ADVERTISEMENT

Good grief - things get more bizarre each day

Begining of a meltdown?


"Being, like, really smart" :rolleyes:



He's a living, breathing meme at this point. The POTUS feels the need to publicly state that mental stability is one of his greatest assets. What a time to be alive.
:D:)



Only dumbasses go around trying to convince everyone they’re smart. Just like total assholes brag about how Christian they are.
 
I agree with a lot of what you present. But we have to be careful as this plays into Trump's hands. We have to knpw the dissarray is real, making it up returns us yo the other side and Vince Foster (and a million other things). Having not read the book, maybe every single quote is attributed. If so, painting disarray may well be possible.

But if there are "one White House staffer went as far to say that Trump is actually an iguana" quotes, it is useless. That staffer might be an intern or someone so painfully junior it means nothing. We have no idea who it is, so how does it help paint any picture? It does not, it just gives Trump supporters the right to make fun of people attacking Trump as I have used Vince Foster to make fun of Republican elements for what seems forever.

This shoud not be throw everything against the wall and see what sticks. Unless we know who is being quoted, that is what it is unless he has in some way verified the information. Since he admits to no verification, how is it different than the National inquierer?

An unnamed source telling a lie is in no way informative.
It only plays into Trump's hands if you buy into the existence of a reasonable disagreement over his fitness for office.

Trump's supporters have established they won't accept ANY reasoned takedown of their guy. I think the notion that we need to find a better way of convincing them is, at this point, preposterous.

If anything, I think parsing over the inaccuracies of the book is what plays into Trump's hands, whatever that might mean now.
 
It almost seems like Michael Wolff and Donald Trump were separated at birth:

The author of the explosive new book about Donald Trump's presidency acknowledged in the book that he wasn't certain all of its content was true.

Michael Wolff, the author of "Fire and Fury: Inside the Trump White House," included a note at the start that casts significant doubt on the reliability of the specifics contained in the rest of its pages.

Several of his sources, he says, were definitely lying to him, while some offered accounts that flatly contradicted those of others.

But some were nonetheless included in the vivid account of the West Wing's workings, in a process Wolff describes as "allowing the reader to judge" whether the sources' claims are true.

In other cases, the media columnist said, he did use his journalistic judgment and research to arrive at what he describes "a version of events I believe to be true."

Here is the relevant part of the note, from the 10th page of the book's prologue:​

"Many of the accounts of what has happened in the Trump White House are in conflict with one another; many, in Trumpian fashion, are baldly untrue. These conflicts, and that looseness with the truth, if not with reality itself, are an elemental thread of the book.

"Sometimes I have let the players offer their versions, in turn allowing the reader to judge them. In other instances I have, through a consistency in the accounts and through sources I have come to trust, settled on a version of events I believe to be true."​

http://www.businessinsider.com/mich...-doesnt-know-if-trump-book-is-all-true-2018-1

What is an anti-Trumper to believe these days . . . .

Is Trump a demented old man who only toyed with politics and didn't even want to be president? or,

Is Trump a cold calculating self-interested traitor who colluded with Putin in order to become president?
 
What is an anti-Trumper to believe these days . . . .

Is Trump a demented old man who only toyed with politics and didn't even want to be president? or,

Is Trump a cold calculating self-interested traitor who colluded with Putin in order to become president?
One doesn't exclude the other.
 
What is an anti-Trumper to believe these days . . . .

Is Trump a demented old man who only toyed with politics and didn't even want to be president? or,

Is Trump a cold calculating self-interested traitor who colluded with Putin in order to become president?
He's a barely sentient carrot surrounded by equally dim root stock. None of his crowds interactions with the Russians would suggest much calculation at all. And yes, he is a self-interested traitor.
 
I agree with a lot of what you present. But we have to be careful as this plays into Trump's hands. We have to knpw the dissarray is real, making it up returns us yo the other side and Vince Foster (and a million other things). Having not read the book, maybe every single quote is attributed. If so, painting disarray may well be possible.

But if there are "one White House staffer went as far to say that Trump is actually an iguana" quotes, it is useless. That staffer might be an intern or someone so painfully junior it means nothing. We have no idea who it is, so how does it help paint any picture? It does not, it just gives Trump supporters the right to make fun of people attacking Trump as I have used Vince Foster to make fun of Republican elements for what seems forever.

