Cable Forum - U.S President: Donald Trump

Cable Forum (https://www.cableforum.uk/board/index.php)

- Current Affairs (https://www.cableforum.uk/board/forumdisplay.php?f=20)

- - U.S President: Donald Trump (https://www.cableforum.uk/board/showthread.php?t=33704412)

Re: U.S President: Donald Trump

BREAKING: U.S State Dept has Suspended “Security Assistance” to Pakistan worth more than $255 Million Dollars.

The above relates to Trumps tweet earlier in week about Pakistan’s lies and deceit about them hiding and being uncooperative regarding Terrorists entering the country.

Re: U.S President: Donald Trump

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mick (Post 35931045)

$20 on Amazon, I wouldn’t pay 50p for it and I will still get to know what’s in it by end of weekend.

Mr K will be quoting the heck out of it.:D

Re: U.S President: Donald Trump

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mick (Post 35931048)

Al-qaeda will be very happy about that. Another of Trumps new allies.

Re: U.S President: Donald Trump

Quote:

Originally Posted by pip08456 (Post 35931049)

Mr K will be quoting the heck out of it.:D

Didn’t think he was in to reading fiction but then he quotes from the guardian too.... :D

Re: U.S President: Donald Trump

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mick (Post 35931048)

Hmm. Does Trump want to characteristically divert attention away from something else perhaps or has he turned over a new leaf?

Talking of turning over a new leaf, the book's publication has now been brought forward to tomorrow.
https://www.ft.com/content/c1346e7c-...0-857e26d1aca4
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/wo...-a8142711.html

Re: U.S President: Donald Trump

http://mobile.reuters.com/article/am...mpression=true

Quote:

(Reuters) - Any lawsuits by President Donald Trump against former chief strategist Steve Bannon or the author and publisher of a book depicting a chaotic White House and Trump as out of his depth would almost certainly fail and could lead to more damaging disclosures, legal experts said...

...Alan Dershowitz, an emeritus law professor at Harvard Law School, said a libel lawsuit by Trump would be a "terrible mistake" and "a nonstarter" that "no reasonable lawyer would recommend."

Dershowitz, who has often publicly defended the legality of the president's actions over the past year, said it is very difficult for public figures to prevail in libel suits. Trump would need to show Wolff and publisher Holt knew statements by Bannon and others were false or they acted with reckless disregard for whether or not they were true...

...In one letter to Bannon and another to both Wolff and Steve Rubin, President & Publisher, Henry Holt and Company, Harder also said Bannon violated non-disclosure and non-disparagement provisions of his employment agreement with the Trump 2016 election campaign by speaking with Wolff. He said Wolff and Holt could face claims of interfering with or inducing breach of that contract.

But legal experts said the employment agreement would not have applied to Bannon after he joined the White House staff. Because of transparency and free speech concerns, the government has far less power to limit non-classified speech by employees than private companies, said Bradley Moss, a Washington lawyer specializing in national security law.

Apart from facing long odds, a Trump libel lawsuit would also force the president to participate in an intrusive disclosure process.

Dershowitz said that defense lawyers would be able to subject Trump to "broad and far-ranging" depositions about "almost anything" and compel him to answer.

Moss said defense lawyers would also be entitled to interview White House officials and collect potentially damaging documents from them. "It would be one more distraction, one more thing people in the administration need to hire lawyers for."

Re: U.S President: Donald Trump

Quote:

Originally Posted by 1andrew1 (Post 35931069)

You’re a bit slow, Damien pointed this out above...

Re: U.S President: Donald Trump

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mick (Post 35931057)

Didn’t think he was in to reading fiction but then he quotes from the guardian too.... :D

But don't some quote from that great bible of untruths the Daily Fail.:D

Re: U.S President: Donald Trump

FBI re-open Investigation in to Clinton Foundation. Bit of coincidence that it was only yesterday there was a fire at one of the Clintons properties... burning evidence perhaps?

Re: U.S President: Donald Trump

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mick (Post 35931083)

FBI re-open Investigation in to Clinton Foundation. Bit of coincidence that it was only yesterday there was a fire at one of the Clintons properties... burning evidence perhaps?

Perhaps not - it was in the Secret Service facility...

http://edition.cnn.com/2018/01/03/us...ire/index.html

Quote:

A small fire broke out in a US Secret Service facility on the property of the home of Bill and Hillary Clinton in Chappaqua, New York, on Wednesday.

The building was not connected to the home of the former US President and former US Secretary of State

Re: U.S President: Donald Trump

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mick (Post 35931083)

FBI re-open Investigation in to Clinton Foundation. Bit of coincidence that it was only yesterday there was a fire at one of the Clintons properties... burning evidence perhaps?

what else can you do if the shredders are working flat out .

Re: U.S President: Donald Trump

Quote:

Originally Posted by papa smurf (Post 35931095)

what else can you do if the shredders are working flat out .

I thought they had all been purchased / rented by the White House?

Re: U.S President: Donald Trump

A thought provoking tweet.

Personally I found it hilarious.

https://twitter.com/larryelder/statu...96965857423360

Re: U.S President: Donald Trump

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 35931090)

Perhaps not - it was in the Secret Service facility...

http://edition.cnn.com/2018/01/03/us...ire/index.html

That still is adjoining/connected to their house, doesn’t put them in the clear, if evidence was being burned/destroyed. ;)

Re: U.S President: Donald Trump

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mick (Post 35931111)

That still is adjoining/connected to their house, doesn’t put them in the clear, if evidence was being burned/destroyed. ;)

There's no smoke without incriminating evidence ;)