what is ironic is Trump has gotten NK down the road to peace further than any President since the war and you fail to recognize it.......it was not a failure to walk away yesterday, just another step closer to peace and another huge trading partner

I know that President Trump is supposed to have written, "The Art of the Deal", but I wonder if he read it.

Hi Carl,

I am not a "Trumpster", but I was wondering whether this sudden departure from Hanoi was part of his "making a deal" maneuvers.... shock the opponent, but leave on good terms and leave the door open for further, more successful negotiations.

Maybe, he knows precisely what he is doing.

(I once bought a used car with exactly the same technique and got a much  better deal than I had hoped for in my initial negotiation.

I know... .I know... buying a car is not the same as dealing with nukes.... but then... who knows?

This is hilarious.

 https://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/msnbc-cnn-barely-cover-north-korea-summit-during-primetime-with-focus-on-cohen

"Liberal networks CNN and MSNBC put the historic summit between President Trump and North Korean dictator Kim Jong Un on the backburner during primetime coverage Wednesday, almost exclusively dedicating airtime to the marathon hearing that took place on Capitol Hill with former Trump attorney Michael Cohen.

MSNBC spent 132 minutes on Cohen and only two minutes on the North Korea summit during its 8 p.m., 9 p.m. and 10 p.m. hours. During the same time period, CNN spent 141 minutes on Cohen and less than two minutes on Trump’s meeting with Kim while Fox News dedicated 66 minutes to Cohen and 85 minutes to the summit, according to a Fox News analysis."

Sort of reminds me of this incredible stat:

https://www.dailywire.com/news/30149/cnn-interviewed-stormy-daniels-lawyer-59-times-paul-bois

If you look at the history of Trump in business,  he has always played his cards close to the vest.  He generally has not wanted anyone to know what he is really up to until he has nearly, or has completed his objectives. IOW, he keeps his "opposition" in the dark.  It's hard to plan a counter move if you don't know what move you are trying to counter. His opponents will comment on the apparent inconsistency and call him stupid and all sorts of derogatory terms, and yet, in the end.....

That works in chess too, MetMike <G>..

If you look at his overall track record since taking office, there is some merit to the approach.  We've already seen lists of his successes, so I won't post them again, unless of course, someone predictably denies the existence of those successes.  But, he has already achieved many of his campaign objectives/promises. Rare for a US president in his 1st two years. Dare I say..  unheard of?

But getting to the point of the OP.   "Trump is getting killed at home".  Are we redefining "getting killed"? His job approval ratings are up. Above many other presidents at this point of their admin.  The stock market is off to it's best start for the year in decades.  Job numbers remain strong. The GDP has softened some,  but it remains above the average of the last decade and I suspect some of that softening is the result of misreporting by assorted government agencies due to the shut down.  But we shall see.  

 So, I guess he's getting "killed" by Cohen's testimony before congress.  A man going to jail for lying to congress. 

Side note: It's refreshing to see that lying to congress is once again considered a crime.  A shame the same standard was not applied to Hillary,  but I digress.   

So,  Cohen, an attorney who has trashed the attorney/client privilege, the one area where all attorneys throughout history have maintained some level of integrity, a man convicted of lying, is now a credible witness to some. For these people, facts and logic take second place to "Trump Bashing".   Sounds bad for Trump?  Must be true. It works for CNN and other "News" Agencies as well.

But for those who look at results, Trump is enjoying some success. If he could learn to better chose his battles and show a little restraint, present himself in a more presidential fashion,  he could go down in history as one of the best. But we knew we were not electing a politician.  Perhaps positive results and successful politics are mutually exclusive?

45 is right about Kim...he's no dummy. And Kim is able to smell the blood from 45's dumpster fire and is more than willing and able to play with his newfound frenemy for publicity. Expect the circus sideshow to continue between the lame duck and Rocketman.

Oops...the frenemies forgot to coordinate their lies about what happened. :~/

http://www.yahoo.com/news/news/officials-trump-overstated-kims-demand-sanctions-072303387.html

So now the evil regime that should never be trusted and should never have been given the credibility and world wide attention that it got from these negotiations from Trump( according to one side)..............has been elevated to the credible source of information for that same side to be used against the real enemy of the MSM..........Trump. 

We heard that Trump was going to go over there and make a bad deal because of his ego to show the world that he made A deal. 

There was no deal, at least right now, so that didn't happen and those predicting it were wrong.

We have to assume that there were negotiations for a deal. Even the Trump haters know that happened. You don't get deals without at least having negotiations. If N.Korea was using Trump, then what exactly did it get? Attention? Actually, some in the US media have elevated N.Korea's credibility to use against Trump.

However, Trump walked. There was no deal. All the sanctions remain. N.Korea got nothing...........but there clearly was a respectful discussion that ended that way between Trump and their leader. Trump, instead of aiming his crazy name calling tactics and threats of 2 years ago is treating this guy with respect. Maybe its disingenuous,............but for once, he's acting like a polished  politician that says the right things vs making inflammatory, loose cannon statements. 

We can settle the productivity or lack of it regarding these relations the past 2 years by asking a simple question.

Does North Korea appear to pose a bigger or smaller threat to the world today compared to 2 years ago?

Why have things changed?

" ... he has already achieved many of his campaign objectives/promises. Rare for a US president in his 1st two years. Dare I say .. unheard of?"

Tim, a promise he could have easily achieved was to release his taxes ... not unheard of.

"....MSNBC spent 132 minutes on Cohen and only two minutes on the North Korea summit ...."

wow, thanks for providing this info. Reading CNN yesterday, I noticed a) no mention of the India/Pakistan hostility, b) the NK summit mentioned in small print, c) huge headlines and multiple articles about Cohen.

It is truly amazing....in court, when a witness is caught with one lie, his whole testimony is considered questionable, and the judge will instruct the jury to take this into consideration. 

And here, we have a guy who is already going to prison for perjury in a congressional hearing, and he is being invited to yesterday's  congressional hearing.... and in this hearing he is again caught with at ]least one verified lie, and he is being invited again, for another testimony in the near future!!!!

I had to chuckle when CNN admitted that Cohen was caught in one lie during his testimony and that this could have damaged his credibility somewhat. What "credibility"??? He never had any to start out with.

One can only conclude that all this has nothing to do with "finding the truth".... it's all theatrics, and the public laps it up!

Mike,"There was no deal, at least right now, so that didn't happen and those predicting it were wrong." ...  and are so grateful to have been wrong.

"Maybe, he knows precisely what he is doing."

Gunter, here's a quote frome the book.

"I try not to schedule too many meetings. I leave my door open. . . . I prefer to come to work each day and just see what develops.”

"One can only conclude that all this has nothing to do with "finding the truth".... it's all theatrics, and the public laps it up!"

Bingo!!!

'If you look at the history of Trump in business, he has always played his cards close to the vest."

Tim, which one, if any?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_career_of_Donald_Trump

https://www.investopedia.com/updates/donald-trump-success-story/

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/02/29/the-myth-and-the-reality-of-donald-trumps-business-empire/

https://www.internationalbusinessguide.org/trump-business-career/

https://www.newsweek.com/2016/10/28/donald-trump-business-busts-victims-511034.html

"Mike,"There was no deal, at least right now, so that didn't happen and those predicting it were wrong." ...  and are so grateful to have been wrong."

At least you have the ability to recognize that there is reason for those predicting a (bad) deal before hand, to acknowledge they were wrong..........instead of flipping the narrative from:

"Trump is about to make a bad deal with North Korea(who can never be trusted) and should not be going there"

to

"Trump walked away from the deal with North Korea because he messed up and could have had a good partial deal based on what North Korea is telling us"

And you know that's exactly how the narrative has changed for many. 

Mike, the person or persons who "flipped the narative" (no sources) may speak as libs, but not for libs ... nor do I.

"I had to chuckle when CNN admitted that Cohen was caught in one lie during his testimony and that this could have damaged his credibility somewhat."

Gunter, one of the chief media outlets accused of being part of the MSM conspiracy, CNN doing an editorial that could have come from FOX news ... and you only found it amusing?

"Tim, a promise he could have easily achieved was to release his taxes ... not unheard of."

Carl,  just curious.  What tangible, or even intangible improvements would occur in your life were you to read tax returns that are so voluminous, so complex, that a team of CPA's and Tax attorneys would take months sifting though them to make the least bit of sense?

There may be some entertainment value as some liberal reporters cherry picked and misinterpreted some line items.  But tomorrow, a gallon of milk would still cost 2-3 dollars.

"What tangible, or even intangible improvements would occur in your life were you to read tax returns that are so voluminous, so complex, that a team of CPA's and Tax attorneys would take months sifting though them to make the least bit of sense."

But Tim, he promised, and  you know how important it is for him to keep his promises

I  never read Obama's, or  W's, or Clinton's , etc ,. but  they had nothing to hide. 

More irony.

http://news.yahoo.com/trump-cohen-paradox-believing-proven-liars-210518118.html

Btw Cohen has great incentive ( 1/3 rd of a sentence reduction) for telling the truth now. 

45 and co. only dig themselves in deeper with mistruths and/or "alternative facts."

"I  never read Obama's, or  W's, or Clinton's , etc ,. but  they had nothing to hide. "

Ok Carl,  this borders on sad hilarity. Obama had nothing to hide?  Really?   Were you asleep in that session?

How much did he spend fighting FOIA requests during his terms?   Do you know?  Do you care?   As a hint, it eclipsed every preceding admin in the history of this republic.  And THAT is information that matters.  I could give two squats for his taxes,  if that.    Personal tax returns are none of our business and useless information. 

Are there really  people out there who think that a tax return will include incriminating evidence.  A return prepared by a bevy of highly compensated  CPAs and Tax Attorneys..  It quite literally boggles my mind.

"Are there really  people out there who think that a tax return will include incriminating evidence.  A return prepared by a bevy of highly compensated  CPAs and Tax Attorneys..  It quite literally boggles my mind."

Tim, evidently Trump thinks so.

Carl: "I  never read Obama's, or  W's, or Clinton's , etc ,. but  they had nothing to hide."

Tim: "Ok Carl,  this borders on sad hilarity. Obama had nothing to hide?  Really?"

The subject under discussion was tax returns, not FOIA ... whatever that is.

"You don't get deals without at least having negotiations."

Quite true.

Years ago I worked for an developer/entrepreneur who bought the SS United States and pitched trump on a deal he'd cooked up to renovate and time-sharing the ship. I had worked up the financials for the deal. Trump said he was interested and scheduled a meeting in his office in NYC. My boss flew in from Seattle, along with our in-house attorney. From what I was told, they sat there in his outer office, the meeting time came and went. They were told Trump was busy, after 3 hours one Trump's underlings came out and said Trump was too busy to meet. No apology, no suggestion to reschedule. We never heard another word from him.

Maybe the idea was cockamamie (my boss never did get it to fly). Maybe trump changed his mind. Whatever, but why be so rude, inconsiderate. 

I sincerely doubt Trump thinks there is incriminating evidence in his returns. He just doesn't want to expose himself to the inevitable 3 ring circus that would follow as was the case for Romney. (Wealth envy has become a powerful political tool in this nation, but then,  it's been the basis of every leftist take over in history.)  When you look at how the press treats any information re: Trump,  I can't say I blame him.  What a profound waste of time it would be.

And in the discussion,  you made the claim that Obama had nothing to hide in a thread that started with Trump "Getting killed at home"..  For your edification FOIA is the Freedom of Information Act and Obama spent record amounts of money fighting FOIA requests.  More than any other president.  Of course, that's just one example of many of Obama "Having nothing to hide" in spite of his repeated campaign promise of "transparency".

You may question the source,  but the data is available all over the net.

https://www.theblaze.com/news/2017/03/15/obama-admin-spent-record-amount-of-money-fighting-foia-lawsuits

"In his final year in office, former President Barack Obama’s administration spent a record $36.2 million defending itself from Freedom of Information Act lawsuits, according to a new Associated Press analysis."

The way I understand it is that North Korea bough nukes from the USA And now the USA wants them back. Looks like a tough deal

"Maybe the idea was cockamamie (my boss never did get it to fly). Maybe trump changed his mind. Whatever, but why be so rude, inconsiderate. "

Hi PJ,  that's what we call "unprofessional" in my circle, and in business, it's about the worst insult there is. When you are labeled as consistently unprofessional,   you are done.  

When you commit to a meeting, and then change your mind,  you either cancel before hand or show up and explain the change of heart.  There are no other options for a professional.

“And in the discussion,  you made the claim that Obama had nothing to hide in a thread that started with Trump "Getting killed at home"..  For your edification FOIA is the Freedom of Information Act and Obama spent record amounts of money fighting FOIA requests.  More than any other president.  Of course, that's just one example of many of Obama "Having nothing to hide" in spite of his repeated campaign promise of "transparency".”

Tim, did your source also mention Obama received a record number of requests ?

Record number of requests might lead to a record number fought.

And I also believe Mr Trump has beaten that record, on both counts.

"And I also believe Mr Trump has beaten that record, on both counts."

Please provide your source.

The fact that Obama fought so many requests is, for you, an argument that he lived up to his promise of transparency?  Interesting.  And as I said, there were lots of examples of Obama hiding the truth.

Remember when he invoked executive privilege to cover up his AG's "Fast and Furious" debacle?  A truly creative, and unprecedented use of executive privilege.   That was early in his career of deception. 

Would you like a few dozen more examples of Obama "Having nothing to hide"?   I got em.  Heck,  I think, when I have the time,  I think I'll go ahead and provide them.   

2017

“The fact that Obama fought so many requests is, for you, an argument that he lived up to his promise of transparency? ”

You can certainly have the latter along with the former.

"And in the discussion,  you made the claim that Obama had nothing to hide in a thread that started with Trump "Getting killed at home".

Tim, my claim was preceded by a list of Presidents who had nothing to hide in their tax returns, and you saw any opportunity to divert Trump's unfulfilled promise to a cheap shot at  Obama.

I want to see Trump's tax returns to find out what he's hiding.

Obamma couldn't even be honest about having a husband. Transparency??

Ohhhh,  I Seeee.  So in a conversation that started with the president "getting killed at home" that meandered over to, among other things, presidential tax return disclosure, we are now limited to only discussing disclosure of tax returns as proof of "nothing to hide", and anything else is a cheap shot, even if it includes a lonnnnggggg  list of unbelievable deception and legal twists and turns.  Because the only thing a president can hide that matters is his tax return.   Sorry, sometimes these rules confuse me  <G>.

McFarmer,  your link shows a high volume of FOIA requests in 2017,  but I saw nothing on the time, effort and money the Trump admin has put into stonewalling them.  

That there is a high level of scrutiny towards this admin is hardly new news.  

" we are now limited to only discussing disclosure of tax returns as proof of "nothing to hide" "

Limited only when you take something out of context.

"Ohhhh,  I Seeee.  So in a conversation that started with the president "getting killed at home" that meandered over to, among other things, presidential tax return disclosure".

Meandering is the nature of threads. This one even meandered over to FOIA.

“McFarmer,  your link shows a high volume of FOIA requests in 2017,  but I saw nothing on the time, effort and money the Trump admin has put into stonewalling them.  

That there is a high level of scrutiny towards this admin is hardly new news.  ”

Excellent, then we can agree that the number of requests made has nothing to do with transparency, and, we can surely agree that high numbers of requests will result in high numbers of denials.

Therefore the number of denials in the Obama years had nothing to do with transparency.

What was your point ?

This kind of he said/ she said is pointless.

He said/she said is pointless when you ignore over half of what I say.

I said Obama spent a record level of time/effort/money fighting FOIA requests. I did not ask you to provide documentation showing how many FOIA requests have been submitted to the Trump admin,  I asked you to show how many have been denied.  That has yet to occur.  You are operating under the assumption that since there is a record level of FOIA requests, the Trump admin is setting records in denying them.  This may be true, but you have yet to establish that.

Further,  I said the Obama admins lack of transparency, it's outright efforts to deceive and conceal were not limited to FOIA request and I cited his creative and unprecedented use of executive privilege to protect him and his AG from potential prosecution in what was very likely an extremely illegal, and at the very least a very poorly conceived and hopelessly bungled  sting operation known as "Fast and Furious" that resulted in 100's of deaths, including some border guards

Then of course, there was Benghazi.  Terrible timing, that one. Obama was campaigning on his defeat of assorted terrorist groups and those gosh darn terrorists made him look pretty stupid.  We still don't know the whole truth on that one, but we were told it was the result of a you tube video that hardly anyone had seen. Susan Rice assured us of that on every Sunday talk show ever heard of.   But, Obama's claims of defeating assorted terrorist groups were dropped from his campaign speeches.

Then the IRS was targeting conservative groups.  Lois Lerner pleaded the fifth and after a bunch of gosh darn computer crashes, all communications over the subject were lost.  Gosh,  I wonder who may have been included in those communiques? We'll just never know.

 And who can forget the DOJ ceasing phone and email conversations of the AP.  At least Obama didn't call them "Fake News" so I guess it's all good.  We never got a really good justification for this,  but it sure sent a message to members of the press, Huh?  More of that open communication stuff from the transparent Obama admin who had nothing to hide.

Let's not get started on Hillary's email scandal.  It's been done to death. And the meeting between Bill and Loretta Lynch on the tarmac where they discussed grandkids and golf a week before the conclusion of the investigation?  Nothin ta see here folks.  Move along.

And this is not a comprehensive list.  It's just a good start in pointing out why Carl's claim that the Obama admin "had nothing to hide" was questionable.  But of course, we now know these are "cheap Shots" and the "nothing to hide" discussion must be limited to tax returns.

As an aside, can you imagine the coverage, had ANY of these things happened in the last 2 years or so under Trump? We see far more over far less.

A suggestion to those who suffer from "inconvenient truths"...google the question "Is Trump under investigation?" and count the pages that come up.

Get back to me when you have something new.

This is tiring.

I'm sorry.  Since you took on the task of defending the transparency of the Obama admin, I assumed you must not be aware of this stuff.

But it begs the question,  if you were/are aware of this stuff, why would you take on the task of defending the transparency of the Obama admin?

Put words in their mouths and then call them a liar.

What a strategy !

Did not defend anything, jebus. The Don has corrupted any reasonable thought.

You said Obama had record requests, I said The Don had more.

I called out hypocrisy. That is not defending anything.

In honor of this thread I decided to watch “The Interview”.

You’re almost in the end zone Aardvark. Bring it home.

Couldn’t resist the easy shot, my bad. Now you have the last word. Jebus. How depressing.

Out.

My apologies.  It appeared to me that you were disputing the lack of transparency in the Obama admin.  So, you are in agreement that he regularly relied on extremely high levels of subterfuge and deception.