Trump asked Walter Reed doctors to sign non-disclosure agreements in 2019

WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump required personnel at Walter Reed National Military Medical Center to sign non-disclosure agreements last year before they could be involved with treating him, according to four people familiar with the process.

During a surprise trip to Walter Reed on Nov. 16, 2019, Trump mandated signed NDAs from both physicians and nonmedical staff, most of whom are active-duty military service members, these people said. At least two doctors at Walter Reed who refused to sign NDAs were subsequently not permitted to have any involvement in the president's care, two of the people said.

The reason for his trip last year remains shrouded in mystery.

The four people familiar with the process did not know whether, during the president's most recent visit over the weekend, he had the same requirement for Walter Reed staff members who had not previously been involved in his care.

Anyone providing medical services to the president — or any other American — is automatically prohibited by federal law from disclosing the patient's personal health information without consent. The existing legal protection for all patients under the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, or HIPAA, raises the question of why Trump would insist that staff members at Walter Reed sign NDAs.

The president was taking daily baby aspirin. What does that tell you?

Mini strokes.

Or heart attack.

I believe there were a couple of accusations that Trump had a stroke, and Trump responded on Twitter saying that he didn't have a series of mini-strokes, which is much more specific than what was being suggested, which is why it's probably what actually happened.

Oh, I didnt recall that. Youre probably right.

I think in order for Trump to win, he cannot win by just a narrow margin, but decisively, or else they are going to contest the election, demand recounts etc.

In other words expect a shit-show worse than 2000. — NOS4A2

I think if Trump were to win decisively it would be very suspicious and we'd hear calls of Russian interference/some type of voting fraud. It's already unlikely that he wins, but if he were to win by a large margin I would be quite suspicious. For him to win decisively he'd have to win states like Wisconsin which have around a 6-7% gap in favor of Biden.

I think in order for Trump to win, he cannot win by just a narrow margin, but decisively, or else they are going to contest the election, demand recounts etc. — NOS4A2

Let's see now, Trump has been crying "fraud" since 2016, calls polls "fake" if they don't show him on top, has never acknowledged an efforts by Russia to influence the election, and refuses to even say that he'll accept the results if he doesn't win. Sure....it makes perfect sense to think it is the Democrats who will cry foul.

Nos is obviously playing with us.

The Democrats have been nearly unanimous in stating that the last elections was illegitimate—something something Putin, something something Russia. They didn’t accept the last election and I doubt they will accept this one.

Trump gives Bill Barr ultimatum as he demands roundup of political enemies

During a live phone-in on Fox Business, Donald Trump complained again that not enough of his political enemies have been arrested – and said attorney general Bill Barr could find himself in “a sad situation” if he doesn’t start rounding them up.

The blunt warning comes after Mr Trump left Walter Reed Medical Centre and returned to Twitter with a blizzard of angry tweets and retweets, many of them calling for the indictment of Obama administration figures.

The president’s rambling and ill-tempered interview with Maria Bartiromo on Thursday saw him run through a long list of his usual grievances, but he was particularly rancorous on the subject of supposed Obama-era “crimes” against him for which he wants to see his predecessor indicted, along with Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton and many others.

“Unless Bill Barr indicts these people for crimes,” declared the president, “the greatest political crime in the history of our country, then we’re gonna get little satisfaction unless I win. Because I won’t forget it. But these people should be indicted, this was the greatest political crime in the history of our country. And that includes Obama, and that includes Biden; these are people that spied on my campaign, and we have everything.

“Now they say they have much more, and I say Bill, you got plenty. You don’t need any more.”

Comparing Mr Barr unflatteringly to former acting director of national intelligence Richard Grennell and successor John Ratcliffe, both of whom have released documents related to the Russia investigation, Mr Trump gave his attorney general a warning.

“To be honest, Bill Barr’s gonna go down either as the greatest attorney general in the history of the country or he’s gonna go down as a very sad, sad situation. I mean, I’ll be honest with you. He’s got all the information he needs. They wanna get more, more, more, they keep getting more, I say: ‘You don’t need any more. You got more stuff than anybody’s ever had.’”

Feds say they thwarted militia plot to kidnap Whitmer

The FBI says it thwarted what it described as a plot to violently overthrow the government and kidnap Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer, and federal prosecutors are expected to discuss the alleged conspiracy later Thursday.

The alleged plot involved reaching out to members of a Michigan militia, according to a federal affidavit filed Thursday.

The court filing also alleges the conspirators twice conducted surveillance at Whitmer's vacation home and discussed kidnapping her to a remote location in Wisconsin to stand "trial" for treason prior to the Nov. 3 election.

"Several members talked about murdering 'tyrants' or 'taking' a sitting governor," an FBI agent wrote in the affidavit. "The group decided they needed to increase their numbers and encouraged each other to talk to their neighbors and spread their message."

Affidavit

6 15.Over the weekend of July 10-12, 2020, FOX, CROFT, GARBIN, FRANKS, CASERTA, CHS-2, and others attended a FTX in Cambria, Wisconsin. Attendees participated in firearms training and other combat drills. On July 11, at the exercise, CROFT and a member of the militia group attempted to construct an improvised explosive device (“IED”), using black powder, balloons, a fuse, and BBs for shrapnel. CROFT, GARBIN and the militia group member attempted to make a second IED using similar components. The construction of the devices was faulty, and they did not detonate as planned. CHS-2 provided FBI with video of the event. FRANKS also brought and fired a rifle with a silencer at the exercise. Attendees shared photos and video recordings of the exercise in Facebook discussions that included CHS-2.

...

17.On July 27, 2020, CHS-2 met FOX at his business in Grand Rapids. CHS-2 provided the FBI with an audio recording of the meeting. FOX said their best opportunity to abduct Governor Whitmer would be when she was arriving at, or leaving, either her personal vacation home or the Governor’s official summer residence. Both residences are located in the Western District of Michigan. FOX described it as a “Snatch and grab, man. Grab the fuckin’ Governor. Just grab the bitch. Because at that point, we do that, dude -- it’s over.” FOX said that after kidnapping the Governor, the group would remove her to a secure location in Wisconsin for “trial.” FOX suggested they get a realtor to help them find the exact location of the vacation home and collect information on the surrounding homes and structures. FOX discussed the importance of knowing the layout of the yard, homes, and security. FOX stated they needed to map out the surrounding property and gates, and they needed plumbers and electricians to help them read blueprints to refine their strategy. FOX also suggested recruiting an engineer or “IT [Information Technology] guy,” a “demo guy,” and other “operators.”

Wild.

The Democrats have been nearly unanimous in stating that the last elections was illegitimate—something something Putin, something something Russia. They didn’t accept the last election and I doubt they will accept this one. — NOS4A2

"Something something Russia" = stealing emails from the DNC, coordinating with the Trump campaign on their release, and Trump denying that Russia did anything wrong and even joking about it with Putin. How much this (and Russian advertising and misinformation campaign) influenced the election is anyone's guess, but it's legitimate to complain about it. That doesn't imply Trump didn't win, and most Democrats accept that he won and is the legitimate president. If you have a study or poll that proves me wrong, point me at it. But don't just toss out right-wing hyperbole to counter left-wing hypberbole.

I agree there's some hyperbole among Democrats, but at least there's a factual basis to their complaints. Contrast this with Trump's hyperbole (hyperbole that goes off the charts). You may have forgotten that commission he put together to investigate 2016 election fraud because he didn't believe he lost the popular vote. Now he talks about fraud in the current election nearly every day without evidence to support it, and says he won't accept the results if he loses. Perhaps that's hyperbole, but it's pretty extreme.

The president’s rambling and ill-tempered interview with Maria Bartiromo on Thursday saw him run through a long list of his usual grievances,

In a way, it's nice that Trump keeps the holiday spirit in his heart 365 days of the year. It's too bad the holiday in his heart is Festivus.

Wild — Michael

Is it a coincidence that Michigan is one state where the republican legislature might appoint it's own electors?


Why are you talking to the propaganda machine?

Is it a coincidence that Michigan is one state where the republican legislature might appoint it's own electors? — Echarmion

And one of only two such states with Democratic governors.

Complain away. The DNC had a lawsuit based on your premise, but it was roundly panned and subsequently dismissed.

Meanwhile the Clinton campaign sourced actual disinformation from actual Russian spies and used it to influence the election and any subsequent investigation, thereby putting a democratic election in doubt for years to come. They eschewed the peaceful transfer of power, unmasking members of the Trump campaign well into January. Susan Rice and her strange email to herself on Inauguration Day about a meeting with Obama on Jan. 5th regarding unmasking suggests to me a covering of tracks. But we’ve gone over this numerous times already.

He didn’t say he won’t accept the result if he loses. As the whitehouse stated, he will accept the results of a free and fair election, unlike the democrats, who have done nothing but disrupt the president. Today Pelosi was talking about evoking the 25th amendment.

Right-wing hyperbole:

Hillary Clinton: Trump is an illegitimate president
Majority of young Americans view Trump as illegitimate
Former President Jimmy Carter says Donald Trump is an illegitimate president

Polls are flawed because pollsters have to make judgment calls about who they think are likely to vote. And considering historic low voter turnout in the US, that's probably a very vague science. — Benkei

A very good point.

Although many states have their last days to register coming up just now. But when such a very large percentage don't vote, it is hard for the pollsters, that is for sure.

Right-wing hyperbole:

Hillary Clinton: Trump is an illegitimate president
Majority of young Americans view Trump as illegitimate
Former President Jimmy Carter says Donald Trump is an illegitimate president — NOS4A2

So the Democrats have learned how to play the game like the Republicans did with Bill Clinton?

What's new?

Divide et impera, I say.

It works, you know.

(even if you, me, and other annoying people here aren't voting American citizens.)

So the Democrats have learned how to play the game like the Republicans did with Bill Clinton?

What's new?

Divide et impera, I say.

It works, you know.

(even if you, me, and other annoying people here aren't voting American citizens.)

It may work and it may have been done before, but that doesn’t mean it is right.

I’ve already voted, friend.

..Seriously? Youre an American citizen? What are doing in Canada?

NOS is here for comic relief, not to tell the truth.

A woman.

A woman. — NOS4A2

Oh yea, that'll do it.

NOS is here for comic relief, not to tell the truth. — praxis

His mission is to bring a little levity into our dismal lives.

Meanwhile the Clinton campaign sourced actual disinformation from actual Russian spies — NOS4A2

Here's the quote from John Ratcliffe's letter:
In late July 2016, U.S. intelligence agencies obtained insight into Russian intelligence analysis alleging that U.S. Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton had approved a campaign plan to stir up a scandal against U.S. candidate Donald Trump by tying him to Putin and the Russians hacking of the Democratic National Committee. The IC does not know the accuracy of this allegaton or the extent to which the Russian intelligence analysis may reflect exaggeration or fabrication.

So, although the IC doesn't know the accuracy of this allegation, you treat this as a confirmed fact. If there were additional evidence, I'm pretty sure the Senate Intelligence committee would have told us.

But what is the problem if it is true? It has been established (not just alleged) that the Russians actually DID hack the DNC email system, they supplied it to Wikileaks, and Roger Stone worked with Wikileaks on the strategic leaking of that information, lied about doing so (while Trump was signalling a pardon), was convicted of it, and Trump fulfilled his commitment by pardoning him. This is stronger circumstantial evidence of Trump's involvement in a crime than the paragraph in Ratcliffe's letter is about Clinton committing a crime.

I don't care how much like Trump, you should stop and think about how idiotic it is to suggest the more important story is that Clinton wanted to use some of this factual information for her political benefit. Now the Republicans are using the unsupported allegation for THEIR political benefit. Have you no shame?

*EDIT*
I just noticed that Trump has asked Barr to indict Biden for "greatest political crime in the history of our country" - referring to the allegation against Clinton, and apparently his clairvoyance about Biden's criminal involvement.

I’m not sure whether it was the Clinton campaign’s intention to approach Russian spies for dirt on Donald trump in order to influence the election, but nonetheless that’s what occurred. The point of Ratcliffe’s letter is that Russia knew of the campaign’s effort and might have used the opportunity to insert disinfo. I’m not saying they committed any crime, but that the country was nearly paralyzed by their efforts and the media’s complicity in it.

Steele sourced much of his info from Russian intelligence. This intelligence found its way to the highest echelons of the FBI. The FBI was warned of the disinfo threat but ignored it. The FBI ignored Steele’s ties to Russian oligarchs. According to a declassified footnote in the Horowitz report:

In addition to the information in Steele's Delta file documenting Steele's frequent contacts with representatives for multiple Russian oligarch, we identified reporting the Crossfire Hurricane team received [redacted] indicating the potential for Russia disinformation influencing Steele's election reporting.

I don’t care how much you hate Trump, but if you want to condemn his campaign for wanting wikileaks to release emails, you should show equal concern for the propaganda efforts of the Clinton campaign, who actually did share false, Russian-sourced info in order to find political dirt on their opponent.

I don’t care how much you hate Trump, but if you want to condemn his campaign for wanting wikileaks to release emails, you should show equal concern for the propaganda efforts of the Clinton campaign, who actually did share false, Russian-sourced info in order to find political dirt on their opponent. — NOS4A2

If there were comparable evidence of wrongdoing by Clinton, I would absolutely condemn her. It's pretty standard for a campaign to hire a company to do opposition research and to use that information. That company hired Steele, an experienced MI6 analyst with extensive experience with Russia. Irrespective of any other facts that have since come to light, what was know at the time doesn't sound nefarious.

Tell me: do you really think it's fine for the President to call on Barr to indict Biden based on that paragraph in Ratcliffe's letter that I quoted?

I’m not saying Hilary Clinton was guilty of anything. What I will say, definitively, is that Trump was treated unfairly. It appears the Clinton campaign is guilty of the exact same thing they accused Trump of for numerous years, and the reticence on the subject is suspect, but expected.

I think Trump is right to criticize the lack of justice on the matter. I do not think it amounts to “calling on Barr to indict Biden”, or however they try to spin it. We’re talking about the American government spying on an opponent’s political campaign, a democratically-elected president, and weaponizing the state apparatus to hinder the presidency. All this “Trump said...” sniffing is to me the death throes of a dying orthodoxy.

It appears the Clinton campaign is guilty of the exact same thing they accused Trump of for numerous years, — NOS4A2

What are you basing that on? The only thing I'm aware of is the quote I gave from the Ratcliffe letter, and that obviously doesn't imply she did what Trump did. Seems to me you're just echoing Trump's claim that the investigation (the one he obstructed) was a witch hunt.

IMO, the worst provable thing Trump did was to encourage perjury by dangling pardons and following through on the pardon. That was criminal and prosecutable. What did Clinton do that is comparable? If you're simply going on hunches from sketchy evidence against Clinton, then we can open the floodgates on possible acts by Trump.