This shoud not be throw everything against the wall and see what sticks. Unless we know who is being quoted, that is what it is unless he has in some way verified the information. Since he admits to no verification, how is it different than the National inquierer?

An unnamed source telling a lie is in no way informative.

Despite the seeming disarray, 2017 has been a pretty remarkable year for a rookie president.

The "SIS" part of ISIS has been destroyed.
Tax reform is done.
Regulation roll-back is proceeding.
GDP growth is giving signs of breaking the 3% barrier
The Individual mandate and it's accompanying one size fits all coverages are finished.
European NATO members are stepping up financially.

To be sure, there are festering issues and not everyone would agree my list is for the good. But despite the constant reporting about chaos and disarray there is a lot getting done.
 
Despite the seeming disarray, 2017 has been a pretty remarkable year for a rookie president.

The "SIS" part of ISIS has been destroyed.
Tax reform is done.
Regulation roll-back is proceeding.
GDP growth is giving signs of breaking the 3% barrier
The Individual mandate and it's accompanying one size fits all coverages are finished.
European NATO members are stepping up financially.

To be sure, there are festering issues and not everyone would agree my list is for the good. But despite the constant reporting about chaos and disarray there is a lot getting done.

The offensive that collapsed ISIS started long before 2017. Or do you give Harry Truman credit for defeating Germany and Japan?

NATO countries made commitments to up their spending.

I can devise a similar list but I will just see how you handle one from it. Is China no longer a currency manipulator? That was a day 1 promise made by someone. Did we win that war already?
 
Begining of a meltdown?


"Being, like, really smart" :rolleyes:



He's a living, breathing meme at this point. The POTUS feels the need to publicly state that mental stability is one of his greatest assets. What a time to be alive.
:D:)


Once again I thought it was a parody account when I first saw it. Now he's talking like a mean valley girl.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ohio Guy
Truth has been relative”
The offensive that collapsed ISIS started long before 2017. Or do you give Harry Truman credit for defeating Germany and Japan?

NATO countries made commitments to up their spending.

I can devise a similar list but I will just see how you handle one from it. Is China no longer a currency manipulator? That was a day 1 promise made by someone. Did we win that war already?

While I usually dislike the “but your guy” game, it occasionally can demonstrate the double standards used in politics.

I recall two things Obama said would be the first thing he’d do. (I’m sure there were others.)

1. Close Gitmo.
2. Sign a law replacing secret ballot elections with “card check” to give unions representation rights.

(I knew No. 2 be a lie/exaggeration/misstatement immediately. No law required. The NLRB could make that change without even going through public rule-making/regulation procedures. Never did. In November 2009 I spoke to roomful of AFL-CIO and union guys. The Kentucky AFL-CIO president announced to the “brothers and sisters” in the room (his term, not mine) that “our time has arrived - with card check we will re-unionize this State in months, not years.” I told them Obama sold them a bill of goods. He had not given them card check in his 10 months in office, and he wouldn’t. He would trade everything they wanted for health care insurance reform, and card check was dead. They hated me. But one of the union lawyers I knew waited til the room cleared out and told me “you made interesting comments. Let’s talk in a year.” We did. He called Obama a traitor to unions. Off the record, of course.)

So calling out a President from the opposing party for failing/refusing to implement campaign promises is just low hanging fruit.
 
Truth has been relative”


While I usually dislike the “but your guy” game, it occasionally can demonstrate the double standards used in politics.

I recall two things Obama said would be the first thing he’d do. (I’m sure there were others.)

1. Close Gitmo.
2. Sign a law replacing secret ballot elections with “card check” to give unions representation rights.

(I knew No. 2 be a lie/exaggeration/misstatement immediately. No law required. The NLRB could make that change without even going through public rule-making/regulation procedures. Never did. In November 2009 I spoke to roomful of AFL-CIO and union guys. The Kentucky AFL-CIO president announced to the “brothers and sisters” in the room (his term, not mine) that “our time has arrived - with card check we will re-unionize this State in months, not years.” I told them Obama sold them a bill of goods. He had not given them card check in his 10 months in office, and he wouldn’t. He would trade everything they wanted for health care insurance reform, and card check was dead. They hated me. But one of the union lawyers I knew waited til the room cleared out and told me “you made interesting comments. Let’s talk in a year.” We did. He called Obama a traitor to unions. Off the record, of course.)

