User Tag List

Page 693 of 711 FirstFirst ... 193593643683691692693694695703 ... LastLast
Results 6,921 to 6,930 of 7103

Thread: President Trump Thread...

  1. #6921
    Senior Member fortsbest's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    3,085
    https://theweek.com/articles/782162/...-supreme-court


    There are any number of reasons why I think the best choice for the next Supreme Court justice is Judge Amy Coney Barrett, whom President Trump appointed only last year to the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals.

    One is that, practically speaking, she has already been through something nearly as taxing as the confirmation process for the high court is likely to be and come through sane.

    The hearings on Barrett's nomination were one of the most appalling spectacles in our recent political history. When Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) condescendingly declared that "the dogma lives loudly within you," what she was saying, in essence, is that a person who wishes to serve the American people may check "Catholic" as a box on a census form and perhaps root for the Fighting Irish on Saturday afternoons in the fall if she likes, so long as she does not insist upon doing anything so gauche as believing in all that moth-eaten Romish superstition.

    So far from being rejected out of hand by all decent persons as obvious bigotry, Feinstein's charge was taken up by The New York Times and various liberal groups, who attempted to caricature Barrett as some kind of ultra-traditionalist Catholic radical on the basis of her membership in an organization called People of Praise. This body, which is not affiliated with the Church or any Protestant denomination, is devoted to so-called "charismatic" spirituality: guitar hymns and a somewhat gushy attitude towards prayer. Nothing could be further removed from the high-and-dry devotional lives of actual traditionalist Catholics, whose responses to the charismatic movement since its inception have tended to range from "Not my cup of tea, thanks!" to accusations of heresy.

    Even more revolting, especially in light of the revelations that were to come some months later, was the windbaggery of now ex-Sen. Al Franken. With his signature lawnmower drone, he accused Barrett of having twice been paid by a "hate group," by which he meant a legal charity that mostly defends rural communities against spurious lawsuits from out-of-town atheists who want to take away their municipal nativity displays and that sort of thing. The Alliance for Defending Freedom has won five cases in front of the Supreme Court, the most recent of which, Burwell v. Hobby Lobby, was decided with a swing vote from the outgoing Justice Anthony Kennedy. If the author of the Obergefell majority opinion is an enabler of "hate" for taking their side, this is the first I have heard of the accusation.

    Though none of them said it in as many words, I think it is likely that the three Democratic senators who eventually voted to confirm Barrett — Joe Manchin (W.Va.), Joe Donnelly (Ind.), and, astonishingly, Tim Kaine (Va.) — were as taken aback by their colleagues' behavior as many ordinary Americans were. This to my mind suggests that she will have no trouble getting the necessary votes to be confirmed if she is nominated for another position. It is hard to see how it would be possible for any of them to argue a year later that she is beyond the pale.

    If any more proof were necessary of the steeliness of Barrett's character, it is worth pointing out that she has managed to have a successful career as a scholar and teacher while raising seven children. Out of 113 Supreme Court justices in our nation's history, only four have been women, and I for one think we are due for another. This is not only because the present disparity is unjustifiable given the current distribution of the sexes in the legal profession. I would be guilty of dissembling if I did not admit that, like our paper of record and progressive activists throughout this country, I fully expect that sooner or later a court of which Barrett were a member would overturn Roe v. Wade. That a woman should be responsible for undoing this legally sanctioned perversion of the most wholesome relationship in nature, that between a mother and her child, seems to me right in a way that is almost ineffable.

    Finally, there is something to be said, I think, for the idea of having someone who did not attend an Ivy League law school on the Supreme Court for a change. Gifted as the faculty and alumni of Harvard and Yale no doubt are, it is difficult to think that the accidents by which a small fraction of would-be American lawyers happen to receive instruction from these august personalities are an exhaustive test of one's ability to interpret statutes.

    Barrett, a Notre Dame law grad who continues to teach at her alma mater after being elevated to the Seventh Circuit Court, clerked for Justice Antonin Scalia. She is a well-respected scholar in a variety of areas who has contributed to the nation's most esteemed legal journals. She is a beloved teacher who has three times been voted Notre Dame's "Outstanding Professor of the Year" by graduating classes. Adrian Vermeule, a professor of constitutional law at Harvard and noted critic of the originalist judicial philosophy with which Barrett has been associated, told me that he is almost frightened of her. "I lectured on my last book at Notre Dame and she asked the absolute sharpest, most penetrating questions. She is scary smart." The legal profession at large agrees; a majority of the American Bar Association's standing committee on judicial nominations rated her "well qualified" last year. There is absolutely no question of her pedigree.

