation’s involvement in a Trump maneuver leading up to the Iowa caucuses in 2016 broke rules barring charities from getting involved in political campaigns.

Instead of attending the final Republican primary candidate debate hosted by Fox News, Trump held a rally at the same time as the debate. During the rally, he called on people to donate to veterans charities. The foundation allegedly acted as a pass-through for people who heeded his call for donations, the lawsuit says.

Here’s some of the evidence as described in the Associated Press article that first broke this story:

[New York State Attorney General Letitia James] said the evidence of banned coordination between campaign officials and the foundation includes deposition testimony from Trump Organization executive Allen Weisselberg and emails he exchanged with former Trump campaign manager Corey Lewandowski.

In one email, a Trump company vice president asked Lewandowski for guidance on how to distribute the money that was raised.

“Do you have a list of which veterans charities you want these funds sent to and how much for each charity??” the vice president, Jeffrey McConney, wrote Lewandowski on Feb. 16, 2016, according to the filing. “Lastly, how much longer do you want to keep the TrumpforVets website up and running?”

This looks like it could be a slam-dunk case since the emails from the charity to Lewandowski (who was Trump’s campaign manager at the time) clearly establish that the campaign was dolling out money from the charity to further its campaign goals.


The question as to how T might react to a transition of power should his presidency be challenged legally. Norm Ornstein writes that T would call on the military, the police, ‘bikers for T.’ This is see omething that Michael Cohen warned about too.

T will not handlle having his authority challenged…

Follow this thread.
(Norm Orensten is a contribotor to the Atlantic, pundit)


I find this article from WaPo talking about Trump’s Breitbart comments, and how he’s done it before, and how it relates to other things he’s said, is worth a look:

Analysis | Trump again nods toward violence by his supporters — and maybe something bigger


Trump appeared to insinuate in a recent interview that his supporters – the police, military and “Bikers for Trump,” he claims – could turn violent against Democrats.

Trump deletes Breitbart tweet about how ‘tough’ his supporters can get


Trump on Friday insisted there should be no report from special counsel Robert Mueller’s Russia probe, denouncing the investigation as "illegal."

“So, if there was knowingly & acknowledged to be ‘zero’ crime when the Special Counsel was appointed, and if the appointment was made based on the Fake Dossier (paid for by Crooked Hillary) and now disgraced Andrew McCabe (he & all stated no crime), then the Special Counsel…should never have been appointed and there should be no Mueller Report,” the president tweeted Friday.

Trump has repeatedly called Mueller’s probe into whether Russia colluded with the president’s 2016 campaign a “witch hunt.” Despite his criticisms, the president has maintained that he has cooperated fully with the investigation, which also includes whether Trump tried to obstruct justice.



Mueller’s team has released the status report on Rick Gates and they’ve decided to push back his sentencing date again.


  • Former Trump campaign official Rick Gates “continues to cooperate with respect to several ongoing investigations,” special counsel Robert Mueller says.
  • The joint report from Mueller and Gates’ attorney asks a federal judge for 60 more days before providing the next update on Gates’ status.
  • In February 2018, Gates struck a deal with prosecutors, pleading guilty to two criminal counts including conspiracy and lying to FBI agents. Since then, he appears to have cooperated extensively with Mueller’s team.

Though old, I believe these articles, the one about Trump’s efforts to classify Mexican cartels as terrorist organizations, the four about how he’s worked against combating white supremacists in the U.S., and the one about how the massive rise in and monopoly of white supremacists in domestic terror attacks, matter given the events in Christchurch:

Trump told propaganda site Breitbart he is “very seriously” considering designating Mexican drug cartels as terrorists in interview filled with racism and fearmongering.

Trump Shut Programs to Counter Violent Extremism

The administration has hobbled the infrastructure designed to prevent atrocities like Pittsburgh and Christchurch. Trump Shut the Countering-Violent-Extremism Program - The Atlantic

When Fighting Domestic Terrorism, You Get What You Pay For

The Trump administration has gutted the budget for fighting far-right extremists, making it harder to stop attacks like the Pittsburgh massacre. When Fighting Domestic Terrorism, You Get What You Pay For – Foreign Policy

“We Are at a Turning Point”: Counterterrorism Experts Say Trump Is Inspiring a New Era of Right-Wing Violence “We Are at a Turning Point”: Counterterrorism Experts Say Trump Is Inspiring a Terrifying New Era of Right-Wing Violence | Vanity Fair

A Database Showed Far-Right Terror on the Rise. Then Trump Defunded It.

The Terrorism That Doesn’t Spark a Panic

Americans should react to violence from religious and ethnic minorities with the same sense of proportion they reserve for far-right extremists.

From 2009 through 2018, right-wing extremists accounted for 73% of American domestic attacks.


A post was merged into an existing topic: Day 785

Post was on the wrong day.

This topic was automatically closed 15 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.