So calling out a President from the opposing party for failing/refusing to implement campaign promises is just low hanging fruit.
But that’s all typical political BS. I expect that from pretty much anybody. Do you not see the issue of Trump being a babbling idiot? It’s lying and incompetence turned up to about 500 percent.
 
Truth has been relative”


While I usually dislike the “but your guy” game, it occasionally can demonstrate the double standards used in politics.

I recall two things Obama said would be the first thing he’d do. (I’m sure there were others.)

1. Close Gitmo.
2. Sign a law replacing secret ballot elections with “card check” to give unions representation rights.

(I knew No. 2 be a lie/exaggeration/misstatement immediately. No law required. The NLRB could make that change without even going through public rule-making/regulation procedures. Never did. In November 2009 I spoke to roomful of AFL-CIO and union guys. The Kentucky AFL-CIO president announced to the “brothers and sisters” in the room (his term, not mine) that “our time has arrived - with card check we will re-unionize this State in months, not years.” I told them Obama sold them a bill of goods. He had not given them card check in his 10 months in office, and he wouldn’t. He would trade everything they wanted for health care insurance reform, and card check was dead. They hated me. But one of the union lawyers I knew waited til the room cleared out and told me “you made interesting comments. Let’s talk in a year.” We did. He called Obama a traitor to unions. Off the record, of course.)

So calling out a President from the opposing party for failing/refusing to implement campaign promises is just low hanging fruit.
What exactly could the NLRB have done to make the change you're referencing. At least some of the election process standards are set forth in statute. Last I checked, administrative agencies can't override statutory enactments. How could they have done so on this issue?

If it were so easy, why didn't the NLRB do so after the unpopular EFCA failed in Congress?

What exactly did Obama fail to do on this issue? Even Democrats balked at the EFCA.

What specific promise did he break on this issue? What was put on his desk for signature that he refused to sign despite his previous promise?
 
Truth has been relative”


While I usually dislike the “but your guy” game, it occasionally can demonstrate the double standards used in politics.

I recall two things Obama said would be the first thing he’d do. (I’m sure there were others.)

1. Close Gitmo.
2. Sign a law replacing secret ballot elections with “card check” to give unions representation rights.

(I knew No. 2 be a lie/exaggeration/misstatement immediately. No law required. The NLRB could make that change without even going through public rule-making/regulation procedures. Never did. In November 2009 I spoke to roomful of AFL-CIO and union guys. The Kentucky AFL-CIO president announced to the “brothers and sisters” in the room (his term, not mine) that “our time has arrived - with card check we will re-unionize this State in months, not years.” I told them Obama sold them a bill of goods. He had not given them card check in his 10 months in office, and he wouldn’t. He would trade everything they wanted for health care insurance reform, and card check was dead. They hated me. But one of the union lawyers I knew waited til the room cleared out and told me “you made interesting comments. Let’s talk in a year.” We did. He called Obama a traitor to unions. Off the record, of course.)

So calling out a President from the opposing party for failing/refusing to implement campaign promises is just low hanging fruit.

You are right, all presidents make promises they cannot/will not keep. So let me try this one, in 2016 eight coal miners died in accidents. In 2017 sixteen died. If we are granting all of CO's examples than it is fair for me to claim Trump does not give a damn about the lives of coal miners.
 
One of my strikes against it, they completely invent a key scene. Why do that, why tell a story of Churchill and make that up. If you want to do that, tell the story of the Earth Defense Force trapped on Rigel 3.
Wait, Churchill was involved with that too???
 
You are right, all presidents make promises they cannot/will not keep. So let me try this one, in 2016 eight coal miners died in accidents. In 2017 sixteen died. If we are granting all of CO's examples than it is fair for me to claim Trump does not give a damn about the lives of coal miners.

Or you could just acknowledge that with more mining activity, even under the best of safety practices, coal miners get killed at a higher rate then when there is less activity. Fewer soliders died to day than on D-Day. Does Trump love soldiers more than FDR?

No.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Cajun54
Or you could just acknowledge that with more mining activity, even under the best of safety practices, coal miners get killed at a higher rate then when there is less activity. Fewer soliders died to day than on D-Day. Does Trump love soldiers more than FDR?

No.
I am highly skeptical we doubled either the number of hours mined or number of people mining, so it was obviously the laissez faire attitude that killing workers for profit is ok.

I don't actually believe that unless I am told that Trump defeated ISIS.
 
