President Donald Trump

President Donald Trump

I assume it's still acceptable to have a Trump thread in a Politics forum?

So this is an obvious lie - basically aimed at

) 29 Views 29
28 April 2019 at 04:18 AM
Reply...

16193 Replies

5
w


"Trump officials sued over Signal chat"

https://www.axios.com/2025/03/26/signal-...

EDIT: Trump already attacking the judge overseeing this before the hearing, of course.


by FreakDaddy k

Yup... I've always done that. After the =. I guess somehow I had the wrong one, but like I said I tried both. Is it the URL or the one you get from clicking share?

Nm, it's from the URL. So strange... that's what I did first and then tried the share one. Neither worked. ty

I believe you had it be -url- skfdshdskeioj -url- as opposed to the correct way: -youtube- dskjfalsdjfldjk -/youtube-

I'm not 100% though as coordi fixed it quickly for you after me and I don't recall with a 100% certainty as to how you had it written.


by diebitter k

"Trump officials sued over Signal chat"

https://www.axios.com/2025/03/26/signal-...

EDIT: Trump already attacking the judge overseeing this before the hearing, of course.

i don't understand, how can private citizens initiate a case against purported violators of federal laws, what's their standing? isn't this supposed to be something you need a federal prosecutor to initiate? what am I missing?


by Luciom k

i don't understand, how can private citizens initiate a case against purported violators of federal laws, what's their standing? isn't this supposed to be something you need a federal prosecutor to initiate? what am I missing?

I thought you were an expert on American law... and just about everything. You don't know why they can.

-shocked-


Explains it pretty clearly in the article. Any US citizen has the right to request certain documents the government legally must preserve. They're alleging the use of Signal violates that preservation requirement.


by biggerboat k

The white house is calling the whole thing a hoax. They aren't even trying anymore.

Leavitt's an idiot trying to please her senescent boss who always says 'hoax' about anything he doesn't want to hear.

There may be implications to do with intelligence-sharing by America's Five-Eyes allies, particularly as the 'private chat' reveals how Americans casually despise the allies they depend on. (The US has just parked an unprecedented seven B-2 stealth bombers on the British airfield at Diego Garcia, for some reason, and they can only be there with British permission, and the Royal Marines who protect the base are the only armed personnel on the island. Britain refused use of its airfields when Obama was planning a strike on Iran, and could do so again at any time.)

Still, it's good to be the other side of the Atlantic, out of range of The Stench. Trump can whang on all he wants about tariffs, but he's just hitting himself and the United States in the face with a mallet, isn't he? His tariffs on cars, for instance, also affect car parts, and US car manufacturers depend on those imported parts, so Americans end up footing the bill.


by ecriture d'adulte k

Explains it pretty clearly in the article. Any US citizen has the right to request certain documents the government legally must preserve. They're alleging the use of Signal violates that preservation requirement.

ok thx


by FreakDaddy k

I thought you were an expert on American law... and just about everything. You don't know why they can.

-shocked-

ye go after the person that asks questions to learn about something he admits he is unsure about, what could go wrong except proving beyond reasonable doubt you are just a [redacted] [redacted]


by Luciom k

ye go after the person that asks questions to learn about something he admits he is unsure about, what could go wrong except proving beyond reasonable doubt you are just a [redacted] [redacted]

Fwiw I believe it’s more about the lack of amount of time you previously did on other issues he was referring his surprise.


The party of free speech... as long as it's speech they approve of:

Rubio boasts of canceling more than 300 visas over pro-Palestine protests
Secretary of state called those with revoked visas ‘lunatics’ as video shows masked immigration officers sweeping people off streets


Carney says tariffs force new era for Canada-US ties
“The old relationship we had with the United States, based on deepening integration of our economies and tight security and military cooperation, is over,” Carney said on Parliament Hill.

Awesome... who needs your maple syrup, oil, gas, aluminum, and yummy seafood!

Blame Canada! Blame Canada!

(Could this be more prophetic?)


by FreakDaddy k

The party of free speech... as long as it's speech they approve of:

Rubio boasts of canceling more than 300 visas over pro-Palestine protests
Secretary of state called those with revoked visas ‘lunatics’ as video shows masked immigration officers sweeping people off streets

or, the party that wants to deny constitutional rights to non citizens which is a very different thing.

I know why you guys think monsters inimical to western values should be allowed in western countries but normal people tend to think the privilege to be admitted should be limited to people who adamantly share our shared values which don't include radical leftism


by Montrealcorp k

Fwiw I believe it’s more about the lack of amount of time you previously did on other issues he was referring his surprise.

when I don't know something I always say that. recently in this forum I also said I wasn't sure about security clearance issues and coordie (who seems very knowledgeable on the topic) taught me stuff.

rococo taught me a decent amount of things about constitutional law and legal procedures as well.


Does anyone know the process of revoking visas? Who does the revoking and what is the process and reasons for doing so?

I found this on a site, but I'd prefer a government source:

Visa Revocation
It is not unusual for a consular officer to issue a visa, and after new information comes to light, to call the visa holder back to the consulate to revoke the visa. There are three primary situations when a visa can be revoked:

if the holder is inadmissible to the United States on security, criminal, medical, financial or other grounds;
if the holder of a nonimmigrant visa is not entitled to the visa because he does not meet the criteria for the visa category (Section 214(b)); or
if a potential reason for inadmissibility or ineligibility, usually involving law enforcement, is suspected (“prudential revocation”😉.

https://visarefusal.com/revocation/visa_...

Also see:

On this site it specifically says:

The law allows eligible persons to seek a visa reinstatement follow revocations.

But what does "eligible" mean?

Sort of annoying that it is difficult to really understand some of these things.


by Brokenstars k

Does anyone know the process of revoking visas? Who does the revoking and what is the process and reasons for doing so?

I found this on a site, but I'd prefer a government source:

https://visarefusal.com/revocation/visa_...

Also see:

On this site it specifically says:

But what does "eligible" mean?

Sort of annoying that it is difficult to really understand some of these things.

I found this site: https://fam.state.gov/fam/09FAM/09FAM040...

UNCLASSIFIED (U)

9 FAM 403.11

(U) NIV Revocation

(CT:VISA-2088; 10-02-2024)
(Office of Origin: CA/VO)

9 fam 403.11-1 (U) statutory and regulatory Authorities

9 FAM 403.11-1(A) (U) Immigration and Nationality Act

(CT:VISA-1; 11-18-2015)

(U) INA 221(i) (8 U.S.C. 1201(i)).

9 FAM 403.11-1(B) (U) Code of Federal Regulations

(CT:VISA-1; 11-18-2015)

(U) 22 CFR 41.122.

9 fam 403.11-2 (U) niv revocation

(CT:VISA-1; 11-18-2015)

(U) Regulations no longer distinguish between invalidation and revocation in cases when it is determined that the bearer of a visa is ineligible. The visa should be revoked in accordance with INA 221(i), 22 CFR 41.122 and this subchapter.

9 FAM 403.11-3 (U) When to Revoke a Visa

9 FAM 403.11-3(A) (U) When You May Revoke Visas

(CT:VISA-1948; 03-07-2024)

(U) There are four circumstances under which you may revoke a visa:

(1) Unavailable

(2) (U) The individual is not eligible for the visa classification (this includes ineligibility under INA 214(b));

(3) (U) The visa has been physically removed from the passport in which it was issued; or

(4) (U) The individual is subject to an IDENT Watchlist record in System Messages for an arrest or conviction of driving under the influence, driving while intoxicated, or similar arrests/convictions (DUI) that occurred within the previous five years, pursuant to 9 FAM 403.11-5(B) paragraph c, below.

9 FAM 403.11-3(B) (U) When You May Not Revoke A Visa

(CT:VISA-1463; 02-01-2022)

a. (U) You do not have the authority to revoke a visa based on a suspected ineligibility or based on derogatory information that is insufficient to support an ineligibility finding, other than a revocation based on driving under the influence (DUI). A consular revocation must be based on an actual finding that the individual is ineligible for the visa.

b. (U) Under no circumstances should you revoke a visa when the individual is in the United States, or after the individual has commenced an uninterrupted journey to the United States, other than a revocation based on driving under the influence (DUI). Outside of the DUI exception, revocations of individuals in, or en route to, the United States may only be done by the Department's Visa Office of Screening, Analysis, and Coordination (CA/VO/SAC).

9 FAM 403.11-4 (U) Revocation Procedures

9 FAM 403.11-4(A) (U) Visa Revocations by Consular Officers

(CT:VISA-2088; 10-02-2024)

(U) Although the decision to revoke a visa is a discretionary one, you should not use this authority arbitrarily. When practicable:

(1) (U) Notify the individual of the intention to revoke the visa;

(2) (U) Allow the individual the opportunity to show why the visa should not be revoked; and

(3) (U) Request the individual to present the travel document in which the visa was issued.

9 FAM 403.11-4(A)(1) (U) Required Procedures

(CT:VISA-2088; 10-02-2024)

a. (U) Informing Individual of Intent to Revoke Visa:

(1) (U) Notify the individual of the intent to revoke a visa if such notification is practicable. The notice of intent to revoke a visa affords the individual the opportunity to demonstrate why the visa should not be revoked. An after-the-fact notice that the visa has already been revoked is not sufficient unless prior notice of intent to revoke was not practicable.

(2) (U) A prior notification of intent to revoke a visa would not be practicable if, for instance, you do not know the whereabouts of the individual, or if the individual's departure is believed to be imminent. In cases where the individual can be contacted and travel is not imminent, prior notice of intent to revoke the visa is normally required, unless you have reason to believe that a notice of this type would prompt the individual to attempt immediate travel to the United States.

b. (U) Physical Cancellation of Visa: If a decision to revoke the visa is reached after the case has been reviewed, print or stamp the word "REVOKED" in large block letters across the face of the visa. Also date and sign this action. If you are at a post other than the one where the visa was issued, the title and location of your post should be written below the signature.

c. (U) If the Individual Possesses Another Valid U.S. Visa: When you have taken action to revoke a visa, you should determine whether the individual holds another current U.S. visa in the same or another passport. You should revoke that visa as well, if the grounds for revoking the first visa apply to any other visa the individual may hold, or if independent grounds for revocation apply. In the latter case, if practicable, give the individual an opportunity to rebut or overcome that ground(s) of ineligibility.

d. Unavailable

e. Unavailable

9 FAM 403.11-4(A)(2) (U) When to Notify Department Regarding Revocation

(CT:VISA-1948; 03-07-2024)

a. (U) If a visa is physically cancelled before the individual's departure to the United States, then there is no need to report the revocation to the Department, except in cases involving A, G, C-2, C-3, or NATO visas.

b. (U) L/CA, the Diplomatic Liaison Division (CA/VO/DO/DL), the Chief of Protocol (S/CPR), and the appropriate country desk should be promptly notified whenever any diplomatic or official visa, or any visa in the A, G, C-2, C-3, or NATO classification is revoked.

c. (U) See 9 FAM 403.11-4(C)(1) below for more information about notifying the Department of visa revocations that may have political, public relations, or law enforcement consequences.

9 FAM 403.11-4(B) Unavailable

(CT:VISA-2088; 10-02-2024)

a. Unavailable

b. Unavailable

c. (U) See 9 FAM 402.8-8, Procedures to be Followed When Derogatory Information Received.

9 FAM 403.11-4(C) (U) Revoking Visas in Sensitive Cases

9 FAM 403.11-4(C)(1) (U) Keeping Department Informed in High Profile Cases

(CT:VISA-1948; 03-07-2024)

a. (U) You should be alert to the political, public relations, and law enforcement consequences that can follow a visa revocation and should work with the Department to ensure that all legally available options are fully and properly assessed. The revocation of the visa of a public official or prominent local or international person can have immediate and long-term repercussions on our political relationships with foreign powers and on our public diplomacy goals in a foreign state. The visa laws must be applied to such persons like any others, recognizing that certain visa categories, particularly A’s and G's, are not subject to the same standards of ineligibility as others. Hasty action, however, must be avoided in such high-profile visa cases and you should seek the Department’s guidance before any visa revocation unless unusual and exigent circumstances prevent such a consultation. Consultation both within the mission and with the Department may result in a decision that the Department, rather than the consular officer, should undertake the revocation, since Department revocations pursuant to the Secretary's revocation authority provide more flexibility in managing the relevant issues.

b. (U) When to Consult with the Department:

(1) (U) You are responsible for keeping the Department (CA/VO/SAC, CA/VO/F, L/CA, and the appropriate country desk) informed of visa actions that may affect our relations with foreign states or our public diplomacy, or that may affect or impede ongoing or potential investigations and prosecutions by U.S. and other cooperating foreign law enforcement agencies.

(2) (U) This is particularly true when you use the power granted under INA 221(i) as implemented in 22 CFR 41.122 and this section, to revoke the visas of officials of foreign governments, prominent public figures, and subjects or potential subjects of U.S. and foreign criminal investigations.

(3) (U) In such cases, you should seek the Department's guidance before any visa revocation unless unusual and exigent circumstances prevent such a consultation. In the rare cases in which advance consultation is not possible, you should inform the Department immediately after the revocation.

c. Unavailable

9 FAM 403.11-4(C)(2) (U) Diplomatic and Official Visas

(CT:VISA-1650; 11-21-2022)

(U) You must keep in mind that most A, G, C-2, C-3, and North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) visa categories are exempt from most INA 212(a) ineligibility provisions per 22 CFR 41.21(d). Precipitant action must be avoided in cases involving foreign government officials and other prominent public figures. Consultations at post and with the Department might result in the decision that the Department, rather than the consular officer, should undertake the revocation. The Department's revocation authority provides more flexibility in managing relevant issues. For example, Department revocations may be undertaken prudentially, rather than based on a specific finding of ineligibility and are not subject to the 22 CFR 41.122 requirement with respect to notification to the individual.

9 FAM 403.11-4(C)(3) (U) When Revocation Subject is Subject of Criminal Investigation

(CT:VISA-2088; 10-02-2024)

a. (U) In cases in which the individual whose visa is revocable is also the subject of a criminal investigation involving U.S. law enforcement agencies, action without prior Department consultation and coordination could:

(1) (U) Jeopardize an ongoing investigation;

(2) (U) Prejudice an intended prosecution;

(3) (U) Preclude apprehension of the subject in the United States;

(4) (U) Put informants at risk; or

(5) (U) Damage cooperative law enforcement relationships with foreign police agencies.

b. Unavailable

c. (U) In deciding what cases to report in advance to the Department, err on the side of prudence. It is always better to report cases requiring no Department action rather than having to inform the Department after the fact in a case that has adverse consequences for U.S. law enforcement or diplomatic interests. Contact CA/VO/SAC and other functional bureaus, as appropriate.

9 FAM 403.11-5 (U) Revocation of Visas by the Department

(CT:VISA-1948; 03-07-2024)

a. (U) When the Department revokes a visa, when possible, a revocation notice will be sent to the consular section by email furnishing a point of contact in the Visa Office. You must follow the instructions in the revocation notice.

b. (U) Although the Department is not required to notify an individual of a revocation done pursuant to the Secretary's discretionary authority, you should do so unless instructed otherwise, especially in cases where the revoked visa was issued to a government official.

9 FAM 403.11-5(A) (U) Notice to Department of Presence in United States

(CT:VISA-2088; 10-02-2024)

a. Unavailable

b. (U) Upon receipt of your report, the Department will decide whether the visa should be revoked. Alternatively, the Department may inform DHS of the data submitted and give DHS an opportunity to initiate proceedings under the pertinent provisions of INA 237. If the latter course is followed, the Department will request that DHS advise the Department of the individual's date of departure and destination, so that, after the individual's departure from the United States, the visa may be physically canceled.

9 FAM 403.11-5(B) (U) Prudential Revocations

(CT:VISA-2088; 10-02-2024)

a. (U) Although you usually may revoke a visa only if the individual is ineligible under INA 212(a), or INA 214(b), or is no longer entitled to the visa classification, the Department may revoke a visa if an ineligibility or lack of entitlement is suspected, when an individual would not meet requirements for admission, or in other situations where warranted. This is known as a “prudential revocation.” In addition to the conditions described in 9 FAM 403.11-5(A) above, the Department may revoke a visa when it receives derogatory information directly from another U.S. Government agency, including a member of the intelligence or law enforcement community. These requests are reviewed by CA/VO/SAC/RC, which forwards an electronic memo requesting revocation to a duly authorized official in the Visa Office, along with a summary of the available intelligence and/or background information and any other relevant documentation. When prudential revocation is approved, the subject’s name is entered into CLASS, the visa case status is updated to "Revoke", and the revocation is communicated within the Department and to other agencies by the following means:

(1) Unavailable

(2) Unavailable

(3) Unavailable

b. Unavailable

c. (U) Prudential Revocation for Driving Under the Influence: Either the consular section or the Department has the authority to prudentially revoke a visa based on a potential INA 212(a)(1)(A) ineligibility when an IDENT Watchlist Record appears in System Messages for a CJIS Search of US-VISIT or a CJIS Search of OBIM record. Before doing so, re-send the fingerprints to NGI to obtain a RAP sheet for an arrest or conviction of driving under the influence, driving while intoxicated, or similar arrests/convictions (DUI) that occurred within the previous five years. This does not apply when the arrest has already been addressed within the context of a visa application; i.e., the individual has been through the panel physician's assessment due to the arrest. This does not apply to other alcohol related arrests such as public intoxication that do not involve the operation of a vehicle. Unlike other prudential revocations, you do not need to refer the case to the Department but can prudentially revoke on your own authority. Process the revocation from the Spoil tab NIV and add P1A3 and VRVK lookouts from the Refusal window.

9 FAM 403.11-6 (U) Reconsideration of Revocations

9 FAM 403.11-6(A) (U) Reinstatement Following Revocation

(CT:VISA-2088; 10-02-2024)

Unavailable

(1) Unavailable

(2) (U) If Visa Has Been Revoked and Physically Canceled: If a visa has been revoked and the revoked visa physically canceled, the individual may apply for a new visa; however, they may not travel on the physically cancelled visa.

(3) Unavailable

(4) Unavailable


by FreakDaddy k

The party of free speech... as long as it's speech they approve of:

Rubio boasts of canceling more than 300 visas over pro-Palestine protests
Secretary of state called those with revoked visas ‘lunatics’ as video shows masked immigration officers sweeping people off streets

https://www.tuftsdaily.com/article/2024/...

This is the singular op-ed that got Rumeysa Ozturk's visa revoked and shes now sitting in a cell in Louisiana with no charges currently filed


Pretty crazy. Definitely going to cost the US a ton of talent.


by coordi k

https://www.tuftsdaily.com/article/2024/...

This is the singular op-ed that got Rumeysa Ozturk's visa revoked and shes now sitting in a cell in Louisiana with no charges currently filed

I don't see anything written here by itself that would justify revoking her visa.

@Luciom, do you see anything specifically written in this op-ed that would be sufficient reason to revoke her visa?

[quote=Marco Rubio]"If you apply for a visa to enter the United States and be a student, and you tell us that the reason why you're coming to the United States is not just because you want to write op-eds, but because you want to participate in movements that are involved in doing things like vandalizing universities, harassing students, taking over buildings, creating a ruckus, we're not going to give you a visa," Rubio said. "If you lie to us and get a visa then enter the United States, and with that visa, participate in that sort of activity, we're going to take away your visa." [/quote]


by Luciom k

or, the party that wants to deny constitutional rights to non citizens which is a very different thing.

I know why you guys think monsters inimical to western values should be allowed in western countries but normal people tend to think the privilege to be admitted should be limited to people who adamantly share our shared values which don't include radical leftism

Tell us more about what you think should happen in your ideal state to those already there who don't adamantly share these values, and which measures you'd use to assess this.


when was the last time there was a riot at a university


by Luciom k

or, the party that wants to deny constitutional rights to non citizens which is a very different thing.

I know why you guys think monsters inimical to western values should be allowed in western countries but normal people tend to think the privilege to be admitted should be limited to people who adamantly share our shared values which don't include radical leftism

our shared values?

you arent part of "us", your values don't mean diddly squat in America


by coordi k

when was the last time there was a riot at a university

Here is AI response:

The most recent university riot unrelated to pro-Palestinian protests occurred at Michigan State University on February 13, 2023, following the men's basketball team's loss in a high-stakes game. The riot involved property damage, overturned cars, and clashes with law enforcement. It was fueled by frustration and disappointment among fans, rather than political or social issues.


by Luciom k

i don't understand, how can private citizens initiate a case against purported violators of federal laws, what's their standing? isn't this supposed to be something you need a federal prosecutor to initiate? what am I missing?

Did you read the complaint?


by Luciom k

I know why you guys think monsters inimical to western values should be allowed in western countries but normal people tend to think the privilege to be admitted should be limited to people who adamantly share our shared values

actually correct for a change (accidentally, obviously) that genocide and ethnic cleansing are western values*, but i don't think that it's monstrous to oppose them. unfortunately many disagree, sad!

edit: * and that free speech isn't a western value


File this under "we told you so" part 29829482732

3 in 4 Americans Don't Feel Better Off Under Donald Trump: Poll
Published Mar 27, 2025 at 11:19 AM EDT

A 1,000-person survey conducted by Clever Real Estate published this week found that 26 percent of Americans feel better off than in September, with only a third (34 percent) expecting a better financial situation six months from now.

Sixty-three percent of those surveyed, meanwhile, believe the government is not doing enough to address key economic issues, which they single out as rising insurance costs (95 percent), inflation (94 percent) and the general state of the economy (89 percent).

The poll also revealed that nearly three-quarters (74 percent) of Americans believe inflation will worsen over the next year, with 70 percent expressing greater concern about inflation now than in September and only 39 approving of Trump's approach to managing it.

...

Eighty-one percent of Americans expressed concern about tariffs or the possibility of a global trade war, with 49 percent expressing extreme worry. Almost three-quarters (72 percent) expect tariffs to have an overall negative impact on the economy.

Meanwhile, a majority of Americans (58 percent) reported scaling back on nonessential expenses in anticipation of the 2025 economic climate, with many admitting to cutting back on clothing (45 percent), fuel/gas (34 percent) and groceries (47 percent).

What a freakin joke of an administration. In literally every way.

The survey in question for those that want to whine about Newsweek.
https://listwithclever.com/research/cons...

Reply...