    Which is why we need not dwell on the implications of her so-far hypothetical nomination, however much grief it might bring to one's political opponents. If anything it is almost boorish. Barrett should be nominated by the president and confirmed for the very simple reason that she is a gifted legal mind respected by her colleagues and a person of outstanding character whose presence on our country's highest court would do credit to the United States and her people.

  2. #6922
    Senior Member fortsbest's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    3,085
    Quote Originally Posted by BipolarFan View Post
    What about his Trump University scam?

    What about HIS Trump Foundation corruption?

    Not to mention that if you don't think he's involved with money laundering, you truly are blinded by your Dear Leader's star.
    Yup, Trump university was a bad venture. Students didn't get what they were promised.

    Trump foundation? Who knows yet, but considering who brought the charges and his own criminal problems, that all smacks of politics way more than actual criminal dealings. Your last statement is based on your wish just like Russian collusion. Not fact. And as I stated, even so these things went on while he was a private citizen. He did not amass his fortune while he was in office in one form or another. Isn't it amazing how many of these politicians (on both sides by the way) leave office far wealthier than when they got there? ON salaries that are what $175000 per year? One reason I absolutely agree with you on term limits.

  3. #6923
    Senior Member bbgun's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    2,092
    They're both awful, sleazy people who should never be President. Pointless to argue who's worse.

  4. #6924
    Senior Member L.T. Fan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    16,364
    Quote Originally Posted by bbgun View Post
    They're both awful, sleazy people who should never be President. Pointless to argue who's worse.
    Yeah when has there been anyone holding the Presidential office that resembled a stalwart and shining knight ? Its a silly argument to even tread on that ground. Presidents are judged on what they accomplished while in office. Historical buffs will furnish the rest of the details.
    Since Day One

  5. #6925
    Senior Member BipolarFan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Up my ass
    Posts
    9,579

    Fall of the American Empire

    The U.S. government is, as a matter of policy, literally ripping children from the arms of their parents and putting them in fenced enclosures (which officials insist aren’t cages, oh no). The U.S. president is demanding that law enforcement stop investigating his associates and go after his political enemies instead. He has been insulting democratic allies while praising murderous dictators. And a global trade war seems increasingly likely.

    What do these stories have in common? Obviously they’re all tied to the character of the man occupying the White House, surely the worst human being ever to hold his position. But there’s also a larger context, and it’s not just about Donald Trump. What we’re witnessing is a systematic rejection of longstanding American values — the values that actually made America great.

    America has long been a powerful nation. In particular, we emerged from World War II with a level of both economic and military dominance not seen since the heyday of ancient Rome. But our role in the world was always about more than money and guns. It was also about ideals: America stood for something larger than itself — for freedom, human rights and the rule of law as universal principles.

    Of course, we often fell short of those ideals. But the ideals were real, and mattered. Many nations have pursued racist policies; but when the Swedish economist Gunnar Myrdal wrote his 1944 book about our “Negro problem,” he called it “An American Dilemma,” because he viewed us as a nation whose civilization had a “flavor of enlightenment” and whose citizens were aware at some level that our treatment of blacks was at odds with our principles.

    And his belief that there was a core of decency — maybe even goodness — to America was eventually vindicated by the rise and success, incomplete as it was, of the civil rights movement.

    But what does American goodness — all too often honored in the breach, but still real — have to do with American power, let alone world trade? The answer is that for 70 years, American goodness and American greatness went hand in hand. Our ideals, and the fact that other countries knew we held those ideals, made us a different kind of great power, one that inspired trust.

    Think about it. By the end of World War II, we and our British allies had in effect conquered a large part of the world. We could have become permanent occupiers, and/or installed subservient puppet governments, the way the Soviet Union did in Eastern Europe. And yes, we did do that in some developing countries; our history with, say, Iran is not at all pretty.

    But what we mainly did instead was help defeated enemies get back on their feet, establishing democratic regimes that shared our core values and became allies in protecting those values.