Or you could just acknowledge that with more mining activity, even under the best of safety practices, coal miners get killed at a higher rate then when there is less activity. Fewer soliders died to day than on D-Day. Does Trump love soldiers more than FDR?

No.
But, did coal mining activity increase in 2017? I don’t know the answer, but I would have guessed that it did not.

And clearly if there was an increase it certainly did not increase even remotely close to the increase in mining deaths.
 
What exactly could the NLRB have done to make the change you're referencing. At least some of the election process standards are set forth in statute. Last I checked, administrative agencies can't override statutory enactments. How could they have done so on this issue?

If it were so easy, why didn't the NLRB do so after the unpopular EFCA failed in Congress?

What exactly did Obama fail to do on this issue? Even Democrats balked at the EFCA.

What specific promise did he break on this issue? What was put on his desk for signature that he refused to sign despite his previous promise?

You misunderstand the labor law system.

The sitting President appoints a majority of the NLRB.

The NLRB then sets (or re-sets) all kinds of rules - some of which require regular rule-making, some which don't. Depends on the specific issue, the specific statutory language, and even prior Court rulings. Some are set by the formal rule-making you alluded to, and maybe followed by Federal Court of Appeal review (under the "deferential" analysis they give agency actions). But MOST of their rules are set by Board/General Counsel pronouncements of policy (i.e. how they interpret certain statutory phrasing or prior regulations), and/or specific Administrative Law Judge rulings - some (not all) of which are also tested by Circuit Courts of Appeal under the "deferential" analysis they give agency actions - but still NOT by the formal rule making process you alluded to.

Thus, for example, during the Obama Administration, rules about the use of/meaning of/impact of things like employment handbook policies - on topics like at-will employment, social media use, etc. - were changed with no new "regulations" or "statutory amendments." (Statements of, for example, at-will employment, that were understood to be legal for decades, and previously declared legal by courts, were suddenly declared illegal based on the possibility that extreme interpretations offered by no one maybe potentially someday might harm employee rights. Same process in other areas - the Board changed how they interpreted the meaning of legal phrases like "bargaining unit" and "community of interests" to allow a union to represent "micro" units, and not require them to show "majority" support to represent larger groups (more on that term below).

No amended statutes or regs were offered or seen to be necessary. Nothing "placed on the President's desk." They just changed the rule - like Obama SAID he'd do with "card check."

The rules set by the NLRB include how/when to hold secret ballot elections.

The statutory language "requires" a "secret ballot" election when there is a "showing of interest" at the 30% level.

The statutory purpose of the election is to determine whether a "majority" of the relevant employees favor unionization. (Ties go to the employer. The union must get 50% plus 1 of the votes cast, minimum.)

The unions have always argued that if their "showing of interest" was already more than a majority, no election should be held or is required by statute. "A majority is a majority."

They want to gain the right to represent employees solely through "card check" because once the unionization effort is discovered, unions historically lose support between that date and the election date. (The parties disagree on why. Unions say the companies violate the law and illegally threaten/retaliate against pro-union employees. Companies say the employees have typically been lied to, bothered and bullied, and vote NO in secret ballot elections.)

The Obama NLRB could have simply adopted that rule, taking the position that the NLRA requires an election when 30% employee support has been shown, but that "50% + 1" entitles the union to represent the employees - and where the unions shows "50% plus 1" through card check, no election is proper.

Instead, they "elected" to "use" the "EFCA" to "amend" the statute. Planned failure in advance. Once the unions saw EFCA coming, instead of just a policy change, the ones with experience knew. Bubba at the Hall still believed. But the guys at the top knew - "card check" was just another lie for votes.

Remember those angry white union guys you Clintonistas say cost her the election?
They have long, quiet memories.
 
But, did coal mining activity increase in 2017? I don’t know the answer, but I would have guessed that it did not.

And clearly if there was an increase it certainly did not increase even remotely close to the increase in mining deaths.
I don't know what the numbers for the whole year will show, but about half-way through 2017, coal extraction was on pace for nearly a 20% increase over 2016.

Of course, coal mining jobs were only on pace for a 1.5% increase, so perhaps the increase in deaths is due to the same number of people being asked to increase their production so dramatically, resulting in fatigue or safety shortcuts.
 
You misunderstand the labor law system.

The sitting President appoints a majority of the NLRB.

