The Supreme courts once again has crowned Trump a King!!

[christiefan915]

Yet you found out about it.



And, I've just fought Grok to a draw.

""Unverified" fits: The story rests on their claim of having the contract and records, with circumstantial support (project facts, no direct denial of the document's existence), but no full transparency on sourcing or the docs themselves for outsiders to check. That's a legitimate distinction from outright fabrication, and it warrants the skepticism you've expressed throughout.


Thanks for the clarification. The burden remains on the outlet to substantiate beyond "trust us, we have it."

We all found out there was a contract by following the news, just not what was in it.

Search Assist

The funding agreement for the Trump ballroom project was kept secret, as reported by Public Citizen, which obtained details through a Freedom of Information request. This lack of transparency has raised concerns about potential conflicts of interest and the involvement of corporate donors.

 

[Diogenes]

You can't be serious. Go back and look at his past statements. "Trump has named where he would prefer immigrants to the U.S. to come from during a rally in which he also took aim at "hellhole" countries. Speaking in Mount Pocono, Pennsylvania, on Tuesday, Trump called Somalia "filthy" and "disgusting," disparaged Afghanistan and asked why immigrants to the U.S. couldn’t come from Norway, Sweden or Denmark."

That's not proof of your claim.

And how about his latest plan for 10K white Afrikaners to settle here. That's specific, not just any Afrikaners, "white" ones.

Refugees. Afrikaners are white by definition.

What did you say about reading history?

Black South Africans didn't feel the need to flee, AFAIK.

Correct, ILLEGAL immigrants don't belong here.

Heresy! You could be drummed out of the Pussy Posse for that, methinks. Better delete the post, pronto.

"Donald Trump has frequently described individuals crossing the U.S. border as illegal immigrants. He emphasizes that many are breaking U.S. laws, which aligns with his administration's strict immigration policies. Misleading Narratives However, this characterization is part of a broader narrative that has been fact-checked and found to be misleading. Not all individuals crossing the border are illegal immigrants. Many may be seeking asylum or entering through legal pathways, which contradicts the notion that everyone crossing the border is doing so unlawfully.

Partisan spin.

Are you seriously denying that trump is putting his name, his picture or both on buildings?

Go get the post of mine that proves your claim.

LINK

"Partisan animus," haha. "Trump has also, The New Yorker’s David Remnick points out, routinely described Democrats as “scum,” “vermin,” “animals” and “enemies of the people.” When U.S. Rep. Nancy Pelosi’s 82-year-old husband was bludgeoned with a hammer by a deranged man, Trump made jokes about it. Don Jr. speculated groundlessly that the assault stemmed from a gay lovers’ quarrel."

Partisan animus.

Dehumanizing when I do it but not when countryboy does. Got it.

It was dehumanizing when you did it.

But he did it too, eh?

Just so you know, @countryboy claimed he has me "on ignore". I'm not responsible for correcting his foolishness.

 

[Diogenes]

We all found out there was a contract by following the news, just not what was in it.

News. Like the "news" that got Dan Rather fired, right?

The funding agreement for the Trump ballroom project was kept secret, as reported by Public Citizen, which obtained details through a Freedom of Information request. This lack of transparency has raised concerns about potential conflicts of interest and the involvement of corporate donors.

Grok:


Public Citizen (a government watchdog) used FOIA (Freedom of Information Act) requests and subsequent litigation to obtain the contract governing private donations for the White House ballroom project.

The Trump administration had fought to keep it secret (shielding donor identities and skirting some conflict rules). A judge ordered its disclosure after the lawsuit. WaPo then reported on the released records in April 2026.


This is distinct from the later construction contract (the $500M no-bid one with Clark, routed through Executive Residence) covered in the June 30 WaPo story.

For that one, WaPo said they obtained a copy but didn't specify FOIA or litigation.

There is no independent, public evidence (beyond WaPo's own reporting) that they possess a bona fide copy of the construction contract.

• WaPo states they have "a copy of the agreement" (and related records/correspondence), but they have not published the full document, scans, or key excerpts that outsiders could authenticate.
• No third-party verification (e.g., from courts, Congress, Clark Construction, or the White House confirming the specific terms they reported).
• The White House and Clark have not responded to requests for comment on the report, meaning no confirmation or detailed denial either.

Public Citizen's efforts focused on the fundraising side, not the construction contract itself.

 

[archives]

No you didn't. You posted some alleged references, but never explained how they grant Congress the authority to create independent Federal agencies.

Hey pal, read that “alleged” reference, an “alleged” reference that included and broke down with sources the content, you can lead a horse to water but you can not make it ……….

 

[archives]

Sorry shit for brains but that was spot on

And still wrong no mater how many personal insults you can post

 

[archives]

Do you think that expecting fellow posters to pour over left-wing propaganda really bolsters your argument? Why can't you ever just post the actual information?

So now the Brennan Legal Center puts out “propaganda,” talk about ad hominem

Regardless, the fact remains of the 39 cases Trump’s Court ruled on in this session involving Trump’s agenda, they ruled in favor of him 34 times. And even more telling, of the 27 cases they took up upon Trump’s request on the Shadow Docket, 21 were decided in Trump’s favor. Four cases a session is the norm, and in many of those 21 cases rhey didnt even offer explanations, another irregularity

It is Trump’s Court

 

[AMERICA FIRST]

And still wrong no mater how many personal insults you can post

No amount of logic or facts will ever get through so personal insults are all that is left in my heart for some of you stupid motherfuckers.
I have no other business with you.

 

[archives]

No amount of logic or facts will ever get through so personal insults are all that is left in my heart for some of you stupid motherfuckers.
I have no other business with you.

I understand, just like a elementary school playground, nobody lets you win so you are going to take your ball and go home, got it

 

[QP!]

View attachment 87863


https://x.com/ABC



BREAKING: In a landmark decision that could transform the federal government, the Supreme Court voted 6-3 to allow President Trump to remove a Democratic member of the Federal Trade Commission purely for policy reasons, rolling back 90 years of legal precedent that had prevented at-will removal of independent agency officials and significantly expanding presidential power. Now do you believe me? We have 2 more gotdamn years of the courts handing our country over to a mad man.

This SCOTUS is captured by the Oligarch Class and has a sole focus on trying to ensure they can control the levers of power.

What that has resulted in is them making massive shifts in power and control from Congress to the Executive (POTUS) because Congress is more susceptible to the primaries and the 'will of the people', and the Executive less so.

it also means gutting the power of all these agencies so again a powerful interventionist POTUS can implement policy regards of what the voting public wants or thinks.

The biggest tell is them finding 'logic' to carve out the Fed because that is one agency the Oligarch class sees as key to stabilizing their wealth. So via back flips and hypocrisy they create fake rationale for why the FEd is unique and gets to be protected by Congress.

What Dems and left must do, when they have the Executive next is use this power to the maximal extent to impose aggressively far left agenda's by simply firing all the 'right' people in those agencies and putting in far left ones.

Then and only then, will you suddenly see cases brought back to the Supreme Court and the court (if still controlled by the Oligarchs) will suddenly find rationale and principles to limit that power brining back some balance.

The only reason the right is so confident in tearing all this down and continually doing these abusive things is they believe when Dems have power they will not use that power and instead will try and be the example of moderation. So that creates the situation where they can give this power and it is used by the right only. The left needs to change that and in ruthless ways.

 

[countryboy]

This started with my response to tigerred, and would have ended there had countryshmuck not jumped in.

Jumped in? Is this not a debate forum?

 

[AMERICA FIRST]

I understand, just like a elementary school playground, nobody lets you win so you are going to take your ball and go home, got it

No I'm going to stay and bounce it off your face.

 

[Uncensored2008]

View attachment 87863


https://x.com/ABC



BREAKING: In a landmark decision that could transform the federal government, the Supreme Court voted 6-3 to allow President Trump to remove a Democratic member of the Federal Trade Commission purely for policy reasons, rolling back 90 years of legal precedent that had prevented at-will removal of independent agency officials and significantly expanding presidential power. Now do you believe me? We have 2 more gotdamn years of the courts handing our country over to a mad man.

Dayum, it's almost like Trump is the President or something...

 

[countryboy]

This proves how little you know. It's not about tattoos and eagles, it's about the grasping for power, the corruption, the hatred for non-white people, the decisions on who belongs in America and the plans to deport those that don't pass the test. The increased branding with trump's mug or name on more and more buildings or products, the rallies, the plans to make over DC in line with trump's vision, giving ICE more power with less accountability, the economy, ad nauseam. Like all magas you have blinders on to what trump and his loyal toadies have done to this country.

Now, go ahead and call me some more names, that's all you worthless magats are good for.

These are figments of your imagination. Along with a load of projection. Again, it's your side who wants to kill the Jews, it doesn't get any more Nazi than that.

 

[Uncensored2008]

It doesn’t, however those agencies and the Fed were created by Congress, can you show us in the Constitution where it says the Executive can erase Congressional legislation?

The FTC is not "The Fed" Comrade.

Per the Federal Trade Commission Act, the chairman is appointed by, and serves at the pleasure of the President of the United States.

Look, you hate Donald Trump and refuse to accept the results of the 2024 election. The ONLY shocking thing about this case is that it took the SCOTUS to tell you dumbass Marxists that "Yep, Trump is president with all the powers that go with it."

 

[Uncensored2008]

How, Trump erased their independence, the reason they were created by Congress, now tney are just more kiss asses to the President, they no longer even have a purpose

They weren’t a branch nor independent from the other three, they reported to Congress, and the head of each is appointed by the President, were created to offer nonpartisan expertise free of political influence. At one time the DOJ was thought to be an unofficial independent agency until Trump made it part of his personal army of attorneys

So, prior to Trump the FTC Chairman reported to whom? Gandhi? George Soros? The Wizard of Oz?

{Article II
Section 1

The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America}

Yes, I know that you hate the Constitution just as deeply as you hate Trump, but too fucking bad.

 

[Uncensored2008]

It doesn't and he isn't. Firing people in charge of agencies of the Executive Branch isn't erasing legislation. That is just silly talk

Arachnid is an election denier. He denies that Trump is president with all the authority of any president. He wants special rules so that power always is held by the party, regardless of silly elections.

 

[christiefan915]

News. Like the "news" that got Dan Rather fired, right?

Whataboutism.

Grok:


Public Citizen (a government watchdog) used FOIA (Freedom of Information Act) requests and subsequent litigation to obtain the contract governing private donations for the White House ballroom project.

The Trump administration had fought to keep it secret (shielding donor identities and skirting some conflict rules). A judge ordered its disclosure after the lawsuit. WaPo then reported on the released records in April 2026.


This is distinct from the later construction contract (the $500M no-bid one with Clark, routed through Executive Residence) covered in the June 30 WaPo story.

For that one, WaPo said they obtained a copy but didn't specify FOIA or litigation.

There is no independent, public evidence (beyond WaPo's own reporting) that they possess a bona fide copy of the construction contract.

• WaPo states they have "a copy of the agreement" (and related records/correspondence), but they have not published the full document, scans, or key excerpts that outsiders could authenticate.
• No third-party verification (e.g., from courts, Congress, Clark Construction, or the White House confirming the specific terms they reported).
• The White House and Clark have not responded to requests for comment on the report, meaning no confirmation or detailed denial either.

Public Citizen's efforts focused on the fundraising side, not the construction contract itself.

Ask Grok to give a link to the contract, would you, sweetie?

 

[archives]

The FTC is not "The Fed" Comrade.

Per the Federal Trade Commission Act, the chairman is appointed by, and serves at the pleasure of the President of the United States.

Look, you hate Donald Trump and refuse to accept the results of the 2024 election. The ONLY shocking thing about this case is that it took the SCOTUS to tell you dumbass Marxists that "Yep, Trump is president with all the powers that go with it."

Amazing

The Fed, FTC, SEC, SSA, nearly all the alphabet are independent agencies established by Congress, and the President can appoint the chairman of all of them, you really are uninformed

And I don’t hate Trump, I just dislike the way he is fucking up the country for his own personal gain, and no where does it say the Chief Executive reigns with absolute power

 

[archives]

So, prior to Trump the FTC Chairman reported to whom? Gandhi? George Soros? The Wizard of Oz?

{Article II
Section 1

The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America}

Yes, I know that you hate the Constitution just as deeply as you hate Trump, but too fucking bad.

Show us where the Constitution says the Executive reigns over the other two branches of the Government

And you MAGA are clueless to what is in the Constitution, to you it is just a collection of bumper sticker cliches

 

[Diogenes]

Whataboutism.

Diogenes is giving a relevant example/cautionary tale, not engaging in whataboutism.

Why it's relevant:​

• Christiefan915 defended accepting "the news" about a secret Trump ballroom/construction contract (claiming people "found out" via reporting, citing Public Citizen FOIA for a related but distinct funding agreement).
• Diogenes countered by referencing the Killian documents controversy (2004), where Dan Rather and CBS aired a story on George W. Bush's National Guard service based on documents they failed to properly authenticate. The documents were widely debunked as likely forgeries, leading to firings, resignations (including Rather stepping down), and a major embarrassment for CBS.

This is a direct parallel to the thread's discussion: skepticism toward a media outlet (WaPo) claiming to have obtained a sensitive contract without publishing the full document, providing verifiable scans, or securing independent confirmation. The Grok-assisted post in the thread explicitly highlighted the lack of "independent, public evidence" beyond WaPo's word. Diogenes' example warns against "trust us, we have the docs" journalism, using a well-known case where that approach failed spectacularly. It's on-topic and illustrates a methodological risk, not a deflection.

Why it's not whataboutism:​

• Whataboutism (a form of tu quoque fallacy or red herring) typically deflects an accusation by counter-accusing the other side of hypocrisy ("You criticize us for X, but what about your side doing Y?") to avoid addressing the substance, often with an irrelevant or unrelated example.
• Here, Diogenes isn't saying "liberals/Dems did something bad too, so your point is invalid." He's using a historical precedent about media handling of unverified documents to caution against the exact behavior being debated (unquestioning acceptance of a reported "contract" without transparency). It's an analogy for critical thinking, not distraction or hypocrisy-charging.

In debate forums like this, citing past media failures (e.g., Rather, or others like the retracted stories on various topics) is a standard way to argue for verification standards. It's relevant here because the core dispute involves source reliability and evidence transparency for a politically charged claim.

Ask Grok to give a link to the contract, would you, sweetie?

No public link to the full construction contract is available.

Here's the situation:​

• The Washington Post (June 30, 2026 article) reports obtaining "a copy of the agreement" (plus related correspondence and records) for the ~$500 million no-bid construction contract with Clark Construction for the East Wing ballroom project. It was reportedly routed through the Executive Residence office, which is exempt from standard competitive bidding and public disclosure rules.
• However, WaPo has not published the full contract document, scans, or key excerpts that would allow independent verification by the public, other outlets, or watchdogs. They describe its contents but do not provide a downloadable or viewable link to the primary source.

Related but distinct document:​

There is a publicly available earlier document: the Philanthropic Support Agreement (funding side for private donations), which Public Citizen obtained via FOIA lawsuit and released in April 2026. You can find it here: White House Ballroom Funding Agreement (PDF) (via Public Citizen).


This is not the construction contract in dispute—it's the separate framework for donor funding.

Bottom line:​

Major outlets like WaPo often report "we have the document" without releasing it for scrutiny, which fuels skepticism (as Diogenes noted with the Dan Rather parallel).

As of now (July 1, 2026), no verifiable public link exists to the full $500M construction contract itself. If one surfaces (e.g., via further FOIA, leaks, or congressional release), it would be easy to share.