    The Pax Americana was a sort of empire; certainly America was for a long time very much first among equals. But it was by historical standards a remarkably benign empire, held together by soft power and respect rather than force. (There are actually some parallels with the ancient Pax Romana, but that’s another story.)

    And while you might be tempted to view international trade deals, which Trump says have turned us into a “piggy bank that everyone else is robbing,” as a completely separate story, they are anything but. Trade agreements were meant to (and did) make America richer, but they were also, from the beginning, about more than dollars and cents.

    In fact, the modern world trading system was largely the brainchild not of economists or business interests, but of Cordell Hull, F.D.R.’s long-serving secretary of state, who believed that “prosperous trade among nations” was an essential element in building an “enduring peace.” So you want to think of the postwar creation of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade as part of the same strategy that more or less simultaneously gave rise to the Marshall Plan and the creation of NATO.

    So all the things happening now are of a piece. Committing atrocities at the border, attacking the domestic rule of law, insulting democratic leaders while praising thugs, and breaking up trade agreements are all about ending American exceptionalism, turning our back on the ideals that made us different from other powerful nations.

    And rejecting our ideals won’t make us stronger; it will make us weaker. We were the leader of the free world, a moral as well as financial and military force. But we’re throwing all that away.

    What’s more, it won’t even serve our self-interest. America isn’t nearly as dominant a power as it was 70 years ago; Trump is delusional if he thinks that other countries will back down in the face of his threats. And if we are heading for a full-blown trade war, which seems increasingly likely, both he and those who voted for him will be shocked at how it goes: Some industries will gain, but millions of workers will be displaced.

    So Trump isn’t making America great again; he’s trashing the things that made us great, turning us into just another bully — one whose bullying will be far less effective than he imagines.






















































    ~Waits on attacks on author~

  6. #6926
    Senior Member jsmith6919's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    8,517
    Quote Originally Posted by BipolarFan View Post
    The U.S. government is, as a matter of policy, literally ripping children from the arms of their parents and putting them in fenced enclosures (which officials insist aren’t cages, oh no). The U.S. president is demanding that law enforcement stop investigating his associates and go after his political enemies instead. He has been insulting democratic allies while praising murderous dictators. And a global trade war seems increasingly likely.

    What do these stories have in common? Obviously they’re all tied to the character of the man occupying the White House, surely the worst human being ever to hold his position. But there’s also a larger context, and it’s not just about Donald Trump. What we’re witnessing is a systematic rejection of longstanding American values — the values that actually made America great.

    America has long been a powerful nation. In particular, we emerged from World War II with a level of both economic and military dominance not seen since the heyday of ancient Rome. But our role in the world was always about more than money and guns. It was also about ideals: America stood for something larger than itself — for freedom, human rights and the rule of law as universal principles.

    Of course, we often fell short of those ideals. But the ideals were real, and mattered. Many nations have pursued racist policies; but when the Swedish economist Gunnar Myrdal wrote his 1944 book about our “Negro problem,” he called it “An American Dilemma,” because he viewed us as a nation whose civilization had a “flavor of enlightenment” and whose citizens were aware at some level that our treatment of blacks was at odds with our principles.

    And his belief that there was a core of decency — maybe even goodness — to America was eventually vindicated by the rise and success, incomplete as it was, of the civil rights movement.

    But what does American goodness — all too often honored in the breach, but still real — have to do with American power, let alone world trade? The answer is that for 70 years, American goodness and American greatness went hand in hand. Our ideals, and the fact that other countries knew we held those ideals, made us a different kind of great power, one that inspired trust.

    Think about it. By the end of World War II, we and our British allies had in effect conquered a large part of the world. We could have become permanent occupiers, and/or installed subservient puppet governments, the way the Soviet Union did in Eastern Europe. And yes, we did do that in some developing countries; our history with, say, Iran is not at all pretty.

    But what we mainly did instead was help defeated enemies get back on their feet, establishing democratic regimes that shared our core values and became allies in protecting those values.

    The Pax Americana was a sort of empire; certainly America was for a long time very much first among equals. But it was by historical standards a remarkably benign empire, held together by soft power and respect rather than force. (There are actually some parallels with the ancient Pax Romana, but that’s another story.)