The NLRB then sets (or re-sets) all kinds of rules - some of which require regular rule-making, some which don't. Depends on the specific issue, the specific statutory language, and even prior Court rulings. Some are set by the formal rule-making you alluded to, and maybe followed by Federal Court of Appeal review (under the "deferential" analysis they give agency actions). But MOST of their rules are set by Board/General Counsel pronouncements of policy (i.e. how they interpret certain statutory phrasing or prior regulations), and/or specific Administrative Law Judge rulings - some (not all) of which are also tested by Circuit Courts of Appeal under the "deferential" analysis they give agency actions - but still NOT by the formal rule making process you alluded to.

Thus, for example, during the Obama Administration, rules about the use of/meaning of/impact of things like employment handbook policies - on topics like at-will employment, social media use, etc. - were changed with no new "regulations" or "statutory amendments." (Statements of, for example, at-will employment, that were understood to be legal for decades, and previously declared legal by courts, were suddenly declared illegal based on the possibility that extreme interpretations offered by no one maybe potentially someday might harm employee rights. Same process in other areas - the Board changed how they interpreted the meaning of legal phrases like "bargaining unit" and "community of interests" to allow a union to represent "micro" units, and not require them to show "majority" support to represent larger groups (more on that term below).

No amended statutes or regs were offered or seen to be necessary. Nothing "placed on the President's desk." They just changed the rule - like Obama SAID he'd do with "card check."

The rules set by the NLRB include how/when to hold secret ballot elections.

The statutory language "requires" a "secret ballot" election when there is a "showing of interest" at the 30% level.

The statutory purpose of the election is to determine whether a "majority" of the relevant employees favor unionization. (Ties go to the employer. The union must get 50% plus 1 of the votes cast, minimum.)

The unions have always argued that if their "showing of interest" was already more than a majority, no election should be held or is required by statute. "A majority is a majority."

They want to gain the right to represent employees solely through "card check" because once the unionization effort is discovered, unions historically lose support between that date and the election date. (The parties disagree on why. Unions say the companies violate the law and illegally threaten/retaliate against pro-union employees. Companies say the employees have typically been lied to, bothered and bullied, and vote NO in secret ballot elections.)

The Obama NLRB could have simply adopted that rule, taking the position that the NLRA requires an election when 30% employee support has been shown, but that "50% + 1" entitles the union to represent the employees - and where the unions shows "50% plus 1" through card check, no election is proper.

Instead, they "elected" to "use" the "EFCA" to "amend" the statute. Planned failure in advance. Once the unions saw EFCA coming, instead of just a policy change, the ones with experience knew. Bubba at the Hall still believed. But the guys at the top knew - "card check" was just another lie for votes.

Remember those angry white union guys you Clintonistas say cost her the election?
They have long, quiet memories.
I disagree with your first paragraph.

I knew and understand all subsequent paragraphs up to the final 3.

I think I quibble -- at a minimum -- with the final 3.

By the way, the EFCA predates Obama.

Is it your position that Obama's purported rule change via the NLRB would have been as effective and as sweeping in all respects -- and would have had the same sort of staying power -- as statutory action?
 
Or you could just acknowledge that with more mining activity, even under the best of safety practices, coal miners get killed at a higher rate then when there is less activity. Fewer soliders died to day than on D-Day. Does Trump love soldiers more than FDR?

No.

I read coal mining production increased by 8% in 2017 from 2016. 8% increase in production and a 100% increase in fatalities doesn’t seem like a good trade off
 
But, did coal mining activity increase in 2017? I don’t know the answer, but I would have guessed that it did not.

And clearly if there was an increase it certainly did not increase even remotely close to the increase in mining deaths.

I don't know about elsewhere, but hiring/re-hiring in Kentucky has not doubled.
Maybe out west, where lower sulfur coal got back in the game quicker.

I see prepatory activity, but not hiring yet.

Mostly, though, the sample size between 6 and 17 is too small for much meaningful statistical analysis. You could have 20 serious safety issues, and less than 6 deaths in one place or time, then 1 incident and have kill everyone in a mine somewhere else.

During the years of the Obama Administration, MSHA reports coal miner deaths at 30, 18, 48, 20, 20, 20, 16, 12 and 8. Anybody want to use those to "prove" Obama hated coal miners? That would be silly. But that is what Marvin (and other partisan-uber-alles) would have us do.
 
I don't know what the numbers for the whole year will show, but about half-way through 2017, coal extraction was on pace for nearly a 20% increase over 2016.

Of course, coal mining jobs were only on pace for a 1.5% increase, so perhaps the increase in deaths is due to the same number of people being asked to increase their production so dramatically, resulting in fatigue or safety shortcuts.
15% increase in first half of 2017 compared to first half of 2016, but second half fell compared to second half of 2016.
 
During the years of the Obama Administration, MSHA reports coal miner deaths at 30, 18, 48, 20, 20, 20, 16, 12 and 8. Anybody want to use those to "prove" Obama hated coal miners? That would be silly. But that is what Marvin (and other partisan-uber-alles) would have us do.
I really, really think you are dramatically misunderstanding Marvin's point in all this.
 
  • Like
Reactions: hoosboot
I disagree with your first paragraph.

I knew and understand all subsequent paragraphs up to the final 3.

I think I quibble -- at a minimum -- with the final 3.

By the way, the EFCA predates Obama.

Is it your position that Obama's purported rule change via the NLRB would have been as effective and as sweeping in all respects -- and would have had the same sort of staying power -- as statutory action?

Hard to predict that - especially since the EFCA never got passed.
Also depends on how you define "effective" and "sweeping."

The rule-change-process would have been immediate and, at a minimum, (allegedly) given unions an upper hand in gaining representation rights - even if only for a few years. "Good" union organizers (both of them :D ) would have been able to use it very effectively.

If/when challenged in the courts, it would have almost certainly been resolved in less than the 8 years Obama was in office and in charge of the NLRB. If I had a gun to my head and was required to predict - I'd say the "deference" shown to NLRB "interpretation" of its own rules would have had a shot at getting set it in stone. (The courts often go stupified when dealing with agency actions. They have upheld agency interpretations and actions that I'd would have bet against strongly (example - the ADA as passed by Congress said an employer was not required to employ a person if they were a threat to "others." The EEOC changed that to "threat to one's self and others." Court's OK's that, even it was plainly outside Congressional intent. To the other end, most recently, a court held that the DOL lacks authority to set a minimum salary as a qualifier for overtime, and can only define duties. Most folks would have bet against that and bet on the DOL.)

And yes, the EFCA - in one form or another - has been around.

But if you doubt my last 3 paragraphs, find a union guy you trust and ask him.
Bubba felt "sold out" by Obama, and ignored by Clinton.
(Obama tried to salve some wounds by giving ACA exemptions to union "Cadillac" heath plans, but that crap is/was too complicated. Same with the new tax law. Bubba sees an extra $100 in February, and he'll decide who lied to him about the tax law. And bad news for Bernie Burners - Bubba don't really care if the rich get richer. He doesn't tweet either.
 
I was reading the reviews on Amazon for Fire and Fury and decided to give it a read since they suggest it is well researched.

Oh, and it appears to really be about the allied bombing campaign of WWII, which seems surprising and far more interesting than what others made it sound.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Aloha Hoosier
If I cannot trust it, why should I read it? We already have the National Enquirer, which i do not read. I suspect they really do interview a woman who believes Bigfoot is her child's father. But I still see no reason to read the article. If Wolff is not representing in any way what is credible and what is not, why should I bother?
Well, it may be required reading sent down from the mountain top by the haters. You'd better get in line. You know what is expected by the "leaders".
 
  • Like
Reactions: Lucy01
Well, it may be required reading sent down from the mountain top by the haters. You'd better get in line. You know what is expected by the "leaders".

Did you read the original version of Clinton Cash, or the version that had all the corrections? Which one was required reading for your group of gullibles?
 
Indian investors offered dinner with Donald Trump Jr.
Those buying flats in Trump Tower project near Delhi invited to dine with US president’s son
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...ald-trump-jr-offered-to-indias-keen-investors

A similar arrangement promoted by the developers, Tribeca and M3M, to fly buyers to New York to meet Trump Jr was described by the former Obama corruption watchdog, Norman L Eisen, as an “ethics atrocity”.

“Access to the first family should not be for sale,” Eisen said last month. “It’s particularly inappropriate because we know he is in constant communication with his father, so it does create a conduit to attempt to influence the president and one of his closest confidants and family members.”

edit:



Don Jnr give foreign policy speeches? What could go wrong?
 
Last edited:
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT