trumptainment

[tom bhayya]

President Donald Trump accused the news media of lying about the size of the crowd that attended his inauguration.

Addressing employees at CIA headquarters in Virginia, Trump wrongly said the crowd had stretched all the way to the Washington Monument in the middle of the National Mall.

Photos taken of the Mall on Friday showed large swaths of empty space compared to Barack Obama's inauguration eight years ago.

Trump says the inauguration crowd looked to be about a million and a half people.

He says the news media will pay a "big price" for what he claims was dishonesty.

Trump also told CIA employees whose work he has publicly doubted that no one feels stronger about the intelligence community than he does.

The president told the workers that they are really special and amazing people and that "I am so behind you."

The meeting followed Trump's repeated and sharp public criticism of U.S. intelligence agencies before and after the election. He challenged and at times belittled their conclusions that Russia attempted to influence the election to help him win the White House.

[k2s]

4 minutes ago, tom bhayya said:

President Donald Trump accused the news media of lying about the size of the crowd that attended his inauguration.

Addressing employees at CIA headquarters in Virginia, Trump wrongly said the crowd had stretched all the way to the Washington Monument in the middle of the National Mall.

Photos taken of the Mall on Friday showed large swaths of empty space compared to Barack Obama's inauguration eight years ago.

Trump says the inauguration crowd looked to be about a million and a half people.

He says the news media will pay a "big price" for what he claims was dishonesty.

Trump also told CIA employees whose work he has publicly doubted that no one feels stronger about the intelligence community than he does.

The president told the workers that they are really special and amazing people and that "I am so behind you."

The meeting followed Trump's repeated and sharp public criticism of U.S. intelligence agencies before and after the election. He challenged and at times belittled their conclusions that Russia attempted to influence the election to help him win the White House.

 media ni odala bommali antunna tump thata

[DiscoKing]

 

[DaleSteyn1]

Impeach avthadu eedu us ke damage chese laga matladithe

[Peter123]

lol left media 

[aviator]

disco started. inka full entertainment news.

[dasara_bullodu]

1 hour ago, DaleSteyn1 said:

Impeach avthadu eedu us ke damage chese laga matladithe

lol ... chetilo puppet ni evadaina impeach chestada

[dasara_bullodu]

actual ga aa pics ki time stamps veyyaledu .... afternoon ki crowd general ga peruguddi kada

[tom bhayya]

WASHINGTON ― President Donald Trump told the CIA on Saturday that the so-called Islamic State probably would never have existed if the United States had seized Iraq’s oilfields, a claim that flies in the face of the analysis of most foreign policy experts and international law.

In unprepared remarks introducing his pick to lead the intelligence agency, Rep. Mike Pompeo (R-Kan.), Trump told CIA officials that when the United States went into Iraq, we should have “kept the oil.”

“Now I said it for economic reasons,” Trump said. “But if you think about it, Mike, if we kept the oil, you probably wouldn’t have ISIS because that’s where they made their money in the first place, so we should have kept the oil. But, OK, maybe we’ll have another chance.”

It’s a claim that Trump repeatedly used on the campaign trail. But the president’s willingness to tell the CIA ― and, indeed, the international community ― that he thinks the United States should have looted a country’s resources is a new mark in foreign diplomacy and yet another signal that there will be no shift to more responsible rhetoric now that Trump represents the country as its leader.

The strategy of taking Iraq’s oil is plainly in violation of multiple international laws and United Nations agreements.

Politifact looked into this claim from Trump in September and found a number of reasons why taking Iraq’s oil, as Trump advocates, would be illegal.

“What Trump seems to be advocating here would be a fundamental violation of international law embodied in numerous international agreements and in recognized principles of customary international law,” said Anthony Clark Arend, a Georgetown University professor of government and foreign service.

Specifically, Arend cited the Annex to the Hague Convention of 1907 on the Laws and Customs of War, which says that “private property ... must be respected (and) cannot be confiscated.” It also says that “pillage is formally forbidden.”

In addition, Arend said, the 1949 Geneva Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Times of War provides that “any destruction by the Occupying Power of real or personal property belonging individually or collectively to private persons, or to the State, or to other public authorities, or to social or cooperative organizations, is prohibited, except where such destruction is rendered absolutely necessary by military operations.”