    And while you might be tempted to view international trade deals, which Trump says have turned us into a “piggy bank that everyone else is robbing,” as a completely separate story, they are anything but. Trade agreements were meant to (and did) make America richer, but they were also, from the beginning, about more than dollars and cents.

    In fact, the modern world trading system was largely the brainchild not of economists or business interests, but of Cordell Hull, F.D.R.’s long-serving secretary of state, who believed that “prosperous trade among nations” was an essential element in building an “enduring peace.” So you want to think of the postwar creation of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade as part of the same strategy that more or less simultaneously gave rise to the Marshall Plan and the creation of NATO.

    So all the things happening now are of a piece. Committing atrocities at the border, attacking the domestic rule of law, insulting democratic leaders while praising thugs, and breaking up trade agreements are all about ending American exceptionalism, turning our back on the ideals that made us different from other powerful nations.

    And rejecting our ideals won’t make us stronger; it will make us weaker. We were the leader of the free world, a moral as well as financial and military force. But we’re throwing all that away.

    What’s more, it won’t even serve our self-interest. America isn’t nearly as dominant a power as it was 70 years ago; Trump is delusional if he thinks that other countries will back down in the face of his threats. And if we are heading for a full-blown trade war, which seems increasingly likely, both he and those who voted for him will be shocked at how it goes: Some industries will gain, but millions of workers will be displaced.

    So Trump isn’t making America great again; he’s trashing the things that made us great, turning us into just another bully — one whose bullying will be far less effective than he imagines.






















































    ~Waits on attacks on author~
    2018 DCC Super Bowl Bingo Champion

  7. #6927
    Senior Member L.T. Fan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    16,364
    Quote Originally Posted by BipolarFan View Post
    The U.S. government is, as a matter of policy, literally ripping children from the arms of their parents and putting them in fenced enclosures (which officials insist aren’t cages, oh no). The U.S. president is demanding that law enforcement stop investigating his associates and go after his political enemies instead. He has been insulting democratic allies while praising murderous dictators. And a global trade war seems increasingly likely.

    What do these stories have in common? Obviously they’re all tied to the character of the man occupying the White House, surely the worst human being ever to hold his position. But there’s also a larger context, and it’s not just about Donald Trump. What we’re witnessing is a systematic rejection of longstanding American values — the values that actually made America great.

    America has long been a powerful nation. In particular, we emerged from World War II with a level of both economic and military dominance not seen since the heyday of ancient Rome. But our role in the world was always about more than money and guns. It was also about ideals: America stood for something larger than itself — for freedom, human rights and the rule of law as universal principles.

    Of course, we often fell short of those ideals. But the ideals were real, and mattered. Many nations have pursued racist policies; but when the Swedish economist Gunnar Myrdal wrote his 1944 book about our “Negro problem,” he called it “An American Dilemma,” because he viewed us as a nation whose civilization had a “flavor of enlightenment” and whose citizens were aware at some level that our treatment of blacks was at odds with our principles.

    And his belief that there was a core of decency — maybe even goodness — to America was eventually vindicated by the rise and success, incomplete as it was, of the civil rights movement.

    But what does American goodness — all too often honored in the breach, but still real — have to do with American power, let alone world trade? The answer is that for 70 years, American goodness and American greatness went hand in hand. Our ideals, and the fact that other countries knew we held those ideals, made us a different kind of great power, one that inspired trust.

    Think about it. By the end of World War II, we and our British allies had in effect conquered a large part of the world. We could have become permanent occupiers, and/or installed subservient puppet governments, the way the Soviet Union did in Eastern Europe. And yes, we did do that in some developing countries; our history with, say, Iran is not at all pretty.

    But what we mainly did instead was help defeated enemies get back on their feet, establishing democratic regimes that shared our core values and became allies in protecting those values.

    The Pax Americana was a sort of empire; certainly America was for a long time very much first among equals. But it was by historical standards a remarkably benign empire, held together by soft power and respect rather than force. (There are actually some parallels with the ancient Pax Romana, but that’s another story.)

    And while you might be tempted to view international trade deals, which Trump says have turned us into a “piggy bank that everyone else is robbing,” as a completely separate story, they are anything but. Trade agreements were meant to (and did) make America richer, but they were also, from the beginning, about more than dollars and cents.

    In fact, the modern world trading system was largely the brainchild not of economists or business interests, but of Cordell Hull, F.D.R.’s long-serving secretary of state, who believed that “prosperous trade among nations” was an essential element in building an “enduring peace.” So you want to think of the postwar creation of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade as part of the same strategy that more or less simultaneously gave rise to the Marshall Plan and the creation of NATO.

    So all the things happening now are of a piece. Committing atrocities at the border, attacking the domestic rule of law, insulting democratic leaders while praising thugs, and breaking up trade agreements are all about ending American exceptionalism, turning our back on the ideals that made us different from other powerful nations.

    And rejecting our ideals won’t make us stronger; it will make us weaker. We were the leader of the free world, a moral as well as financial and military force. But we’re throwing all that away.

    What’s more, it won’t even serve our self-interest. America isn’t nearly as dominant a power as it was 70 years ago; Trump is delusional if he thinks that other countries will back down in the face of his threats. And if we are heading for a full-blown trade war, which seems increasingly likely, both he and those who voted for him will be shocked at how it goes: Some industries will gain, but millions of workers will be displaced.

    So Trump isn’t making America great again; he’s trashing the things that made us great, turning us into just another bully — one whose bullying will be far less effective than he imagines.
    You might want to check on the attitude of some of the prominent Democrats back when Gerald Ford asked some Governors to House a few refugees. One very notable one was the Same Governor Jerry Brown who now not only wants to blow up the borders but Not only said said no to the request but Hello no. This immigration crap you are spreading around is just political fodder which is meaningless and the halos and pitchforks you are spreading around just shows how little you really know about the political history of this country. You are just eaten up with sour grapes and can’t get past having to deal with someone that doesn’t make you warm and fuzzy. Keep piling up these meaningless articles for the recycle trash truck when they come by.
    Since Day One

  8. #6928
    Senior Member BipolarFan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Up my ass
    Posts
    9,579

    Senate panel agrees with intel community that Putin was trying to help Trump

    Breaking with their House Republican counterparts, the Senate Intelligence Committee said Tuesday that the intelligence community properly concluded in January of last year that Russian President Vladimir Putin was trying to help Donald Trump when Moscow meddled in the 2016 election.

    The Senate panel released a summary Tuesday of its examination of the intelligence community's January 2017 assessment, which laid out the case of Russia's election meddling and concluded that Putin was trying to help Trump win.

    The Senate report said that the intelligence community's assessment of Russia's intentions were sound, which is at odds with the House Intelligence Committee Republicans' report that found "significant intelligence tradecraft failings" in the assessment of Putin's objectives.

    "The Committee has spent the last 16 months reviewing the sources, tradecraft and analytic work underpinning the Intelligence Community Assessment and sees no reason to dispute the conclusions," Senate Intelligence Chairman Richard Burr said in a statement, reiterating what he had initially said in May.

    The unclassified summary released on Tuesday provides details on why the Senate Intelligence Committee agreed with the intelligence community that Russia was trying to help Trump and hurt Hillary Clinton's campaign.

    The conclusion has been affirmed by Trump's entire national security team, but the President himself has repeatedly refused to state that Russia was meddling to help him.

    "Russia continues to say they had nothing to do with Meddling in our Election!" Trump tweeted last week.

    Trump's assertion was given a boost in March by the House Intelligence Committee Republicans, who also stated in their report that they had no evidence of collusion between members of Trump's team and Russian officials.

    The House committee wrote that it "identified significant intelligence tradecraft failings that undermine confidence in the ICA (Intelligence Community Assessment) judgments regarding Russian President Vladimir Putin's strategic objectives for disrupting the U.S. election."

    Democrats on the House Intelligence Committee charged that the Republican investigation was intended to help protect Trump, not uncover collusion, and they have questioned the Republicans' findings about the intelligence community report.
    The Senate Intelligence Committee reached a different conclusion that has bipartisan support, which found that the assessment was "a sound intelligence product."

    The committee said that the intelligence community assessment relied on public Russian leadership commentary, Russian state media reports, public examples where Russian interests aligned with US candidate policy statements, and "a body of intelligence reporting to support the assessment that Putin and the Russian Government developed a clear preference for Trump."

    The Senate summary noted there were different confidence levels between the National Security Agency and the CIA and FBI about whether Putin and the Russian government were aspiring to help Trump; the CIA and FBI assessed with "high confidence" and the NSA with "moderate confidence." But the committee wrote that its examination found that "the analytical disagreement was reasonable, transparent, and openly debated among the agencies and analysts, with analysts, managers, and agency heads on both sides of the confidence level articulately justifying their positions."

    "In all the interviews of those who drafted and prepared the ICA, the committee heard consistently that analysts were under no politically motivated pressure to reach any conclusions," the committee wrote. "All analysts expressed that they were free to debate, object to content, and assess confidence levels, as is normal and proper for the analytic process."

  9. #6929
    Senior Member L.T. Fan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    16,364
    I think the Russians were trying to help Trump also. Now the question is however, was Trump colluding with the Russians? That has always been the question and until the various parties involved in investigating this issue produce evidence supporting this the conclusion reached by the Senate Panel is of no consequence.
    Since Day One

  10. #6930
    Senior Member BipolarFan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Up my ass
    Posts
    9,579

    Dubious Fox News article appears to have sparked Trump attack on Obama

    President Donald Trump appeared to rely on a dubious Fox News report Tuesday morning to unleash an attack on his predecessor, accusing President Barack Obama, without any real evidence, of granting citizenship to 2,500 Iranians as part of nuclear deal negotiations.

    "Just out that Obama Administration granted citizenship, during the terrible Iran Deal negotiation, to 2,500 Iranians - including to government officials," Trump tweeted. "How big (and bad) is that?"

    Jeff Prescott, the former senior director on Obama's National Security Council, called Trump's allegation "absurd and entirely false."

    Prescott shared with CNN immigration data from the Department of Homeland Security which showed that the number of Iranians naturalized in the United States over the course of the Obama and Bush administrations was relatively consistent.

    "There was no connection between the Iran nuclear deal and immigration policy," Prescott added.

    The unsubstantiated claim first gained attention with a Monday story on Fox News' website that relied on the word of an Iranian cleric who is also a member of the country's parliament.

    The article, written by Chris Irvine, a Fox News senior editor, cited an Iranian news agency that cited an Iranian newspaper that quoted the single Iranian cleric, who said the Obama administration provided citizenship to 2,500 unidentified Iranians during nuclear deal negotiations.

    The article itself quoted, toward the end of the story, the network's own commentator, former Obama State Department spokeswoman Marie Harf, saying, "This sounds like totally made up BS." The story said the Department of Homeland Security and State Department declined to comment, and that a representative for former Secretary of Homeland Security Jeh Johnson could not be reached.

    Prior to the Fox News article, the claim had not received any noticeable attention from the US media.

    But after Fox News published its story, other outlets, primarily in the conservative media space, published similar stories. Those outlets included The Daily Mail, The Gateway Pundit, and TownHall.

    The claims were also shared on Twitter by Fox News host Sean Hannity and frequent Fox guests David Clarke and Charlie Kirk.

    On Tuesday morning, just hours before Trump's tweet, the story made its way to Fox News' airwaves on "Fox & Friends First," the network's early morning show. It also later aired on "America's Newsroom," a late-morning news program on Fox News.

    "It shouldn't be lost on anyone that this is a case of Donald Trump parroting Fox News, which is peddling the claims of an Iranian hardliner," Prescott told CNN.

    Jake Sullivan, a former Obama official who was involved at the start of the Iran nuclear negotiations, also skewered Trump for relying on Fox News' thin report to make what he called a "completely false" claim.

    "What is interesting about this is that what happened is a hardline crank in Iran just randomly made this comment, Fox News writes a story on it, and then Trump tweets it," Sullivan said on "The Situation Room."

    "He had every opportunity to call people in his own Department of Homeland Security and State Department to ask whether or not this was true. And they would have told him it wasn't," Sullivan added. "Instead, he relies on Fox News. And the scary thing is that he's increasingly relying on sources like Fox News to get his intelligence rather than the professionals in his own government."

    Neither a spokesperson for Fox News nor the White House responded to a request for comment Tuesday afternoon.

    This would not be the first time Trump has tweeted false or questionable claims that have originated in right-wing media. The President has a long history of stoking conspiracy theories that target his political rivals.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •