[AATW]

All the media are entirely free to publish (pick your favorite form...radio, print, broadcast TV, internet forum, blog, Youtube video, etc.) whatever the living hell they want to about Trump, what he does, what he says, what he writes, what he eats, when he shits, how he shits, etc, and they have been 24/7, eight goddamn days a week.

They can at the moment, but Trump is certainly making noises that he wants to change that.



I'm not sure he will - the First Amendment protection is pretty strong. But he's making some "dictatory" noises about shutting down dissenting voices.

[Action80]

Yeah, I know...

Just like the globesters here, he whines about fucking everything...

He really should just ignore the asshats who attack him and just keep pressing forward with his agenda.

Eliminate taxes on tips, Social Security, and overtime, implement reciprocal tariffs like he said he would, and just sit back and watch the results.

Keep up with the rate of press events like he has.

Pretty positive results so far.

But if what he is describing in your video is taking place, then Trump is absolutely correct. What he describes is actually illegal and it should stop.

[markjo]

Correct. Trump told them to march peacefully, and that is what the majority of them did. It is a minority of people who acted with violence.

Incorrect.  Trump told the crowd to “fight like hell” and he would be right there with them.

[AATW]

Correct. Trump told them to march peacefully, and that is what the majority of them did. It is a minority of people who acted with violence.

Incorrect.  Trump told the crowd to “fight like hell” and he would be right there with them.

I actually think Trump has enough plausible deniability on this.
I don't think he actively called for violence. But...he did spent bloody months whipping up a load of idiots in to believing that he, and therefore they, had had an election stolen from them. So I still think he's responsible for it - Jan 6th wouldn't have happened but for Trump's behaviour after the election.

[Lord Dave]

Uh huh. So these harmless tourists just happened to be in Washington. They just happened to be near the Capitol. They just happened to be devoted Trump fans, like everyone else who had entered the Capitol. This just happened to be on the day that Congress was set to certify Trump's loss to Biden, the same day that Trump himself had focused on and asked his supporters to be in Washington for. This just happened to be directly following a speech from Trump in which he urged his supporters to march on the Capitol to protest Congress certifying his loss.

Correct. Trump told them to march peacefully, and that is what the majority of them did. It is a minority of people who acted with violence.

In this video from Daily Caller titled "Trump Supporters Stop Two Men From Smashing Windows At The Capitol" we see someone trying to break a window and people in the crowd screaming to "Get him out of here" and "We don't break s***". The man was pulled away. At the 36 second mark we see another man to break the window, and he was also pulled away, with the crowd screaming "Stop!" and "Whoever is breaking s*** is not with us" and "F*** Antifa" and "You don't have the right to use violence".

You would have to be extremely gullible to buy this story. But for the sake of argument, fine, let's accept that some of these protesters were hapless bystanders. You're still arguing from the perspective of trying to prove exceptions to the rule, rather than trying to overturn the principal facts of what we all saw that day.

It's not the exception to the rule, it is the rule. Like in the video above, in most of the videos it's only a few people doing something bad, while the vast majority are innocent bystanders. They are individuals who may disagree with the actions observed, hence the verbal disapproval.

This is probably, of the 80,000 people there, only 2,000 entered and of those, only 1200 were convicted.

[Lord Dave]

Holy fuck is Trump doing... Exactly what we all thought he'd do.

So, two big things.

1. https://www.yahoo.com/news/commerce-secretary-no-one-fraudsters-203308435.html
Apparently if anyone complains about missing a social security check ... They're a fraudster.  Go figure, right?  Apparently anyone whose not getting fraud payments have no issues just... Missing a month of income.

2. Trump is killing law firms who crossed him. Personally.
https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/03/addressing-risks-from-perkins-coie-llp/
(From march 6... Damn, we are falling behind here...)
So essentially, he's killing the law firm and making sure anyone who works there, technically, can't go into a federal courthouse.  Without a special waiver.  It also bans any business that does business with the federal government (70% of their client base) from doing business with that firm. 
And his rationale is essentially "they represented Hillary Clinton and hired someone to finish the steele document.  And they have the word diverisy on their website."
No really, the word diverisy.

This, of course, highly illegal and unconstitutional, definitely violating the 6th amendment by barring a client from using council of their choosing.

And, apparently if you bribe the president with free lawyer time, you can get your ban canceled.
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c2d4kex0w2ro


I'm sure both Tom and Action will say how this is fine and not illegal and in is morally justified because it's the right of the president to exact revenge on people or entities who went against him.
Because they want a fascist dictatorship.

[Action80]

I do not know enough about the issue at this time to provide a label, contrary to your attempt to place me in some sort of bucket. Further, you are already aware I have openly disagreed with at least two or three of the actions Trump has taken, one of them in this term.

But from your first link, I can agree with this statement made by Lutnick, not Trump:
“What we have to do is stop sending money to someone who’s not hurt, who’s on disability for 50 years,” he claimed. “It’s ridiculous, and they have another job.”

We also find this: "Trump has vowed not to cut Social Security benefits, however. Lutnick also said on Thursday that he’s against raising the retirement age — a proposal some Republicans have floated in Congress as a way to help shore up solvency for the program."

So, I ask you: Did you actually read that goddamn article?

I also ask: Are you still clinging to the notion the Steele dossier was a legitimate report?

[Lord Dave]

I do not know enough about the issue at this time to provide a label, contrary to your attempt to place me in some sort of bucket. Further, you are already aware I have openly disagreed with at least two or three of the actions Trump has taken, one of them in this term.

Fair enough, I apologize for the preventive accusation.  Hopefully you will agree that using EOs to ban law firms who represented political enemies is a bad thing.

[Action80]

I appreciate the retraction.

However, the characterization you offered that the law firm was banned because it "represented political enemies," is nowhere near factual. That law firm was banned due to soliciting and facilitating the production of written materials designed to publically smear a citizen of the United States.

I hope you would agree that any law firm engaging in such a practice would be disbanded, all of the participating lawyers be disbarred, and the full partnership and board of directors be jailed for a period of no less than 10 years.

[Lord Dave]

I appreciate the retraction.

However, the characterization you offered that the law firm was banned because it "represented political enemies," is nowhere near factual. That law firm was banned due to soliciting and facilitating the production of written materials designed to publically smear a citizen of the United States.

I hope you would agree that any law firm engaging in such a practice would be disbanded, all of the participating lawyers be disbarred, and the full partnership and board of directors be jailed for a period of no less than 10 years.

Couple of problems with that

1. They didn't make it and likely had no way to verify it's accuracy.
2. Trump's own administration investigated the document and its creation and nothing illegal came of it.  Nor did the lawsuit he filed in Florida about it.
https://apnews.com/article/judge-dismisses-trump-lawsuit-against-clinton-1c49b9f65177507bb06115b631c8499d
https://apnews.com/fbi-was-justified-in-probing-trump-russia-fed-watchdog-says-a734c40d142c8950f57ad4c8f8af565c


Also, the punishment for doing this is to ban any company that works with the federal government from doing business with them.  AND banning every employee from going into federal buildings.  Seems like an overreaction, given the reason was one of national security.

And does this apply to law firms that tried to overturn the 2020 election?  Nope.  Just specific ones.  Which seems... Unusual, don't you think?  It doesn't stop ANY law firm that smears a political candate (which already has laws about it), just one specific one.


Jailed for 10 years?  Damn.  How does that apply to the first amendment, I wonder.

[Action80]

I didn't state the law firm created the Steel Dossier.

Law firms, their partners, and associates, have a legal and ethical responsibility to hire and sufficiently vet persons or firms with which they will do legitimate business. Perkins Cole absolutely failed to do this when they contracted with Fusion GPS.

Whether any of the fallout in this particular case was illegal (it absolutely should be, as I am sure you will agree), is not relevant to the EO Trump signed.

[Lord Dave]

I didn't state the law firm created the Steel Dossier.

Law firms, their partners, and associates, have a legal and ethical responsibility to hire and sufficiently vet persons or firms with which they will do legitimate business. Perkins Cole absolutely failed to do this when they contracted with Fusion GPS.

While I agree, if the firm Inhire said "we have a guy from MI6 doing this" and that turned out to be true, I'd call that a best effort.  Plus, as far as I know, Fusion GPS has no history of other things like that, do they?  If not, what vetting could they have done to ensure that they could trust the results of Fusion GPS's work, which was first being produced at the request of the RNC?

Whether any of the fallout in this particular case was illegal (it absolutely should be, as I am sure you will agree), is not relevant to the EO Trump signed.

If it should be then I'd submit that anyone who promoted the idea that Hillary Clinton ran a pedophile ring out if a pizzaria basement should also be charged and sent to 10 years in prison, wouldn't you agree?

The Trump EO is literally about Trump's experience and not anything general.  It even says so, clearly, that the ban is because they helped facilitate a document that made Trump look bad.  There is no other reason given beyond that.(Well except for the word diversity on their website). It was not a general ban on law firms that engage in similar behavior.  If it was, it would probably crash alot of other law firms. 

And if that was the case, why would another EO, not relating to the steele documents, have been filed because they represented people in various cases as well as also having the word diversity on their website?  Same exact actions too: banning any company (that works with the government) from using them, banning them from entering federal buildings, etc ...
Then be undone by free legal work ($40 million worth) and a promise to remove diversity from their firm.

[Action80]

Once you contract a firm, the work they perform should then be vetted. I do not know the history of Fusion GPS, but I do know that PerkinsCole did not sufficiently vet the Steele Dossier. The fact the Republicans first brought in Fusion  GPS is irrelevant.

Apples to oranges, LD.

Do you have any links to any formal corporation that produced material about PizzaGate?

Has there been any formal pronouncement from any reputable authority concerning any allegations made by a formal corporation concerning PizzaGate?

If so, then yeah...10 years.

[Lord Dave]

Once you contract a firm, the work they perform should then be vetted. I do not know the history of Fusion GPS, but I do know that PerkinsCole did not sufficiently vet the Steele Dossier. The fact the Republicans first brought in Fusion  GPS is irrelevant.

How would they vett it, exactly?  Because it's odd that your argument seems to be "the law firm should have done the job that this other firm did when they hired them." In fact the steele dossier is not completely false but has several verified facts in it.  The blackmail bit wasn't true but other parts, like Russia helping Trump via social media and Trump attempting to get a Trump Tower in Moscow, was very accurate.  So based on that, their history of successful investigation, and the investigator being the former head of Russian intelligence at MI6... There is sufficient evidence to conclude that they were vetted as well as can be expected.

Do you have any links to any formal corporation that produced material about PizzaGate?

Produced, no.  Pushed, yes.  Infowars heavily pushed it.  But fair enough, pizza gate was born from reddit posts.

Has there been any formal pronouncement from any reputable authority concerning any allegations made by a formal corporation concerning PizzaGate?

Fair enough.
Only some Trump officials helped push it and other conspiracy theories.  And Trump's main push was about Clinton's emails.  No official corporation made opposition reasearch, public.

Even so, you're agreeing that this law firm had no knowledge that part of the Dossier was false.  Your entire argument is that they should have vetted the source better but the source was a source of authority and experience so the vetting was done and no evidence has emerged that this was known to be false.  Even Trump's own administration agrees that the FBI had good reason, upon reading the Dossier, to investigate its contents.  So I'd think that if Trump's team agrees that the Dossier was valid enough to warrant investigation, no law firm was going to do better.


It should also be noted that Trump did not take any action against the law firm until now.  He did not make this EO back in 2017 or 2018.  Why?  If this is so bad, why didn't he?


Because its not about integrity, it's about vengeance.  And he doesn't have to worry about reelection.

[Action80]

LD, Trump, whether you like it or not, is a recognized authority.

You are here, on an internet forum, engaged in the process of vetting all of his work.

At the same time, trying to justify a shit job of vetting performed by a prestigious law firm...

Think about how these two factual statements belie your overall written analysis...

[Lord Dave]

LD, Trump, whether you like it or not, is a recognized authority.

On realestate, yes.  Russian intelligence.. no.

You are here, on an internet forum, engaged in the process of vetting all of his work.

At the same time, trying to justify a shit job of vetting performed by a prestigious law firm...

Think about how these two factual statements belie your overall written analysis...

Shitty.  Ok, so without using the steele dossier, tell me why GPS Fusion was not trust worthy.  Since you know it was shitty, you must be able to vett them properly, right? 

[honk]

https://web.archive.org/web/20250324194236/https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2025/03/trump-administration-accidentally-texted-me-its-war-plans/682151/

[Tom Bishop]

https://web.archive.org/web/20250324194236/https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2025/03/trump-administration-accidentally-texted-me-its-war-plans/682151/

There aren't any war plans in this link. The author says that he doesn't want to share them.

It is permissible for a soldier to tell his mother that he is being deployed to war. It is not permissible to give exact details. Considering that we are just left to assume exactly what was said, it is logical to assume that this outlet is publishing editorial slants and willful misunderstanding like they have for the last 10 years.

[honk]

The entire discussion was secret war plans, being carried out on an unsecure platform which nobody noticed that a journalist had been invited to. No, this is not comparable to a soldier telling his loved ones he's being deployed to war.

[Tom Bishop]

The entire discussion was secret war plans, being carried out on an unsecure platform which nobody noticed that a journalist had been invited to. No, this is not comparable to a soldier telling his loved ones he's being deployed to war.

We can see in the weasel words that what he read was vague:

"At 11:44 a.m., the account labeled “Pete Hegseth” posted in Signal a “TEAM UPDATE.” I will not quote from this update, or from certain other subsequent texts. The information contained in them, if they had been read by an adversary of the United States, could conceivably have been used to harm American military and intelligence personnel, particularly in the broader Middle East, Central Command’s area of responsibility. What I will say, in order to illustrate the shocking recklessness of this Signal conversation, is that the Hegseth post contained operational details of forthcoming strikes on Yemen, including information about targets, weapons the U.S. would be deploying, and attack sequencing."

He says that what he read could have harmed American military personnel in the "broader Middle East". Wow, that narrows it down. Americans throughout the "broader Middle East" were in danger!

An argument based on "Trust me bro" only works if you are trustworthy. The same journalist invented the "suckers and losers" hoax, which was contradicted by witnesses. It is not a coincidence that this poor attempt to spread panic was made by a leftist journalist for a leftist rag who is highly critical of Trump and loose with the truth.