Richard D. Rosen, the director of Texas Tech University’s Center for Military Law & Policy, added that Trump’s idea “appears to constitute aggression of the type condemned by the United Nations by resolution in 1974.” The resolution states that “any military occupation, however temporary, resulting from such invasion or attack, or any annexation by the use of force of the territory of another State or part thereof” qualifies as an “act of aggression.”

Arend said the only way he could envision an idea like Trump’s being acceptable under international law would stem from sanctions imposed by the U.N. Security Council. But that would be moot in this case since the 2003 Iraq War was not undertaken with the approval of the Security Council.

Foreign policy experts also seem to think taking Iraq’s oil would neither be feasible, nor desirable.

Experts cited the long-term damage to the United States’ reputation as an imperial force seizing the natural resources of countries, as well as the practical challenges in actually taking a country’s oil. Devoting such a large number of troops to pillaging oilfields and protecting oil pipelines and transportation routes would require a more permanent presence in Iraq and far more troops than the United States has available.

It’s also difficult to see how looting oil would better U.S. standing in Iraq and not lead to more extremism.

But hey, in Trump’s words, “maybe we’ll have another chance.”

[DaleSteyn1]

15 minutes ago, tom bhayya said:

WASHINGTON ― President Donald Trump told the CIA on Saturday that the so-called Islamic State probably would never have existed if the United States had seized Iraq’s oilfields, a claim that flies in the face of the analysis of most foreign policy experts and international law.

In unprepared remarks introducing his pick to lead the intelligence agency, Rep. Mike Pompeo (R-Kan.), Trump told CIA officials that when the United States went into Iraq, we should have “kept the oil.”

“Now I said it for economic reasons,” Trump said. “But if you think about it, Mike, if we kept the oil, you probably wouldn’t have ISIS because that’s where they made their money in the first place, so we should have kept the oil. But, OK, maybe we’ll have another chance.”

It’s a claim that Trump repeatedly used on the campaign trail. But the president’s willingness to tell the CIA ― and, indeed, the international community ― that he thinks the United States should have looted a country’s resources is a new mark in foreign diplomacy and yet another signal that there will be no shift to more responsible rhetoric now that Trump represents the country as its leader.

The strategy of taking Iraq’s oil is plainly in violation of multiple international laws and United Nations agreements.

Politifact looked into this claim from Trump in September and found a number of reasons why taking Iraq’s oil, as Trump advocates, would be illegal.

“What Trump seems to be advocating here would be a fundamental violation of international law embodied in numerous international agreements and in recognized principles of customary international law,” said Anthony Clark Arend, a Georgetown University professor of government and foreign service.

Specifically, Arend cited the Annex to the Hague Convention of 1907 on the Laws and Customs of War, which says that “private property ... must be respected (and) cannot be confiscated.” It also says that “pillage is formally forbidden.”

In addition, Arend said, the 1949 Geneva Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Times of War provides that “any destruction by the Occupying Power of real or personal property belonging individually or collectively to private persons, or to the State, or to other public authorities, or to social or cooperative organizations, is prohibited, except where such destruction is rendered absolutely necessary by military operations.”

Richard D. Rosen, the director of Texas Tech University’s Center for Military Law & Policy, added that Trump’s idea “appears to constitute aggression of the type condemned by the United Nations by resolution in 1974.” The resolution states that “any military occupation, however temporary, resulting from such invasion or attack, or any annexation by the use of force of the territory of another State or part thereof” qualifies as an “act of aggression.”

Arend said the only way he could envision an idea like Trump’s being acceptable under international law would stem from sanctions imposed by the U.N. Security Council. But that would be moot in this case since the 2003 Iraq War was not undertaken with the approval of the Security Council.

Foreign policy experts also seem to think taking Iraq’s oil would neither be feasible, nor desirable.

Experts cited the long-term damage to the United States’ reputation as an imperial force seizing the natural resources of countries, as well as the practical challenges in actually taking a country’s oil. Devoting such a large number of troops to pillaging oilfields and protecting oil pipelines and transportation routes would require a more permanent presence in Iraq and far more troops than the United States has available.

It’s also difficult to see how looting oil would better U.S. standing in Iraq and not lead to more extremism.

But hey, in Trump’s words, “maybe we’ll have another chance.”

eedendhi kcr maadhiri andhrollu ila chesaru ala chesaru valla ruling lo anayayam anta untad chethiloki power ochindhi aadiki anipinchindhi implement cheyaka

[perugu_vada]

32 minutes ago, DaleSteyn1 said:

eedendhi kcr maadhiri andhrollu ila chesaru ala chesaru valla ruling lo anayayam anta untad chethiloki power ochindhi aadiki anipinchindhi implement cheyaka

Vadu ruling ki ochina main agenda ne obama medha yedavatam

[tom bhayya]

Update 7:30pm: Donald Trump has since deleted the follow-up tweet, possibly breaking the rules regarding archiving official records a second time. As of now, there’s no proof on his Twitter account of it ever existing. Of course, that’s what archived images are for.

We’re officially through the looking glass, and it’s time to find out what powers our country’s legal system has over the president. One day after his inauguration, Donald Trump has already ** up a tweet and deleted it. The problem is that he very likely isn’t allowed to do that anymore.

 

Since his nomination, Trump has acted as a sort of hacker in our system— identifying vulnerabilities in which common decency has restricted previous presidents, but the law did not. Most glaringly, Trump has not divested from his global business interests, and he has not released his tax returns. But one area in which the president is bound by law is that his or her administration is required to archive all official records. Trump may have violated that requirement this morning when he tweeted and then deleted this gem from his personal account:

Yes, go ahead and get the facepalm out of the way before you continue reading. Not long after tweeting that he was “honered,” Trump deleted the entire post. It was replaced by the same tweet with the correct spelling. Note: It has also been deleted.

 

This is not “unpresidented.” Trump is known to be a bad speller and an erratic tweeter who thinks with his thumbs. But the problem is his right to delete stupidity may have ended yesterday.

Both the Freedom of Information Act and Presidential Records Act require the commander in chief to painstakingly preserve all records of federal government actions and communications. That’s why the official @POTUS account was migrated to @POTUS44 yesterday, and Trump now has a clean slate to use for his SNL rants. The official account of the president as well as many other social media records have also been archived at a special website in case of future technical changes that could render the content unavailable to the public.

It will be up to the legal experts in the White House to figure out whether or not Trump’s personal account has the same requirements for preservation as his official one does. Considering that Trump has said he intends to keep his personal account going, it would seem that it should be considered public record.

While it may feel like no big deal for Trump to delete a typo, history might tell a different story. If this man is so careless with his official communication less than 24 hours after becoming president, we’ll need the documentation to show that.

[tom bhayya]

[dasara_bullodu]

3 minutes ago, tom bhayya said:

Update 7:30pm: Donald Trump has since deleted the follow-up tweet, possibly breaking the rules regarding archiving official records a second time. As of now, there’s no proof on his Twitter account of it ever existing. Of course, that’s what archived images are for.

 

We’re officially through the looking glass, and it’s time to find out what powers our country’s legal system has over the president. One day after his inauguration, Donald Trump has already ** up a tweet and deleted it. The problem is that he very likely isn’t allowed to do that anymore.

 

Since his nomination, Trump has acted as a sort of hacker in our system— identifying vulnerabilities in which common decency has restricted previous presidents, but the law did not. Most glaringly, Trump has not divested from his global business interests, and he has not released his tax returns. But one area in which the president is bound by law is that his or her administration is required to archive all official records. Trump may have violated that requirement this morning when he tweeted and then deleted this gem from his personal account:

 

Yes, go ahead and get the facepalm out of the way before you continue reading. Not long after tweeting that he was “honered,” Trump deleted the entire post. It was replaced by the same tweet with the correct spelling. Note: It has also been deleted.

 

This is not “unpresidented.” Trump is known to be a bad speller and an erratic tweeter who thinks with his thumbs. But the problem is his right to delete stupidity may have ended yesterday.

Both the Freedom of Information Act and Presidential Records Act require the commander in chief to painstakingly preserve all records of federal government actions and communications. That’s why the official @POTUS account was migrated to @POTUS44 yesterday, and Trump now has a clean slate to use for his SNL rants. The official account of the president as well as many other social media records have also been archived at a special website in case of future technical changes that could render the content unavailable to the public.

It will be up to the legal experts in the White House to figure out whether or not Trump’s personal account has the same requirements for preservation as his official one does. Considering that Trump has said he intends to keep his personal account going, it would seem that it should be considered public record.

While it may feel like no big deal for Trump to delete a typo, history might tell a different story. If this man is so careless with his official communication less than 24 hours after becoming president, we’ll need the documentation to show that.

The main problem USA has is political correctness .. ani appude cheppindu , Trump thatha ki ivem gittavu