Saturday, May 06, 2017

No Rape Charges in RHS Incident

It's not such a big story. Charges have been dropped, the police freed two prisoners. In fact, I am pretty sure this is not going to get much play on the news, though the initial arrest sure did.

Let's not try to guess what actually happened. I am not going to blame or deny that there is blame, because like you, I just don't know. Maybe something bad happened and maybe not. It appears that some teenagers had a sexual encounter in a high school bathroom. I don't know why the police were called, but the boys were arrested for rape and now the charges are being dropped.

The young men involved in the incident are undocumented immigrants, and the bigots played it up big when this hit the press. Citizens picketed outside the school, social media lit up with hateful rhetoric, it was a big deal. Everybody had an opinion about how horrible it was, what animals these boys are, ICE said they were going to deport them. Here it was, proof that rapists and bad hombres are being sent to our country to commit crimes and destroy our way of life.
White House press secretary Sean Spicer was asked about the case during a daily briefing and said “the idea that this occurred is shocking, disturbing, horrific,” Spicer said.

“Part of the reason that the president has made illegal immigration and crackdown such a big deal is because of tragedies like this … Immigration pays its toll on our people if it’s not done legally, and this is another example,” Spicer said. Rape charges to be dropped against immigrant teens in Md. case
I do not expect Spicer to apologize for his comments or take them back. The damage has been done and he will leave it as it is.

As news this story was engineered to fit the rightwing narrative that immigrants are inferior and dangerous people, a narrative that is not supported by evidence but only by prejudice. And now it turns out that not only was the spin wrong, the facts were wrong, too.
Defense lawyers for both defendants have said for weeks that the sex acts were consensual and that text messages and school surveillance videos did not substantiate the girl’s claims she had been pushed from a hallway into a bathroom at Rockville High School on March 16 where the suspects took turns assaulting her in a stall as she tried to break free.

Prosecutors had signaled in an early court proceeding in the case that they were having challenges corroborating events the girl described to Montgomery County Police detectives and that led to the arrests of Sanchez Milian and Montano.
There also does not need to be any outpouring of rage against the girl if it turns out some of her story was made up. They're teenagers, crazy stuff happens sometimes, if you have either been a teenager or raised one you know what I'm saying. We don't know what happened here, except that it was apparently not what we were initially told.

Actually, there is an outrage. The boys are going to be charged with child pornography.
The child pornography allegations, [defense attorney] Jezic said, involved lewd images on Sanchez Milian’s cellphone, which Jezic said had been sent by the girl to Montano who forwarded them to Sanchez Milian.
You have to agree, that is dumb. The law has not caught up with technology or human behavior.

In sum, this was a case where we learned just how hateful our own community can be, and where our local school provided red meat for the American public to display its prejudice and eagerness to turn a neighbor into an enemy. It is turning out to be nothing, but I am confident no lesson will be learned.

231 Comments:

Anonymous good anonymous said...

I'm in agreement with you here, Jim

our screwed up politically correct society doesn't need to criminalize being a teenager

the whole idea that if an underage kid has naked pictures of another underage kid, that the naked underage kid had sent them, it constitutes child pornography, is so obnoxious that the prosecutors that dreamed it up should be removed from their position, in whatever the appropriate manner is

here's more ridiculous from our screwed up politically correct society

Stephen Colbert is being investigated by the FCC for saying Trump gives Putin blow jobs

I can't stand Colbert, his show makes me cringe

still, if the administration is going to legally go after comedians who make late-night dirty jokes about the President, we're in trouble

Trump should tell the FCC to back off

https://www.aol.com/article/entertainment/2017/05/06/fcc-investigating-stephen-colbert/22072677/

May 06, 2017 12:16 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Stephen Colbert is being investigated by the FCC for saying Trump gives Putin blow jobs"

No he isn't.

Stephen is being investigated for saying "The only thing your mouth is good for is being Vladimir Putin's c- holster."

The FCC regulates programming broadcast on television. Programmes like The Late Show that air after 10 pm have looser rules, but they still are prohibited from including obscene content - overtly sexual, offensive and lacking serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value. It is rare for the FCC to take action against a broadcaster under the rules, and Mr Pai, who was selected by Mr Trump to lead the agency, would face criticism himself if the FCC punished CBS.

"We have these rules on the books that we are duty-bound to enforce - and I'm committed to enforce them, Mr Pai said in the radio interview. "Broadly speaking with respect to issues like free speech on campus or keeping government out of newsrooms, I've consistently said First Amendment protections are important and we need to protect them."

Colbert joked about the backlash in the opening moments of the Wednesday show. According to a CBS transcript mentioned in the Washington Post, the comedian told the audience: "Welcome to 'The Late Show.' I'm your host, Stephen Colbert. Still? I am still the host? I'm still the host!!"

Colbert said he was upset at Mr Trump for insulting a friend, "Face the Nation" host John Dickerson. Mr Trump referred to that show as "Deface the Nation" and later walked out on Dickerson during a weekend interview.

Colbert said he didn't regret making "a few choice insults" but acknowledged he may have gone a bit too far and also indirectly addressed the homophobic accusation.

"So while I would do it again, I would change a few words that were cruder than they needed to be," he concluded. "I'm not going to repeat the phrase, but I just want to say for the record, life is short, and anyone who expresses their love for another person, in their own way, is to me, an American hero.

"I think we can all agree on that. I hope even the president and I can agree on that. Nothing else. But, that."

May 06, 2017 3:41 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

TTF: making jackasses grate again!

May 06, 2017 6:22 PM  
Anonymous svelte_brunette said...

What conservatives are really upset at is that the boys didn't​ dress up like girls before raping the girl in the girl's restroom.

That would have been their fantasy "two-fer.". Illegal immigrants AND crossdressing rapists.

Too bad reality seldom matches their propaganda.

Cynthia

May 07, 2017 9:25 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

there's no propaganda

illegal immigrants, by definition, don't belong here

women don't feel safe when guys who have delusions they are females are in their rest room

and all the irrelevant stats in the world don't matter

we have a right to secure our borders

every other country does

women have a right to insist that only they be allowed in the women's room

don't like it?

move to North Korea

May 07, 2017 10:27 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

women don't feel safe when guys who have delusions they are females are in their rest room

Let's see some stats on how many female victims are harassed in "their bathrooms" by by straight men vs. trans women.

I suspect that would be a number vs. zero.

And how many cases of trans women committing crimes in bathroom against cis woman have occurred in MoCo since 32-07 became law?

None.

It's women who "don't feel safe when" trans women are in their rest rooms who are the delusional ones.

May 07, 2017 12:27 PM  
Anonymous Liberte, Egalité, Fraternité ou la mort said...

Macron 65.5 LePen 34.5

May 07, 2017 2:24 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

The French Obama totally destroyed the French Trump.

How Sweet it is!

May 07, 2017 2:30 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"It's women who "don't feel safe when" trans women are in their rest rooms who are the delusional ones"

they are entitled to make decisions about their own safety

they are not obligated to cater to your delusions, and they don't owe you an explanation nor are they required to provide statistics to justify their desire for privacy

btw, there's no proof that requiring guys to dress like guys and to use their bathroom assigned to their gender will cause any harm

May 07, 2017 2:32 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Wyatt/bad anonymous said "women don't feel safe when guys who have delusions they are females are in their rest room".

The vast majority of biological women are fine with transwomen using the women's bathroom.

Even those who claim to be concerned about transwomen in the women's bathroom aren't actually worried about it, the issue is just an excuse to denigrate and oppress LGBT people.

Bigots are just liars.

May 07, 2017 2:34 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

oh, look

hacking and publicizing emails doesn't cause a candidate to lose

guess Hillary just lost because no one liked her after all

imagine that

May 07, 2017 2:35 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Wyatt/bad anonymous said " btw, there's no proof that requiring guys to dress like guys and to use their bathroom assigned to their gender will cause any harm".

It figures that a Nazi like Wyatt/bad anonymous would want to dictate to people what they can and cannot wear - he hates freedom.

Back when I was dressing "like guys" and using the men's room I was feminine enough in appearance that I got a lot of very surprised looks from men in the men's room. It scared me as I knew it was a matter of time until I encountered a bigot or self-loathing gay like Wyatt who would assault me for "violating" gender stereotypes. At that time I decided it was time to start using the women's bathroom. No one looks at me funny in the women's bathroom.

Wyatt/bad anonymous lies that no one will harm transwomen in the men's bathroom because he knows we would be assaulted or even murdered and he loves that idea. Remember, this is a man who cheered on the imprisonment and execution of people for being gay.

Bigots like Wyatt/bad anonymous want to force transmen like this to be forced into the women's bathroom.

If Bigots like Wyatt/bad anonymous were to get their way the tiny minority of allegedly concerned women would be begging for putting these transmen in the men's room and transwomen in the women's room.

May 07, 2017 2:55 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Wyatt/bad anonymous said "hacking and publicizing emails doesn't cause a candidate to lose guess Hillary just lost because no one liked her after all imagine that".

This is not even remotely the same situation. Marcon had a 26% lead going into the last 44 hours of the election. The hack came out a few hours before a nationwide ban on any news related to the election so there was no reporting on it before the election.

Trump barely eked out a win by 75,000 votes in three states despite losing the popular vote by nearly 3 million. It took only a trivial percentage change to allow Trump to win and no doubt the Russian hacking of the election was sufficient to do that, not to mention the partisan interference of James Comey that saw Hillaries lead in the polls drop from an average of 4% to 2% which by the way is the margin she won the popular vote by. There is no doubt that without the Comey hypocrisy of talking about the hillary investigation but not the Trump one cost Hillary the election.

Hillary losing had nothing to do with people not liking her, far more people liked her than Trump. She ran a superior campaign to Trump and in the spirit of democracy and truth she is the president, not Trump. Trump won on a technicality due to corruption and criminal acts.

May 07, 2017 2:55 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Instead of hours before the election, the DNC leaked emails first became public on July 22, 2016, months before the election.

And let's not forget in this Macron victory, there was no Rudy Giuliani type spouting off about his NY City FBI connection's "surprise or two...that should turn this thing around."

May 3, 2017
Comey: FBI investigating possible internal leak to Giuliani


"...On Oct. 26, two days before Comey informed Congress that the FBI was looking into new allegations about Clinton’s private email server, Giuliani was on Fox News predicting that the Trump campaign had “a surprise or two that you’re going to hear about in the next few days.”

“We’ve got a couple of things up our sleeve that should turn this thing around,” he added...."

May 07, 2017 3:15 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Here's an insightful, excellent, and honest review of Ivanka Trump's book

Its a great read, an excerpt:

"Women Who Work is nothing if not a collection of quotes and, on reflection, it really is a toss-up between the two.
Strange bedfellows emerge from this citation soirée. “Freeing yourself was one thing; claiming ownership of that freed self was another,” Toni Morrison wrote in Beloved on the subject of grappling with the enduring trauma wrought by slavery.

Ivanka, bless her, has the vision to repurpose this quote to open a chapter about the importance of being “the master of” your time rather than a “slave” to it. One accomplishes this feat, we learn, by not doing “reactive” things such as “returning calls, attending meetings, answering e-mails, and managing your team.” So: working, as Ivanka Trump understands the concept.

Maya Angelou gets misquoted, and “Ask For Flexibility” is introduced by a quote from none other than Nelson Mandela because, really, isn’t that exactly what his particular project was about? If spending 18 of one’s 27 years in prison offshore on Robben Island in an effort to dismantle a system of racial discrimination in one’s entire country isn’t a lot like asking “your team” (Ms. Trump seems convinced all working women have one of these) whether you can telecommute, I don’t know what is."

May 07, 2017 3:30 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Trumpcare will be a disaster for people causing:

- Higher premiums, up to 60% higher for folks over age 50
- Allowing insurance companies to discriminate against women again
- Higher deductibles
- Return of annual and lifetime benefit caps
- Elimination of out-of-pocket maximums
- Permission to set pre-existing condition premium rates however high the insurance company likes. Insurance could cost over $200,000 a year depending on your pre-existing condition
- A return to completely unaffordable COBRA for people who've just lost their jobs
- A return to "junk insurance", which people pay into, then learn it covers basically nothing at all
- Elimination of the 'risk corridors' which helped broaden pools & keep rates down in general
- Elimination of premium subsidies in favor of far smaller and inadequate tax credits which provide no benefit to the poor who need help the most.
- Elimination of the Medicaid expansion, dropping an estimated 14 million Americans as soon as it happens
- Taking Trumpcare 2.0 which was already estimated to cause 26-28 million Americans to lose insurance over the next deade and add measures to make it worse
- Elimination of catastrophic coverage or any coverage requirements for ANY insurance issued in America, including employer-provided
- Increased incentives for employers to fire older workers because their insurance is more expensive

Trunpcare cuts almost 1 trillion from insurance coverage for the poorest people in order to give the .1% (billionaires) 1 trillion in tax cuts. Because you know gold plated toilets and plumbing fixtures are so passe, the billionaires need to upgrade to brushed platinum plumbing and shouldn't be asked to spend any of the billions they don't need to do so.

And contrary to Wyatt/bad anonymous's ridiculous claim that the "rich are overtaxed", most of the income of the top 1% is from investments and isn't taxed at all. On average the rich pay a far, far lower percentage of their income to tax than a person making under $100,000 a year does.

May 07, 2017 4:18 PM  
Anonymous good anonymous said...

"Back when I was dressing "like guys" and using the men's room I was feminine enough in appearance that I got a lot of very surprised looks from men in the men's room. It scared me as I knew it was a matter of time until I encountered a bigot or self-loathing gay who would assault me for "violating" gender stereotypes."

let's see the stats

we have to ask because you appear to be delusional about your gender, so maybe you're imagining this too

May 07, 2017 4:56 PM  
Anonymous good anonymous said...

"This is not even remotely the same situation"

no, it isn't

that's the whole point

the French like Macron, Americans detest Clinton

the email hacking is irrelevant

"Trump barely eked out a win"

Trump's decisive victory spanned the breadth of the continent

lazy Hillary ran up the totals in a few places where she already had a lead

she didn't try anything difficult

every close contest was won by Trump

Biden or Brown would have won, regardless of any leaks

as it is, Clinton's own staff despised her so that they leaked her emails to wikileaks

"by 75,000 votes in three states despite losing the popular vote by nearly 3 million"

if you took out California, Trump had more votes than Hillary in the other 49 states combined

California is an outlier because there was no GOP Senate nominee so now reason for Republicans to go to the polls

"There is no doubt that without the Comey"

you mean Dems' Dr Jekyll?

if he's talking about Russia, Dems love 'em

if he's talking about Hillary, Dems loathe 'em

it was Hillary's choice to employ the wife of a pervert

but, then, Hillary and Huma had a lot in common

didn't they?

"Hillary losing had nothing to do with people not liking her"

in the end, it always comes down to that

who do you wanna go out and have a beer with?

not Al Gore, John McCain, Mitt Romney, or Hillary

see the common thread?

"far more people liked her than Trump"

you confuse approval rating with likability

Trump's shows were a success, he turned politics into America's favorite spectator sport in 2016

because, while they don't always approve of him, most Americans basically like him

Hillary?

no

"She ran a superior campaign to Trump"

she refused to do interviews, rarely held press conferences, lied about routine matters she should have known would be discovered, loafed off in the crucial final stretch instead of campaigning in the Midwest, appealed to radical elements when she would have done fine as a centrist, embraced abortion on demand at any stage of pregnancy as a constitutional right, lost the New Hampshire by a greater margin than anyone had ever lost to a non-incumbent, failed to employ cybersecurity at her campaign headquarters, didn't pace herself and collapsed due to dehydration, gave secret speeches to Wall Street bankers, employed the wife of a child molestor...

that's just of the top of my head

there are books with details in the works!

"and in the spirit of democracy and truth she is the president,"

Trump won more states

bottom line

May 07, 2017 8:07 PM  
Anonymous good anonymous said...

"most of the income of the top 1% is from investments and isn't taxed at all"

not only is investment income taxed, it is generally taxed twice

once by the corporate entity, and again when it is distributed as dividends

"On average the rich pay a far, far lower percentage of their income to tax than a person making under $100,000 a year does"

that's because they have more money

in sheer numbers, they pay for most of our government as well as vast non-governmental entities

everything from museums to symphonies to medical research institutes to homeless shelters to soup kitchens

all paid for by the wealthy and successful

while Priya does nothing

May 07, 2017 8:24 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hillary is a private citizen now.

Get over it.

May 07, 2017 9:30 PM  
Anonymous Bill Maher said...

When Jimmy Kimmel says Republicans and Democrats all agree that "If your baby's going to die and it doesn't have to, it shouldn't matter how much money you make," Bill Maher stops his audience from applauding and proceeds to say:

"Unfortunately that's not true, One side wants to tax rich people so that babies don't have to die and one side is mostly against that. And this lets Republicans off the hook...

"Let's not f*ck around with this, we are not on the same page with this."

May 07, 2017 10:50 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Hillary is a private citizen now.

Get over it."

It's over. But some jackass TTFer keeps saying she's the legitimate President and the Russians defeated her. Matter of fact, Hillary says that too.

It's a lie. It undermines public faith in our democracy. She lost due to her own personal failings.

Get over it.

"When Jimmy Kimmel says Republicans and Democrats all agree that "If your baby's going to die and it doesn't have to, it shouldn't matter how much money you make," Bill Maher stops his audience from applauding and proceeds to say:

"Unfortunately that's not true, One side wants to tax rich people so that babies don't have to die and one side is mostly against that. And this lets Republicans off the hook..."

you're lying, Bill

before Obamacare, during Obamacare, and after, dying babies will all be cared for


May 08, 2017 7:19 AM  
Anonymous The stats said...

2016 was the deadliest year on record for transgender people

"2016 has now overtaken 2015 as the deadliest year on record for transgender people in the United States. In 2015, 21 transgender women were killed in the United States, nearly all of them transgender women of color.

In 2016, the deaths of 27 transgender people were reported. That's a rate of more than two transgender people killed every month. This number does not include transgender people whose deaths were not reported due to misgendering in police reports, news stories, and sometimes by the victim's family. (Due to misgendering and misidentifying in initial media reporting, the death of India Monroe in 2016 was not known until 2017.)..."


March 2017 Woman Killed in Baltimore Is Eighth Trans Murder Victim of 2017

April 2017 On Friday, Florida native Chayviss "Chay" Reed was fatally shot in Miami, becoming the ninth transgender woman to be murdered in the U.S. this year. Trans women face disproportionately high rates of violence, and the number of reported trans murders each year isn't declining.

May 2017 Transgender Woman Found Badly Hurt on Manhattan Sidewalk Dies 10 Days After Apparent Attack: Sources

Now let's see your stats showing how many cases there have been reported of trans women committing crimes in public bathrooms against cis woman.

< crickets commence chirping >

May 08, 2017 7:26 AM  
Anonymous Drip, drip, drip said...

Yates, Clapper To Testify In Senate Subcommittee on Crime and Terrorism Hearing On Russian Election Meddling Today

Watch it here:

https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/meetings/russian-interference-in-the-2016-united-states-election

May 08, 2017 7:51 AM  
Anonymous Arithmetic said...

35 of 37 economists said Trump was wrong. The other two misread the question.

"President Trump's administration says his tax cut will pay for itself. It turns out it's really hard to find an economist who agrees.

The University of Chicago's Booth School of Business regularly polls economists on controversial questions. In a survey the school published last week on Trump's tax plans, only two out of the 37 economists that responded said that the cuts would stimulate the economy enough to cancel out the effect on total tax revenue.

Those two economists now both say they made a mistake, and that they misunderstood the question.

“I screwed up on that one,” said one of those two economists, Kenneth Judd, when asked about his response to Trump's tax claim. “I meant to say that this is a horrible idea, a bad idea — no chance in hell.”

The other respondent who said that Trump's tax cuts would pay for themselves was Bengt Holmström of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, who confirmed in an email to The Washington Post that he had also misread the question.

Besides Judd and Holmström, another 35 economists said that the tax cuts would not finance themselves, and five more did not answer the question.

In total, there is not one economist in the Chicago poll who believes that Trump's cuts would pay for themselves, suggesting his administration might not be able to deliver on a crucial promise...."

May 08, 2017 9:49 AM  
Anonymous good anonymous said...

"In 2016, the deaths of 27 transgender people were reported."

is that much?

how many mentally stable people were killed?

I remember at least one last year where the tran wasn't engaging in safe behavior

walking alone in a dangerous part of town in the early AM

"Now let's see your stats showing how many cases there have been reported of trans women committing crimes in public bathrooms against cis woman."

we're still waiting to see how many guys who think they are girls were attacked using men's rooms...

< crickets getting tired from so much chirping >

"Yates, Clapper To Testify In Senate Subcommittee on Crime and Terrorism Hearing On Russian Election Meddling Today"

hahahahahahahahahaha!!

keep dreaming

maybe someday Susan Rice will get the courage to testify about her lies and unlawful surveillance of political opponents and abuse of her former office

"In total, there is not one economist in the Chicago poll who believes that Trump's cuts would pay for themselves, suggesting his administration might not be able to deliver on a crucial promise...."

they said the same about Reagan

he set us on a boom that lasted 25 years and eventually led to a balanced budget

economists' predictions are about as reliable as those of climate scientists

crack out the crystal ball!!

May 08, 2017 3:41 PM  
Anonymous good anonymous said...

those poor crickets!

they are getting worn out from all TTFers' hemmin' and hawin'

maybe there is no actual evidence that it's dangerous for guys who think they're girls to use the men's room

ya think?

haha!!

The Democrats and their allies in the media want you to believe two conflicting “certainties” about the recently passed House Republican health-care bill. First, they want you to think that this bill doesn’t amount to anything — that it’s not a victory for Trump, will never become law, and has been completely disregarded by the Senate. Second, they want you to think that Republicans’ repeal-and-replace bill is a catastrophic development for the GOP and the nation — that it will cost Republicans their majority, is certainly political suicide for the party as a whole, and is already adversely affecting the health of many Americans. But the health-care bill simply cannot amount to nothing on the one hand and deal a fatal blow to the entire Republican Party and be a plague on the population on the other.

In listening to Minority Leader Pelosi and Minority Leader Charles E. Schumer, one is led to believe that the pain and suffering caused by the Republican health-care bill will be unbearable, that widows and orphans will be dropping like flies. Even former president Barack Obama took a break from his jet-setting, yacht-sailing life to prevail upon Congress the need to exercise “political courage” in not repealing Obamacare. The Democrats’ comments are just partisan spin meant to distract from the real story — that liberals’ beloved Obamacare is falling apart.

Since the House’s successful repeal-and-replace vote, the liberal media has relentlessly supported Democrats’ most extreme pronouncements. Politico embraced the warped narrative about the bill’s campaign consequences, publishing a story Saturday with the headline “Obamacare repeal vote upends 2018 House landscape.”

But buried deep in that story are wise words from veteran GOP strategist Curt Anderson, who appropriately noted, “Those who think Republicans will be defeated … because of this vote … are either in a parallel universe, or have been asleep for the past seven years. The notion that Obamacare is suddenly popular and will be missed is a mirage that seems real during the fog of war, but will disappear as you get closer to it.”

He’s right. Obamacare is not popular now, and it definitely was not popular in 2014 when Republicans took control over the House and Senate for the first time in eight years. Just look at Monday’s CNBC report indicating that 60 percent of small-business owners support a repeal of Obamacare. They are the engine of job creation in the United States, they understand how harmful Obamacare has been to business. Still, leave it to CNN’s always predictable Don Lemon to argue that Obamacare is “collapsing” only because President Trump is “causing uncertainty among insurers.” Give me a break.

May 08, 2017 4:52 PM  
Anonymous good anonymous said...

But the left’s deceptive outrage does not end with Democratic congressional leaders or Don Lemon. The award for the most pretentious, sappy and over-the-top production goes to Rep. Joe Kennedy (D-Mass.), whose speech on the House floor was edited by a liberal organization to include a solemn violin soundtrack. I’m serious. Striking a made-for-bad-TV pose, Kennedy argued that the repeal of Obamacare “rejects … common humanity and continues the administration’s calculated attempt to divide up our nation.” And the New York Times’ Charles Blow similarly weighed in with the wild overstatement that “whatever eventually comes of the bill, the death threat it poses for many Americans may well be a death wish Republicans have just issued for their own careers.”

It’s all a tad too much.

When Republicans voted to repeal and replace Obamacare last week, they fulfilled a major campaign promise, advanced the president’s agenda, and demonstrated the party’s commitment to addressing the concerns of struggling Americans and taking the foot of Obamacare off the neck of small businesses, even as the Democrats refused to come to the table.

I can’t help but question whether Democrats really think people are buying the argument that Republicans don’t just want take away your health care, but want you dead, too. Does the left really believe people are so gullible, so naive? Maybe they just don’t have anything affirmative to say.

I think the left is dreading the prospect of seeing a strong Republican Party get its act together and keep its promise to repeal and replace Obamacare. And, if this is the debate they really want to have, the Democrats’ drama and faux anguish only serve to damage their credibility.

May 08, 2017 4:52 PM  
Anonymous https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2017/05/08/full-transcript-sally-yates-and-james-clapper-testify-on-russian-election-interference/ said...

What a stupid right wing opinion piece by Ed Rogers the TTR troll posted.

Here's and example of what's really happening with the pussy grabbers' health care repeal and replace fiasco:

Iowa congressman walks out of a TV interview and into an angry town hall meeting

Meanwhile, the Trump-Russia story is exploding in the head pussy grabber's face.

Here are a few things we learned from Sally Yates most excellent testimony before the Senate yesterday.

1. Flynn lied about Russia, and it opened him up to potential blackmail from Russia

And he didn't lie to just some "White House staffer," he lied to the Vice President of the United States of America.

2. What (or whether) the White House did anything with this information is unclear

But they kept tainted Flynn around for 18 more days and just yesterday Spicer claimed Trump thought Obama's November 10, 2016 warning (Obama warned Trump against hiring Flynn as national security adviser, officials say) was just sour grapes. It appears Trump didn't remember Obama's warning about Flynn, who Obama had fired, when McGahn told him Yates had told him Flynn was Russian-compromised.

3. Republicans are almost single-handedly focused on HOW we know Flynn talked with the Russian ambassador

Not what Flynn and the Russian ambassador talked about mind you -- they don't care about that -- but how that news leaked out.

I suggest the GOPers ask Rudy Giuliani's FBI contacts about that.

This reminds me of the White House attorney's question to Attorney General Yates when she came to tell him what intelligence had learned about Flynn's lies -- "why does it matter to DOJ if one White House official lies to another White House official?

And so we explained to him, it was a whole lot more than that and went back over the same concerns that we had raised with them the prior day, that the concern first about the underlying conduct itself, that he had lied to the vice president and others, the American public had been misled.

And then importantly, that every time this lie was repeated and the misrepresentations were getting more and more specific, as -- as they were coming out. Every time that happened, it increased the compromise and to state the obvious, you don't want your national security advisor compromised with the Russians."

4. Republicans are also really mad at Yates for not defending Trump's travel ban.

But Democrats like Senator Leahy, are proud of her:

Senator Leahy told her:

"Ms. Yates, I remember so well your confirmation hearing. I remember one senator just bearing in on you, intensely bearing in on you saying, "Would stand up to the president of the United States if you thought he was asking you to do something unlawful? He's demanding under oath for you to say yes, you would stand up?" And you told then Senator Jeff Sessions of Alabama that's what you would do and appears to me that you kept your word. Apparently, it's OK to keep your word depending upon who the administration is.

But I'm proud of you for keeping your word when the president tried to set a religious test for entrance into this country"


And so far all the courts agree with Attorney General Yates' view that Trump's unAmerican Muslim ban is unconstitutional.

5. Democrats are pretty sure there's more to the Trump-Russia story than Flynn

Get the popcorn ready, more revelations to come!

May 09, 2017 8:34 AM  
Anonymous god anonymous said...

"What a stupid right wing opinion piece by Ed Rogers the TTR troll posted"

standard TTF modus operandi

if they have no argument, it's a "stupid right wing opinion piece"

this is why the Dem Party has no power now

"Meanwhile, the Trump-Russia story is exploding in the head pussy grabber's face"

"exploding" would imply rapid continuing growth

but, nothing new has been revealed in months

"Here are a few things we learned from Sally Yates most excellent testimony before the Senate yesterday"

I didn't think we learned anything but I've got an open mind

let us consider:

"Flynn lied about Russia,"

he lied to his boss about a conversation with Russia, but we already knew that

"and it opened him up to potential blackmail from Russia"

this is an assertion by Yates but it's hard to see how

he didn't reveal confidential information (hi, Hillary), didn't secretly commit a crime, and wasn't involved in any heinous activity, such as homosexuality

these are the usual ways the Russians compromise someone

so, they would blackmail him by threatening to tell Pence he lied?

difficult to believe someone would betray their country to avoid their boss getting mad with them

Yates was, no doubt, projecting

"What (or whether) the White House did anything with this information is unclear"

OK, so we learned nothing there

let's move on

"Republicans are almost single-handedly focused on HOW we know Flynn talked with the Russian ambassador"

well, that's the only real unknown remaining

we already know what he talked with the Russians about

which was nothing scandalous but simply letting a foreign power know what to expect from the incoming administration

"Republicans are also really mad at Yates for not defending Trump's travel ban"

not really

her refusal to support her boss was grounds for dismissal but no one is seething

she just gave Trump a way to get rid of her early

thanks, Susan

"But Democrats like Senator Leahy, are proud of her"

we all know she's their kind of scum

nothing new learned

"Democrats are pretty sure there's more to the Trump-Russia story than Flynn"

really?

what a news flash!!

say, you don't think they're just lying for political purposes, do you?

"Get the popcorn ready, more revelations to come!"

more?

let us know when the first one arrives

this uneventful testimony was the drip-drip-drip we've been waiting for?

oh no!

stop with the Chinese water torture

hahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahoho!!!!!!!!!!!

May 09, 2017 11:38 AM  
Anonymous Special Prosecutor said...

""Democrats are pretty sure there's more to the Trump-Russia story than Flynn"

...say, you don't think they're just lying for political purposes, do you?"


No I don't, I think they are following the evidence like why did it take the White House 18 days to fire Flynn after Attorney General Yates informed White House Counsel Don McGahn about the evidence intelligence agencies had on Flynn.

Instead of avoiding the issue of the Russia-Trump campaign coordination, Sen. Al Franken said:

"Is it possible that the reason that he didn’t fire him then was that, well, if I fire him for talking to the Russians about sanctions, what about all the other people on my team who coordinated? . . . That may be why it took him 18 days — until it came public — to get rid of Mike Flynn, who was a danger to this republic."

It's obvious almost every pussy grabber on the Senate committee was not interested in learning anything about the Trump-Russia story.

"...The Republicans on the committee behaved like the worst partisan hacks, for the most part refusing to even address the subject of the hearing and instead grilling Yates on the Muslim ban and ranting about “unmasking” procedures and leaks to the press, obviously following the White House line. Sen. Ted Cruz even asked Yates about Hillary Clinton’s emails. Most of the Republicans on the committee didn’t even bother to stay for the whole hearing.

Yates’ answers about the Muslim ban were devastating to committee Republicans’ cause and the rest of the yammering about leaks sounds particularly hollow. It’s quite clear that if nobody had leaked the information on Flynn to The Washington Post, an obviously unbalanced and possibly compromised man would still be the president’s national security adviser.

Meanwhile, Trump behaved the way he normally does in tight situations. He attempted to smear Yates as the leaker in one of his notorious early-morning tweets. It was later deleted, probably after someone mustered the courage to tell him that he was threatening a witness, a move he probably learned during his days in the gambling business in Atlantic City.

Meanwhile, according to Axios, Trump has told his people to stop feeding negative stories about Flynn to the media. The official explanation is that Trump believes that Flynn is a good man, that the Russia story is “fake news” and whatever went wrong was Obama’s fault. But one cannot help but wonder if Trump’s lawyers might have reminded him that Flynn is shopping for an immunity deal and treating him disrespectfully might just loosen his tongue about things the president might not want him to say. Trump probably learned about that sort of thing from certain Atlantic City business associates, too."

May 09, 2017 1:20 PM  
Anonymous good anonymous said...

"No I don't,"

then, you're either a special kind of stupid

or you're lying too

as the Director of National Intelligence has said, there is no evidence that Trump colluded with Russia

"I think they are following the evidence like why did it take the White House 18 days to fire Flynn after Attorney General Yates informed White House Counsel Don McGahn about the evidence intelligence agencies had on Flynn."

that's not evidence of anything

what Flynn did wasn't an offense justifying firing him

other than the lying to Pence, it wasn't even an offense

"Is it possible that the reason that he didn’t fire him then was that, well, if I fire him for talking to the Russians about sanctions, what about all the other people on my team who coordinated? . . . That may be why it took him 18 days — until it came public — to get rid of Mike Flynn, who was a danger to this republic."

Al, he wasn't fired for "talking to the Russians about sanctions"

he was fired for giving false information to the VP and making him look bad

Al, you are also a liar

here's a good example:

"if I fire him for talking to the Russians about sanctions, what about all the other people on my team who coordinated?"

"talking about sanctions" is not "coordinating", you lying sack of crap

here's another lie:

"Mike Flynn, who was a danger to this republic"

there is no evidence Flynn endangered the republic, you lying sack of crap

since he's now a private citizen, I hope he sues your ass

and runs for your Senate seat

thanks to Trump, Congressional Dems are an endangered species in the Midwest

no wonder you're so nervous you resort to lies

Al, you should go back to being a clown

the Senate is no place for a clown

"Most of the Republicans on the committee didn’t even bother to stay for the whole hearing"

sounds like it was pretty uneventful

why waste the time?

"Yates’ answers about the Muslim ban were devastating to committee Republicans’ cause"

really?

how?

did she say anything other than that she thinks it's unconstitutional to ban people whose religion encourages them to kill infidels?

we already knew that and, honestly, I don't think anyone is "devastated" that Yates doesn't see eye-to-eye with Trump on immigration

it's a big country

seldom is there 100% agreement on anything

"It’s quite clear that if nobody had leaked the information on Flynn to The Washington Post, an obviously unbalanced and possibly compromised man would still be the president’s national security adviser"

oh, I think Flynn will probably be back

he's a pretty sharp and knowledgeable guy

"obviously unbalanced and possibly compromised man"

another lie by a TTFer

how ironic at "teach the facts"

since Flynn's supposed offense is well-known, how has he been compromised?

hopefully, Trump's kids will hire him to work at the company



May 09, 2017 2:30 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Wyatt/bad anonymous still can't control himself and is responding to my posts.

This is the boy who said "It will be a cold day in hell before I respond to another one of your inane posts".

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!

May 09, 2017 2:48 PM  
Anonymous drip drip drip said...

Now that the El Nino has ceased, it's become clear that the trend since 1998 is continuing: global warming has ceased:

Climate Change: We keep hearing the "science is settled," yet once again data emerge showing that there has been no appreciable warming now for 19 years. Memo to global warming advocates: People are starting to notice.

Of course, it is pretty clear from the record that temperatures have risen in the past 150 years or so. But that should hardly be surprising, given that the period lasting into the early 19th century was known as the "Little Ice Age."

But more recently, alarms were sounded over the rise in 2015 and 2016 of global temperatures, even though the rise was a result of a temporary phenomenon — the "El Nino" effect of warming seawaters in the Pacific that create higher temperatures and weather disruptions around the world.

As Christopher Booker of the Sunday Telegraph in Britain noted this week, after being repeatedly warned about 2016 being "the hottest year on record," we now have arrived at this: "In recent months global temperatures have plummeted by more than 0.6 degrees: just as happened 17 years ago after a similarly strong El Nino."

By the way, those temperature readings are courtesy of satellites, which provide the most comprehensive and accurate temperature readings of all. Many of the scariest headlines come from far more limited, and localized, temperature readings, which can be deceptive.

Scare headlines about disappearing arctic ice are similarly being shown as overblown if not outright false. The Danish Meteorological Institute reports that since December Arctic temperatures have pretty much been below -20 degrees Celsius. Arctic ice and the Greenland ice cap are both expanding, not shrinking.

May 09, 2017 2:51 PM  
Anonymous drip drip drip said...

Knowing this, it pays to be skeptical of model-based data — not actual measured ones — that suggest a need to spend massive amounts of money to keep a purely hypothetical threat from taking place. It makes no sense.

We've been told that the world will have to spend 2% of GDP, or roughly $1.5 trillion each year, to keep the threat of global warming at bay — even though estimates show that even if everything requested by the Paris Climate Change Accord were done, the effect on global climate would be negligible.

What's galling is that, thanks to the fracking revolution, the U.S. is already sharply cutting its emissions of CO2. In February, the American Interest noted that "U.S. energy-related CO2 emissions hit a 25-year low the first six months of 2016, continuing the progress that the EPA says we made in 2015."

So, temperatures and the output of CO2 are both falling? Meanwhile, recent reporting suggests the models on which the supposed global warming "science" is based have turned out to be highly questionable, unable to predict even past warming — something a model is supposed to be able to do.

As we noted recently, since the 1997 Kyoto Accord, U.S. output of greenhouse gases has plummeted 7.3%, despite U.S. GDP growing by 52% during that time. Our greenhouse gas footprint is shrinking, not growing. Meanwhile, nations such as China and India that are boosting their output of greenhouse gases dramatically remain untouched by any of the recent anti-global warming agreements — including the damaging one that Obama agreed to in Paris in late 2015, but never submitted to the Senate for approval.

Which raises a big question. The Trump administration right now is under intense pressure both here and abroad to remain in Obama's fraudulent Paris climate deal, which, as far as we can tell, is intentionally designed to destroy the U.S. economy and lower Americans' standard of living.

Given the bad science and the enormous costs on which the Paris deal is based, why continue to give it any credence at all?

President Trump should do himself and the U.S. a favor and withdraw from the Paris deal. As the renewed decline in temperatures shows, the only real threat Americans face is an unholy alliance between global bureaucrats and financially corrupted scientists eager for massive amounts of new spending so that they can stay employed. Time to put them all out of business.

May 09, 2017 2:52 PM  
Anonymous crickets chirping said...

where is the evidence that guys who think they are girls are in danger if they use the boys' room?

May 09, 2017 2:54 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Wyatt/bad anonymous said ""talking about sanctions" is not "coordinating", you lying sack of crap

here's another lie:

"Mike Flynn, who was a danger to this republic"

there is no evidence Flynn endangered the republic, you lying sack of crap".

Oooo, testy, testy! Obviously Good anonymous told the truth and it is Wyatt/bad anonymous who is the "lying sack of crap".

The fact of the matter is that Flynn did endanger the republic. As Sally Yates testified, it wasn't just the fact that Flynn lied about talking sanctions with the Russian ambassador that was bad, it was that his underlying actions and behavior were problematic.

So in addition to breaking the law by subverting the presidents policy on Russia as a private citizen by talking sanctions with a Russian ambassador (and well known KGB contact) while Obama was still president, classified intelligence shows that his underlying behavior was a problem and that's why Sally Yates repeatedly raised alarms with the White House about Flynn and it was inexcusable that Trump continued to allow Flynn access to the highest levels of intelligence information for 18 days after it was clear he could not be trusted and may be an asset of Russia which is an adversary.

Trump was warned by Obama two days after the election that Flynn wasn't up to a high level job and that's why Obama fired him. Flynn needed a new security clearance for the new job Trump gave him and Trump was negligent or perhaps complicit in not ensuring that was done.

Anyway you slice it Flynn was a major problem and obviously if it weren't for the leaks to the media he'd still be in his position and compromising the United States including possibly acting as an asset of Russia.

May 09, 2017 3:08 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Canadian Opinion of United States Hits an All Time Low

Almost 1/3 of Canadians planning to travel to the United States have either cancelled or are thinking about cancelling their trips due to the political climate there.

Typical American reactions to the news:

"I'm with the Canadians. I don't like us much anymore, either."

"What a coincidence. My opinion of the USA has hit a 56-year low."

"Religion has a very weak grip on Canada."

"Canada is the country the U.S. was supposed to be."

"If you've lost Canada, you've really messed up."

"Somehow, I feel worse about this whole thing by knowing that we are disappointing Canada."

"The current state of politics here in the USA are as unstable as I have seen in my life time. It motivated me to renew my CDN passport in preparation for a migration."

"Some of my Scottish friends have canceled America trips and are now going to Canada. One just back from Vancouver, and he absolutely loved it." [Vancouver is also my favourite place]

I would feel very unsafe in the United States and I felt the same way about it before Trump was president. The American sexual obsession with guns, Republicans belief that bad things generally only happen to people who deserve it, crooked sheriffs and corrupt justice officials arresting and imprisoning people on trumped up charges, the government illegally detaining innocent people and shipping them off to other countries to be tortured and so on.

The thought of being in the United States scares me a great deal and it doesn't matter who the president is. Y

May 09, 2017 3:15 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Its like I always said, there's a reason why Flynn and Sessions lied about their contacts with the Russians and that's because they knew their conversations and actions were improper and/or illegal.

If their contacts had been innocuous like they claimed they wouldn't have felt the need to lie about them.

And as Sally Yates said, the classified information showed that it wasn't just Flynns lying that was a problem, his actions themselves apart from that were problematic. Flynn knew that and so felt he had to lie about his unprecedented number of contacts with the Russians and the fact that the Russian government paid him to attend the party for the Russian governments media propaganda arm RT.

May 09, 2017 3:20 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Wyatt/bad anonymous said "President Trump should do himself and the U.S. a favor and withdraw from the Paris deal. As the renewed decline in temperatures shows, the only real threat Americans face..."

That's some pretty blatant lying there from Wyatt/bad anonymous but then, what can you expect from someone who says "there are many situations where its appropriate to lie".

2014 was the hottest year on record, then 2015 was the hottest year on record, then 2016 was the hottest year on record so obviously there is no "renewed decline in temperatures".

A dozen or so of the hottest years on record have all happened since 2000, obviously the planet is warming.


1998 was an unusually hot year and prior to 2014 liars like Wyatt/bad anonymous cherry picked that data to pretend 1998 meant global warming hadn't happened since then (despite 2014, 2015, and 2016 all being hotter).

Its like if the warmest day in June was 100 degrees and all the other days the high temperature was 70 degrees. Then in July the warmest day was 100 degrees but all the other days the high temperature was 90 degrees. Then global warming deniers like Wyatt/bad anonymous claim July wasn't any warmer than June despite the average temperature being much hotter in July because the hottest day in both months was 100 degrees .

That's cherry picking the data, its highly dishonest and they know it.

The united states will actually be shooting itself in the foot if it backs out of the paris climate agreement. Reducing greenhouse gasses by moving to renewables and away from fossil fuels is actually cheaper in the long run. Plus if the United States fails to invest in renewable energy it will see all of the energy jobs of the future go to countries like China that are investing heavily in renewables.

If the United States backs out of the paris accord it will raise its cost of living, lose out on jobs, and be left behind.

May 09, 2017 3:40 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"there is no evidence Flynn endangered the republic, you lying sack of crap

since he's now a private citizen, I hope he sues your ass"


Quit embarrassing yourself spouting off bullshit like that proving you did not comprehend Attorney General Yates' testimony about what she told White House Counsel McGahn back in January 2017.

Yates’ appearance on Monday didn’t break any big news as she was unable to reveal any classified details in public. But it did clarify what motivated the Justice Department officials to take the steps they took. They were concerned because Flynn was lying and the Russians knew he was lying, so he had opened himself up to blackmail. As Yates pithily put it in her testimony: "To state the obvious, you don’t want your national security adviser compromised with the Russians."

"since he's now a private citizen, I hope he sues your ass"

LMAO!

Right! The former US general and fired former head of the Defense Intelligence Agency who compromised himself with the Russians, was an unregistered foreign agent, and is now seeking immunity to tell the intelligence community what he knows about what went on in the Trump campaign and Trump White House is going to sue Al Franken for saying "Is it possible that the reason that he didn’t fire him then was that, well, if I fire him for talking to the Russians about sanctions, what about all the other people on my team who coordinated? . . . That may be why it took him 18 days — until it came public — to get rid of Mike Flynn, who was a danger to this republic."

Where'd you go to law school, Trump U?

May 09, 2017 4:50 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

I said "This is not even remotely the same situation"

Wyatt/bad anonymous said "no, it isn't that's the whole point the French like Macron, Americans detest Clinton".

You keep trying to make hay out of Clinton allegedly being disliked by Americans. Too bad for you that Trump was hated much more than Clinton was - there's a reason why she got almost 3 million more votes than him, Americans as a whole wanted her to be president. You can whine over and over again about how Americans detested Hillary, fact is they detested Trump more.

I said "Trump barely eked out a win"

Wyatt/bad anonymous said "Trump's decisive victory spanned the breadth of the continent lazy Hillary ran up the totals in a few places where she already had a lead she didn't try anything difficult every close contest was won by Trump".

When you lose the popular vote by 3 million, its anything but a "decisive" win. That's winning on a technicality, that's Hillary being the moral president if not the actual president in the spirit of democracy. That you would absurdly call the Trump "win" decisive just shows how deluded and dishonest you are.

Democracy is about getting the greatest support as Hillary did, not about winning with a minority of voters due to their strategic placement in certain geographical areas.

May 09, 2017 8:00 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Wyatt/bad anonymous said "as it is, Clinton's own staff despised her so that they leaked her emails to wikileaks".

An obvious lie but what do you expect from someone who says "there are many situations where its appropriate to lie."?

I said "Trump barely eked out a win by 75,000 votes in three states despite losing the popular vote by nearly 3 million"

Wyatt/bad anonymous said "if you took out California, Trump had more votes than Hillary in the other 49 states combined".

LOL, that's awfully stupid. Your whole argument is the tautalogy that Trump would have won the popular vote if he had gotten more votes than Hillary. You don't get to pretend your guy was more popular by ignoring millions of people who voted for Hillary. California is part of the States, those votes count in determining who won the popular vote regardless of how badly you want it to not be so. You don't get to exclude California from the union, they are just as much American citizens as anyone in Alabama your delusions notwithstanding.

Wyatt/bad anonymous said "California is an outlier because there was no GOP Senate nominee so now reason for Republicans to go to the polls".

Americans vote for the president first and foremost. The vast majority of them are ignorant of the fact that the electoral college determines who the president is. None of that had any effect on how many Republicans voted.

May 09, 2017 8:01 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

You can whine all day long about how if more people had voted for Trump he would have won the popular vote but we can only go by reality, not your desperate hypotheticals. Reality is that Hillary won the popular vote by over 3 million and trump barely eked out a win with 75,000 votes in three states. In the true spirit of democracy Hillary is the president.

I said "There is no doubt that without the Comey hypocrisy of talking about the hillary investigation but not the Trump one cost Hillary the election."

Wyatt/bad anonymous said "you mean Dems' Dr Jekyll? if he's talking about Russia, Dems love 'em if he's talking about Hillary, Dems loathe 'em".

You could say the same thing about Republicans. If he's talking about Hillary Republicans love 'em if he's talking about Russia Republicans loath 'em.

The truth is Dems would have loved for him to be non-partisan and spoke either about both the Trump and Hillary investigations or neither. Instead of doing his job according to deparmental policy and talking about neither he put his thumb on the scale and gave the election to Trump. Every Democrat would have been thilled to have a non-partisan as the FBI director rather than Comey. Republicans wouldn't have changed a thing about who the FBI director was suring the election.

May 09, 2017 8:01 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

-----------------------------------------------
I said "Hillary losing had nothing to do with people not liking her"

Wyatt/bad anonymous said "in the end, it always comes down to that who do you wanna go out and have a beer with? not Al Gore, John McCain, Mitt Romney, or Hillary see the common thread?".

Obviously not. Gore and Hillary both won the popular vote. People clearly would have rather had a beer with them than with Bush or Trump.

I said "far more people liked her than Trump"

Wyatt/bad anonymous said "you confuse approval rating with likability".

Wrong. Hillary had much higher approval and likability ratings than Trump.

Accept reality - the majority of Americans wanted Hillary to be president. No amount of the hypothetical tautology of "Trump would have won the popular vote if he had gotten more votes than Hillary" will change that.

Hillary got almost 3 million more votes than Trump, he is an illegitimate president - deal with it.

May 09, 2017 8:02 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Sean Spicer: Trump Is Sending Out A “Certified Letter” Totally Proving That He Has No Connections To Russia

White House press secretary Sean Spicer said Tuesday that President Donald Trump “welcomes” an investigation of possible ties between his businesses and Russia.

“The President, obviously, was aware of Sen. Graham’s suggestion after he made it today and he’s fine with that,” Spicer said Tuesday. “He has no business in Russia. He has no connections to Russia. So he welcomes that.”

“In fact, he has already charged a leading law firm in Washington, D.C. to send a certified letter to Sen. Graham to that point, that he has no connections to Russia,” Spicer added. “So that should be a really easy look.”

Well, that settles it then.

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!

May 09, 2017 9:52 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Yates’ appearance on Monday didn’t break any big news as she was unable to reveal any classified details in public"

well, that's conjecture

let us know when you have any actual facts

the TTFer said "we learned" from Yates' testimony

as I said, and you now confirm, we didn't learn anything from her testimony

"The fact of the matter is that Flynn did endanger the republic. As Sally Yates testified, it wasn't just the fact that Flynn lied about talking sanctions with the Russian ambassador that was bad, it was that his underlying actions and behavior were problematic."

actually, talking about sanctions with Russian ambassadors isn't illegal

go ahead and do it if you feel so inclined

we have freedom of speech in this country

and what "underlying actions and behavior"?

Yates didn't reveal any

"So in addition to breaking the law by subverting the presidents policy on Russia as a private citizen by talking sanctions with a Russian ambassador (and well known KGB contact) while Obama was still president,"

there is no such law

I think you're confusing a law from the early 19th century that has never been enforced about negotiating

Flynn didn't have any negotiations

if he had, however, the never-enforced law is unconstitutional

as Yates will tell you, it's not illegal to break unconstitutional laws

we are a nation of rights, not a nation of laws

"classified intelligence shows that his underlying behavior was a problem"

like what behavior?

"and that's why Sally Yates repeatedly raised alarms with the White House about Flynn and it was inexcusable that Trump continued to allow Flynn access to the highest levels of intelligence information for 18 days after it was clear he could not be trusted"

why could he not be trusted?

excuse me if I don't accept everything a Dem politician says without proof

they don't have a track record of honesty

"and may be an asset of Russia which is an adversary"

key word: "may"

you could say the same about anyone

"Trump was warned by Obama two days after the election that Flynn wasn't up to a high level job and that's why Obama fired him"

how was he not up to a high level job?

it's nice Obama shared his opinion but he didn't have a high social IQ

"Anyway you slice it Flynn was a major problem"

any way? show us just one way

"and obviously if it weren't for the leaks to the media he'd still be in his position"

probably so

so what?

"and compromising the United States"

he never did that

Barry O is not the United States

"including possibly acting as an asset of Russia"

key word: possibly

since there is no proof required, the same applies to al Franken

May 10, 2017 12:21 AM  
Anonymous IMPEACH HIM said...

The firing of the head of the FBI while he is investigating collusion between the Pro-Putin Pussy Grabber's presidential campaign and Russia is a grotesque abuse of power by the President of the United States. This is the kind of thing that goes on in non-democracies and third world dictatorships, that when there is an investigation that reaches near the president of the United States or the leader of a non-democracy, they fire the people who are in charge of the investigation.

May 10, 2017 7:41 AM  
Anonymous good anonymous said...

"The firing of the head of the FBI while he is investigating collusion between the Pro-Putin Pussy Grabber's presidential campaign and Russia is a grotesque abuse of power by the President of the United States. This is the kind of thing that goes on in non-democracies and third world dictatorships, that when there is an investigation that reaches near the president of the United States or the leader of a non-democracy, they fire the people who are in charge of the investigation."

well, you can't make someone immune just because they say they are investigating the President

you can imagine the problems with that

you have to keep in mind a few things:

1. Comey, of the whole plethora of intelligence agencies, is the only one who says he had any cause to investigate a Trump-Russia connection

2. he has contradicted the testimony of the Director of National Intelligence, who said there was no evidence of collusion between Trump and Russia in 2016 while Comey said he had seen evidence that compelled him to investigate the matter

3. his most recent testimony to Congress has been shown to be false, in a number of ways

4. last summer, he delivered a public exoneration of Hillary Clinton, a completely unprecedented thing for an FBI director to do

5. he has been denounced by a bipartisan cast of critics

6. he appeared to be attempting to develop a cult of personality, similar to Hoover's, to insulate himself from all accountability

7. he had no discretion when speaking to the press

Trump is planning to replace him with the former chief of police in NYC, who once was appointed to something by Bill Clinton. He, like anyone, will be a problem for Dems. They are perpetually looking for issues rather than solutions, which means they will likely lose more power in 2018. Historically, the opposition party usually makes gains after a new party takes the White House but Dems are their own worst enemy.

May 10, 2017 9:30 AM  
Anonymous good anonymous said...

"Gore and Hillary both won the popular vote. People clearly would have rather had a beer with them than with Bush or Trump."

a lot of people didn't vote because the electoral system meant that their vote wouldn't have an effect

if you say you don't understand that, you're lying

btw, what support Hillary had was mostly in places like Marin County and Takoma Park

people don't drink beer there, they go for wine

beer drinkers choose the President and they preferred Trump

"Hillary had much higher approval and likability ratings than Trump"

"much"?

you're deluded

at the levels those two were at, the difference is irrelevant

"Accept reality - the majority of Americans wanted Hillary to be president"

if they did, she would be President

take away the State of California and more people cast ballots for Trump overall

but even that is dampened because we didn't hold a popular election so not everyone voted who would have if we had a popular election

"Hillary got almost 3 million more votes than Trump, he is an illegitimate president - deal with it"

I have, by intelligent analysis

any honest analysis reveals that millions didn't vote because we weren't holding a popular election where every vote counts

Trump won in the manner every President has won since our founding as the most free, benevolent, and successful nation in history

May 10, 2017 9:55 AM  
Anonymous AMERICAN said...

"The vast majority of them are ignorant of the fact that the electoral college determines who the president is"

this statement alone shows how clueless Priya is

absolutely everyone in America understands the electoral college

every four years, there is a reality show based on it, where reporters treat the election as a spectator sport

people know the rules as well as they know baseball

May 10, 2017 10:01 AM  
Anonymous AMERICAN said...

"The truth is Dems would have loved for Comey to be non-partisan and speak either about both the Trump and Hillary investigations or neither. Instead of doing his job according to deparmental policy and talking about neither he put his thumb on the scale and gave the election to Trump. Every Democrat would have been thrilled to have a non-partisan as the FBI director rather than Comey. Republicans wouldn't have changed a thing about who the FBI director was."

here's a statement by Priya that looks pretty stupid today

shocker!!

May 10, 2017 10:05 AM  
Anonymous drip drip drip said...

Now that the El Nino has ceased, it's become clear that the trend since 1998 is continuing: global warming has ceased:

Climate Change: We keep hearing the "science is settled," yet once again data emerge showing that there has been no appreciable warming now for 19 years. Memo to global warming advocates: People are starting to notice.

Of course, it is pretty clear from the record that temperatures have risen in the past 150 years or so. But that should hardly be surprising, given that the period lasting into the early 19th century was known as the "Little Ice Age."

But more recently, alarms were sounded over the rise in 2015 and 2016 of global temperatures, even though the rise was a result of a temporary phenomenon — the "El Nino" effect of warming seawaters in the Pacific that create higher temperatures and weather disruptions around the world.

As Christopher Booker of the Sunday Telegraph in Britain noted this week, after being repeatedly warned about 2016 being "the hottest year on record," we now have arrived at this: "In recent months global temperatures have plummeted by more than 0.6 degrees: just as happened 17 years ago after a similarly strong El Nino."

By the way, those temperature readings are courtesy of satellites, which provide the most comprehensive and accurate temperature readings of all. Many of the scariest headlines come from far more limited, and localized, temperature readings, which can be deceptive.

Scare headlines about disappearing arctic ice are similarly being shown as overblown if not outright false. The Danish Meteorological Institute reports that since December Arctic temperatures have pretty much been below -20 degrees Celsius. Arctic ice and the Greenland ice cap are both expanding, not shrinking.


May 10, 2017 10:07 AM  
Anonymous drip drip drip said...

Knowing this, it pays to be skeptical of model-based data — not actual measured ones — that suggest a need to spend massive amounts of money to keep a purely hypothetical threat from taking place. It makes no sense.

We've been told that the world will have to spend 2% of GDP, or roughly $1.5 trillion each year, to keep the threat of global warming at bay — even though estimates show that even if everything requested by the Paris Climate Change Accord were done, the effect on global climate would be negligible.

What's galling is that, thanks to the fracking revolution, the U.S. is already sharply cutting its emissions of CO2. In February, the American Interest noted that "U.S. energy-related CO2 emissions hit a 25-year low the first six months of 2016, continuing the progress that the EPA says we made in 2015."

So, temperatures and the output of CO2 are both falling? Meanwhile, recent reporting suggests the models on which the supposed global warming "science" is based have turned out to be highly questionable, unable to predict even past warming — something a model is supposed to be able to do.

As we noted recently, since the 1997 Kyoto Accord, U.S. output of greenhouse gases has plummeted 7.3%, despite U.S. GDP growing by 52% during that time. Our greenhouse gas footprint is shrinking, not growing. Meanwhile, nations such as China and India that are boosting their output of greenhouse gases dramatically remain untouched by any of the recent anti-global warming agreements — including the damaging one that Obama agreed to in Paris in late 2015, but never submitted to the Senate for approval.

Which raises a big question. The Trump administration right now is under intense pressure both here and abroad to remain in Obama's fraudulent Paris climate deal, which, as far as we can tell, is intentionally designed to destroy the U.S. economy and lower Americans' standard of living.

Given the bad science and the enormous costs on which the Paris deal is based, why continue to give it any credence at all?

President Trump should do himself and the U.S. a favor and withdraw from the Paris deal. As the renewed decline in temperatures shows, the only real threat Americans face is an unholy alliance between global bureaucrats and financially corrupted scientists eager for massive amounts of new spending so that they can stay employed. Time to put them all out of business.

May 10, 2017 10:07 AM  
Anonymous crickets chirping said...

where is the evidence that guys who think they are girls are in danger if they use the boys' room?

May 10, 2017 10:08 AM  
Anonymous anatomically correct mind said...

professor at Rhodes University who dared to question the premise behind transgenderism is accused of "epistemic violence"

this is the scariest part of TTF-style liberalism

that disagreeing with someone is equivalent to violence

this is the starting point of all the totalitarian regimes in history

but the philosopher is right

why is the gender delusion the only delusion to warrant protected class status?

https://www.wsj.com/articles/a-philosopher-gets-pilloried-1494283355

May 10, 2017 10:17 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"1. Comey, of the whole plethora of intelligence agencies, is the only one who says he had any cause to investigate a Trump-Russia connection"

Bullshit.

There are multiple investigations by the House and Senate intelligence committees, which deal with some of the nation's most well-kept secrets, which are investigating Russia's attempt to influence the U.S. presidential election and Trump associates' connections to Russia.

Over the past week, we witnessed two hearings on this front: The Senate Judiciary Committee had Comey testify about all things FBI.

And a Senate Judiciary subcommittee invited former Obama justice and intelligence officials Sally Yates and James R. Clapper Jr. to talk about the conversations Trump's former national security adviser, Michael Flynn, had with Russia during the transition.

"2. he has contradicted the testimony of the Director of National Intelligence, who said there was no evidence of collusion between Trump and Russia in 2016 while Comey said he had seen evidence that compelled him to investigate the matter"

Bullshit spin.

Former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper said before a Senate Judiciary subcommittee that he was not aware of any evidence demonstrating collusion, but also said he had been unaware of an FBI investigation into the matter until FBI Director James Comey announced it to the public at a House hearing in March.

"Trump won in the manner every President has won since our founding"

Factually incorrect.

Trump is the fifth US president to win the the presidency by winning the electoral college vote while at the same time losing the popular vote.

1824: John Quincy Adams
1876: Rutherford B. Hayes
1888: Benjamin Harrison
2000: George W. Bush
2016: Donald Trump

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

May 10, 2017 10:21 AM  
Anonymous good anonymous said...

"Bullshit"

charming manner of expression

"There are multiple investigations by the House and Senate intelligence committees"

those are not agencies, they are political committees

they will investigate anything in the newspapers

they're all running for office and need to look like they're on top of things

"Former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper said before a Senate Judiciary subcommittee that he was not aware of any evidence demonstrating collusion, but also said he had been unaware of an FBI investigation into the matter until FBI Director James Comey announced it to the public at a House hearing in March"

you're conflating two different testimonies by Clapper

earlier in the year, he said he wasn't aware of any evidence of collusion and said he would have known if any agency had any

later, when Comey contradicted him, he diplomatically said he wasn't aware of it

"Trump is the fifth US president to win the the presidency by winning the electoral college vote while at the same time losing the popular vote"

no president has ever lost a popular election for President

we've never held one

May 10, 2017 10:41 AM  
Anonymous Banana republicans said...

The decision by a President whose campaign associates are under investigation by the FBI for collusion with Russia to fire the man overseeing that investigation, upon the recommendation of an Attorney General who has recused himself from that investigation, raises profound questions about whether the White House is brazenly interfering in a criminal matter.

May 10, 2017 10:54 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"... they are political committees

they will investigate anything in the newspapers"


Lying bullshit.

The White House Clings to False Claims of Massive Voter Fraud

Congressional investigations into "Claims of Massive Voter Fraud" = < crickets chirping >

May 10, 2017 11:21 AM  
Anonymous Twenty-four million American citizens who will lose health insurance coverage IF Trumpcare becomes the law of the land said...

The Republican bill to repeal and replace Obamacare may have passed through the U.S. House of Representatives, but many are still unhappy with the controversial legislation.

A new poll conducted by AOL News found that a majority of people surveyed view the Obamacare repeal unfavorably.

Of those polled, 60 percent said they have an unfavorable opinion of the Republican health care bill, while 31 percent of respondents said they had a favorable opinion. Nine percent said they were unsure.

https://www.aol.com/article/news/2017/05/10/poll-majority-republican-bill-repeal-replace-obamacare-unfavorable/22078503/

May 10, 2017 11:54 AM  
Anonymous good anonymous said...

"The decision by a President whose campaign associates are under investigation by the FBI for collusion with Russia to fire the man overseeing that investigation, upon the recommendation of an Attorney General who has recused himself from that investigation, raises profound questions about whether the White House is brazenly interfering in a criminal matter."

LOL. Dems blame this guy for doing the same thing they blame the Russians for: interfering in the election - and now they object to not allowing him to continue his abuses of power

talk about chutzpah!!

well, we could appoint a special prosecutor except for two problems:

1. there's really nothing to investigate. everything that caused any suspicion has been considered and explanations ascertained. Flynn, as part of discussions with the Russian ambassador, as an incoming White House advisor, mentioned sanctions in passing. Session, as part of the Senate Foreign Relations committee, met with the ambassador, in his Senate office, hardly secretly, and also had a brief civil exchange with him at a cocktail party, along with many other Republicans, a fully public event. nothing illegal, nothing that would compromise the work of either man, and nothing unusual.

2. unless a completely partisan individual like Al Franken or Chuck Schumer was the special prosecutor, Dems would howl. they are looking for issues, not solutions. in our highly partisan society, an objective man no longer exists.

good anonymous said:

"they will investigate anything in the newspapers"

TTF anonymous said:

"Lying bullshit"

there you go again

a shameless charm offensive

if you don't understand that congressional committee aren't intelligence agency, well, you aren't very intelligent

"Twenty-four million American citizens who will lose health insurance coverage IF Trumpcare becomes the law of the land"

only because the government won't force them to have it

as of now, we are still a free country

"A new poll conducted by AOL News found that a majority of people surveyed view the Obamacare repeal unfavorably.

Of those polled, 60 percent said they have an unfavorable opinion of the Republican health care bill, while 31 percent of respondents said they had a favorable opinion. Nine percent said they were unsure."

funny, they've been against it for seven years

now, the "polls" say this

remember when the polls said California would not endorse heterosexual marriage in 2008?

remember when the polls said Hillary would be the next President in 2016?

are these the same type of polls?

May 10, 2017 12:22 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

MAY 10, 2017 — It's been a wild and deeply disturbing 24 hours in Trumpworld.

White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer announced that Trump had retained a lawyer to deal with the Russia probe, based on Senator Lindsey Graham's comment that he wanted to learn if any business ties exist between Trump and Russia. Graham also mentioned getting Trump's tax returns as a part of that exploration.

Just hours later, the news broke that Trump fired FBI Director James Comey, who was leading an investigation into the administration's Russian ties. And CNN is reporting that grand jury subpoenas have been issued in the FBI's Russia investigation. http://www.cnn.com/2017/05/09/politics/grand-jury-fbi-russia/index.html

Clearly, Trump is terrified. The walls appear to be closing in on him and his associates. Will Congressional Republicans stop stonewalling and finally subpoena his tax returns?

May 10, 2017 1:25 PM  
Anonymous More like it said...

Environmentalists got some rare good news Wednesday when the Senate narrowly rejected a GOP effort to repeal an Obama-era regulation limiting methane emissions on public lands.

President Donald Trump faces a May 11 deadline to overturn a number of Obama-era regulations through a simple majority vote in Congress under a law known as the Congressional Review Act. The oil and gas industry lobbied hard for Congress to use the CRA to repeal Department of Interior's methane rule, which requires energy companies to upgrade equipment and monitoring to prevent venting and leaking of methane—a power greenhouse gas—on public lands. The rule also restricts a practice know as "flaring," which is when oil and gas operators leak and burn off excess gas.

The House passed a resolution to repeal the methane rule in February, but the bill stalled in the Senate as some Republicans expressed concern that such a bill would prevent the government from enacting "substantially similar" regulations in the future. Methane leaks are not just a safety hazard and a driver of climate change, they also waste natural gas that would otherwise be used as fuel. Using the CRA to undo the rule would have permanently handicapped efforts to control methane.

The repeal effort faced its final defeat on Wednesday in a 51-49 vote, with Republican Sens. Susan Collins (Maine), Lindsey Graham (S.C.), and John McCain (Ariz.) joining every Democrat in opposing the bill. Graham had previously expressed reservations about using the CRA, calling it "too blunt an instrument in this case," and Collins has broken with her party on some environmental votes in the past. McCain was more of a surprise, though yesterday he met briefly with Gwen Lachelt, a La Plata County Commissioner in Colorado, who helped develop the rule and flew to DC to make a last-ditch attempt to save it.

The White House wanted Congress to send as many CRA repeal bills as possible to Trump's desk, and Congress has used the law 13 times to repeal Obama-era regulations, including several rules that were loathed by the oil, gas, and coal industries.

Trump can still weaken or roll back the government's limits on methane emissions, though that will have to go through the agency's formal rulemaking process and could take years.

One of the areas most affected by the rule is the San Juan Basin. Lachelt lives in a nearby Colorado county that, she notes, is "under the largest methane cloud in country."

"If the [methane] rule goes away," she says, "we have no way to address that pollution."

May 10, 2017 1:33 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

In one of the hastily arranged damage-control interviews, deputy White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders made an especially revealing statement that underscored why so many people are worried. Asked by Tucker Carlson on Fox News how Comey’s termination will impact the Russia investigation, she replied: “I think the bigger point on that is, ‘My gosh, Tucker, when are they gonna let that go?’ It’s been going on for nearly a year. Frankly, it’s kinda getting absurd. There’s nothing there.”

“It’s time to move on,” she added. “Frankly, it’s time to focus on the things the American people care about.”

As Sanders pretended on Fox that the Russia probes have found nothing, CNN reported that federal prosecutors — as part of the ongoing Russia probe — have now issued grand jury subpoenas to associates of former national security adviser Michael Flynn. “The subpoenas represent the first sign of a significant escalation of activity in the FBI's broader investigation that began last July into possible ties between Trump campaign associates and Russia,” Evan Perez, Shimon Prokupecz and Pamela Brown reported. “The subpoenas issued in recent weeks by the US Attorney's Office in Alexandria, Virginia, were received by associates who worked with Flynn on contracts after he was forced out as director of the Defense Intelligence Agency in 2014.”

The Flynn inquiry is one piece of the broader Russia investigation, which is led jointly by the Alexandria US Attorney's Office and the Justice Department's National Security Division.

May 10, 2017 2:44 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

-- A handful of important Senate REPUBLICANS who have been defending the president went public last night with concerns.

Sen. Richard Burr (R-N.C.), chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee: “I am troubled by the timing and reasoning of Director Comey’s termination. I have found Director Comey to be a public servant of the highest order, and his dismissal further confuses an already difficult investigation by the Committee.”

Sen. James Lankford (R-Okla.), a member of the Intelligence and Homeland Security committees: “The issues that our law enforcement, intelligence community and congressional committees deal with each day are very sensitive and have life or death implications. Director Comey has been the public face representing thousands of committed law enforcement officers and civil servants within the intelligence community. In the days ahead, the American people need clarity and deserve an explanation for his immediate firing.”

Sen. Ben Sasse (R-Neb.), chairman of the Judiciary Oversight Subcommittee: “Regardless of how you think Director Comey handled the unprecedented complexities of the 2016 election cycle, the timing of this firing is very troubling. Jim Comey is an honorable public servant, and in the midst of a crisis of public trust that goes well beyond who you voted for in the presidential election, the loss of an honorable public servant is a loss for the nation. … I have reached out to the Deputy Attorney General for clarity on his rationale for recommending this action."

Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.), chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, said Comey’s firing will “raise questions”: “While the case for removal … was thorough, his removal at this particular time will raise questions. It is essential that ongoing investigations are fulsome and free of political interference until their completion, and it is imperative that President Trump nominate a well-respected and qualified individual to lead the bureau at this critical time.”

Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz), chairman of the Armed Services Committee, said he was “disappointed” in Trump’s decision and repeated his call for a special congressional committee to probe the matter.

Watch for Republicans who could be vulnerable in 2018 to become more inclined to distance themselves from Trump going forward. Arizona’s Jeff Flake is up for reelection next year:

Jeff Flake ✔
@JeffFlake
I've spent the last several hours trying to find an acceptable rationale for the timing of Comey's firing. I just can't do it.
9:58 PM - 9 May 2017

Rep. Barbara Comstock (R-Va.), another vulnerable incumbent in the D.C. suburbs, called for an independent investigation: “Both Democrats and Republicans attacked the FBI Director at various times for various reasons and called for his ouster. However, I can’t defend or explain tonight’s actions or timing…. The FBI investigation into the Russian impact on the 2016 election must continue. There must be an independent investigation that the American people can trust.” (Another reason this is a big deal: Comstock was in charge of public affairs at the Justice Department when John Ashcroft was attorney general.)

Rep. Carlos Curbelo (R-Fla.), who represents a Miami-area district that Clinton carried, is also one of the most endangered GOP lawmakers next year:

Carlos Curbelo ✔
@carloslcurbelo
No one should find out via the television that they've been fired. If true, that's poor form and plain unprofessional. #Comey
8:57 PM - 9 May 2017

May 10, 2017 3:54 PM  
Anonymous good anonymous said...

Dems are fantasizing that Americans are scandalized by Comey being fired - or they hope that if they howl enough everything will think there is some problem

but people are heartened to see him go

they've heard Dems blame him for Hillary's loss and call for his dismissal

they've heard him be the only head of an intelligence agency that asserted there was evidence that merited an investigation of the Trump campaign

they've seen him trying to draw attention to himself and try to take over the justice department

just a few hours before Trump fired him, the FBI sent a memo to Congress rescinding Comey's most recent testimony before Congress

they had to

he had lied to justify his interference is the election last fall

last night, on the Colbert show, which is taped earlier, Colbert announced the firing and the crowd went wild with cheering and huzzahs

that was a snap shot of a moment before the liberals told heir minions what to think

in most of America, trump's firing of Comey is being hailed as common sense, rare in Washington

"In one of the hastily arranged damage-control interviews, deputy White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders made an especially revealing statement that underscored why so many people are worried"

yes, Dems are worried that without Comey trying to get attention, they won't be able to continue the Russian hoax

because that's all they've been able to talk about for the last three months

they're afraid Washington might get back to the issues that caused them to lose to begin with



May 10, 2017 5:06 PM  
Anonymous y'burnt said...

this is funny!

Six months after Election Day, pollsters, Democrats, and much of the press are still trying to figure out what went wrong. How did Donald Trump outperform the polls in enough swing states to swipe an electoral victory Hillary Clinton appeared to have safely in hand? On Tuesday, the Nation offered the a theory focused on what was by some metrics was the single biggest surprise of the election: Trump’s victory in Wisconsin, where he trailed in polls by an average of 6.5 points ahead of Nov. 8, 2016.

According to new research conducted by data science firm Civis Analytics for PAC Priorities USA, strict voter-ID laws significantly depressed the turnout of black and Democratic-leaning voters in a number of states, chief among them the Badger State. “Wisconsin’s voter-ID law reduced turnout by 200,000 votes, according to the new analysis,” wrote the Nation’s Ari Berman. “Donald Trump won the state by only 22,748 votes.” The conclusion is that Hillary Clinton would have claimed Wisconsin’s 10 electoral votes if it weren’t for a state law requiring residents to present a driver's license or another form of government-issued ID to cast a non-provisional ballot.

May 10, 2017 11:49 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Dems are fantasizing that Americans are scandalized by Comey being fired - or they hope that if they howl enough everything will think there is some problem

but people are heartened to see him go"


Maybe that's how it appears to you inside the bubble, but out here in the real world we see:

Poll: Trump's approval rating sinks, near new record low as base support shrinks

"President Donald Trump's approval rating has once again neared a new record low, according to the latest Quinnipiac University poll released Wednesday.

The new survey found that just 36 percent of registered voters approve of the president's job, with 56 percent saying they disapprove.

Trump's approval rating, measured from May 4 until May 9 -- the day Trump fired FBI Director James Comey -- has fallen four percentage points since the last Quinnipiac poll from mid-April found he had a rating of 40 percent.

"There is no way to spin or sugarcoat these sagging numbers," the assistant director of the Quinnipiac Poll Tim Malloy said.

"The erosion of white men, white voters without college degrees and independent voters, the declaration by voters that President Donald Trump's first 100 days were mainly a failure and deepening concerns about Trump's honesty, intelligence and level headedness are red flags that the administration simply can't brush away," he added.

Other findings from the Quinnipiac poll show the president losing support from key groups in his base. Independent support for the president dropped 9 percentage points from 38 percent approval to now 29 percent.

Trump's support from white voters with no college degree also dropped to 47 percent after reaching 57 percent approval last month.

While the majority, 58 percent, don't approve of the media's coverage of Trump, a larger percentage, 68 percent, disapproved of Trump's treatment of the press."

May 11, 2017 6:39 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Russian Foreign Minister And Trump Agree: No Need To Probe Election Meddling:
President Donald Trump met with Sergey Lavrov and the Russian ambassador just a day after firing James Comey.


Yesterday, the day after Trump fired Comey who was leading the investigation into Russian collusion with the 2016 Trump presidential campaign, the White House visitors included:

Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov
Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak
Nixon's Secretary of State Henry Kissinger

"...A White House statement said that Trump’s meeting with the Russians covered Syria and Ukraine, and that the president emphasized his desire to improve U.S.-Russia relations. Unusually, Trump’s team did not allow U.S. media to briefly enter the meeting, mirroring Russian practice.

Felicia Schwartz ✔
@felschwartz

Worth noting that the Putin-Tillerson meeting was also closed press, so looks like a reciprocal arrangement https://twitter.com/jimsciutto/status/862330633569398784 …
11:45 AM - 10 May 2017
...

...Back in Russia, President Vladimir Putin told CBS News that Trump was “acting in accordance with his law.”

There are currently four U.S. government investigations into the Russian role in the election. One is being conducted by the FBI, and three are taking place on Capitol Hill ― one each by the House and Senate Intelligence Committees and another by a subcommittee of the Senate Judiciary Committee."


Related:

Trump bans American journalists, but not Russian press, from meeting with Russian foreign minister:
It was Trump’s only scheduled event the day after he fired the FBI director amid an investigation into his campaign’s Russia ties.

May 11, 2017 7:18 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

""Twenty-four million American citizens who will lose health insurance coverage IF Trumpcare becomes the law of the land"

only because the government won't force them to have it"


Bullshit.

"After the House passed a GOP health care bill to replace the Affordable Care Act, Democrats criticized the legislation by saying it would take away insurance from 24 million Americans. An analysis by the Congressional Budget Office and Joint Committee on Taxation did say that 24 million fewer Americans would be insured under the American Health Care Act than under current law in 2026, and that 14 million fewer would be insured next year. But not all of them would “lose” insurance they have “today” or be “kicked off” their policies, as some Democrats have described it.

The CBO estimate includes some losing insurance, some deciding not to have it, others gaining it and others not having insurance in the future.

...some of those 24 million would take themselves off the insurance rolls, according to the CBO.

In 2018, CBO said, “14 million more people would be uninsured under the [GOP] legislation than under current law,” most of that due to the immediate elimination of the individual mandate requiring most people to pay a tax if they don’t have insurance. CBO doesn’t provide specific numbers but says that “[s]ome of those people would choose not to have insurance because they chose to be covered by insurance under current law only to avoid paying the penalties, and some people would forgo insurance in response to higher premiums.”

CBO expects higher average premiums in the individual market in 2018 and 2019, as healthy people decide to drop their insurance without that mandate penalty in place. As those healthy folks leave, overall costs in the individual market go up

...CBO estimates 14 million fewer Americans would have Medicaid coverage under the GOP legislation, which phases out the Affordable Care Act’s Medicaid expansion and caps per-enrollee spending. An estimated 5 million of those are would-be Medicaid enrollees in the future. CBO expected that those people would gain Medicaid coverage under current law as other states expanded eligibility under the ACA. But under the GOP legislation, that won’t happen.

...Employer coverage would decline as well, by 7 million people. But that’s a mix of those who decide not to accept an employer’s offer of coverage without an individual mandate, and those who are no longer offered insurance by their employers, CBO explained.

It is certainly true that the CBO analysis found the Republican bill would lead to 24 million fewer people having insurance, compared with current law. But as that analysis also made clear, not all of them would be tossed off their insurance, nor would they all lose insurance they have “today.”


Your comment "Twenty-four million American citizens who will lose health insurance coverage IF Trumpcare becomes the law of the land" "only because the government won't force them to have it" is clearly a bullshit lie.

Quit posting bullshit lies on Vigilance so there won't be any bullshit lies for me to point out.

May 11, 2017 8:23 AM  
Anonymous good anonymous said...

good anonymous said:

"Dems are fantasizing that Americans are scandalized by Comey being fired - or they hope that if they howl enough everything will think there is some problem

but people are heartened to see him go"

TTF anonymous said:

"Maybe that's how it appears to you inside the bubble, but out here in the real world we see:

Poll: Trump's approval rating sinks, near new record low as base support shrinks"

and the TTFer continued on about Trump's low approval rating, without any indication about what the public thought

although, it should be noted, the pro-Dem NYC crowd at Stephen Colbert's show on Tuesday night cheered Trump's move

sounds TTF anon's head has a bubble instead of a brain inside it

"Yesterday, the day after Trump fired Comey who was leading the investigation into Russian collusion with the 2016 Trump presidential campaign, the White House visitors included:

Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov
Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak
Nixon's Secretary of State Henry Kissinger"

yes, the pathetic Post had a picture of the meeting on the front page this morning

after spending months trying to infer that meeting with the Russians during the transition was somehow scandalous, the press is now treating every meeting the President has with Russians as cause for suspicion

you really wonder if the press is trying to provoke WW III

the President needs to have relations with the Russians to keep the world safe

duh!

moron anon said:

"Your comment "Twenty-four million American citizens who will lose health insurance coverage IF Trumpcare becomes the law of the land" "only because the government won't force them to have it" is clearly a bullshit lie"

ah, so according to your cut and paste, it will be 14 million next year

according to your cut and paste, "most" will be due to exactly what I said

as for 2026, don't make us laugh

"In 2018, CBO said, “14 million more people would be uninsured under the [GOP] legislation than under current law,” most of that due to the immediate elimination of the individual mandate requiring most people to pay a tax if they don’t have insurance"

May 11, 2017 9:46 AM  
Anonymous good anonymous said...

you all are aware that Harry Reid ended the chance that homosexual marriage will continue to be regarded a constitutional right

right?

http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/the-judiciary/332380-the-tricky-politics-both-parties-face-in-filling-justice

this is even bigger than when liberal Ralph Nader betrayed the liberal cause and got George W Bush elected President or when Hillary Clinton decided she was too tired to campaign in Wisconsin and Michigan in the last weekend before the election and got Trump elected

May 11, 2017 10:18 AM  
Anonymous ha-ha said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

May 11, 2017 12:01 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

What a pile of bullshit.

"no president has ever lost a popular election for President

we've never held one"


You should tell DonnieBoy of the small hands who insists "he would have won the popular vote had it not been for fraud. Trump privately told lawmakers in January that between 3 million and 5 million people voted illegally."

"meeting with the Russians during the transition was somehow scandalous"

Flynn's meeting with the Russians was obviously scandalous so he lied to VP Pence about it.

Clarity over what happened will only increase now, and even Fox News is reporting why:

"The Senate Intelligence Committee subpoenaed former Trump National Security Adviser Michael Flynn Wednesday for papers related to the panel's investigation into alleged meddling by Russia in the 2016 election.

Sen. Richard Burr of North Carolina, the Republican chairman, and Sen. Mark Warner of Virginia, the committee of Democratic vice chairman, said the panel had first requested the papers from Flynn on late on April 28.

Burr and Warner said in a joint statement Flynn “declined, through counsel, to cooperate with the Committee’s request....”


But Flynn did shop around an immunity deal for which he found no takers.

Scandalous!



May 11, 2017 3:04 PM  
Anonymous good anonymous said...

"You should tell DonnieBoy of the small hands who insists "he would have won the popular vote had it not been for fraud. Trump privately told lawmakers in January that between 3 million and 5 million people voted illegally.""

why would I tell him?

he's not the jackass who keeps getting on TTF and saying Hillary won the popular vote

she didn't run in a national popular vote election

"Flynn's meeting with the Russians was obviously scandalous so he lied to VP Pence about it."

well, that's erroneous

"Clarity over what happened will only increase now,"

there's actually not much that's unknown right now

"Flynn did shop around an immunity deal for which he found no takers.

Scandalous!"

not really, innocent people are often victims of witch hunts

even if the worst that has been said about Flynn were true, he's committed no crime

you know it, Mark Warner knows it, the liberal media knows it

the game they're playing is to create false impressions among the public

May 11, 2017 3:37 PM  
Anonymous Independent Special Prosecutor said...

"he's not the jackass who keeps getting on TTF and saying Hillary won the popular vote"

Right, he's the jackass that is going to spend taxpayer money trying to prove his bullshit claim that he only lost the popular vote to Hillary Clinton due what he pretends was "widespread voter fraud."

Trump Announces Commission To Investigate His Baseless Widespread Voter Fraud Claim

"the game they're playing is to create false impressions among the public"

Everyone clearly sees who's creating false impressions among the public and among civil servants who work for the Executive Branch:

FBI's acting director rebukes White House claim that the FBI 'lost confidence' in Comey

"The Acting Director of the FBI, Andrew McCabe, testified before the Senate Intelligence Committee on Thursday in a hearing on "World Wide Threats."

He rebuked the White House's claim that President Donald Trump had fired FBI Director James Comey at least partly because the FBI's rank and file "had lost confidence in their director."

"In your opinion, is it accurate that the [FBI] rank and file no longer supported Director Comey?" Democratic Sen. Heinrich asked McCabe on Thursday.

"No, sir, that is not accurate," McCabe replied.

White House Deputy Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders had told reporters on Wednesday that the White House had "heard from countless members of the FBI" that they had lost confidence in Comey.

"In fact, the President will be meeting with Acting Director McCabe later today to discuss that very thing — the morale at the FBI — as well as make an offer to go directly to the FBI if he feels that that's necessary and appropriate."

McCabe categorically rebuked that assessment on Thursday.

"Working with Director Comey was the honor of my life...I can confidently tell you that the vast majority of FBI employees enjoyed a deep and positive relationship with Director Comey."..."


This White House produces bullshit lies by the dump truck full.


May 11, 2017 4:10 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

http://www.aberdeennews.com/news/local/tribe-dapl-oil-leak-in-spink-co-raises-concerns/article_ef584673-f4ff-5ae8-9d56-4b3ab3f061dc.html

May 11, 2017 5:12 PM  
Anonymous good anonymous said...

"Right, he's the jackass that is going to spend taxpayer money trying to prove his bullshit claim that he only lost the popular vote to Hillary Clinton due what he pretends was "widespread voter fraud."

Trump Announces Commission To Investigate His Baseless Widespread Voter Fraud Claim"

he's clearly a moron

still, that doesn't change the malicious inaccuracy that TTF keeps pushing

there simply was no popular election held

as for "spend taxpayer money", this is a charge Dems throw out whenever they're in trouble

Bill Clinton used to say the same thing while he was being investigated for having an affair with an intern his daughter's age

"Everyone clearly sees who's creating false impressions among the public and among civil servants who work for the Executive Branch:

FBI's acting director rebukes White House claim that the FBI 'lost confidence' in Comey"

obviously, a matter of opinion

and, just as obviously, everyone will say nice things about someone who has had a setback

but why is the media focusing on this and not that McCabe shot down two lies the media has been pushing:

1. he said the FBI has adequate resources to conduct the investigation and that Comey hadn't requested more

so, why does the media keep repeating this

the Post even includes the lie in their editorial this morning

2. Comey's departure won't affect the Russia investigation at all

Comey wasn't an investigator, he was a figurehead

the idea that the investigation is now compromised is a lie

May 11, 2017 5:20 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Wyatt/bad anonymous said "there simply was no popular election held".

Wrong. Every election has a popular vote. And Trump lost the popular vote by almost 3 million.

Trump lost the popular vote by the largest margin of any president to ever "win" an election.

Hahhahahahahahahahahahaahahahahahaaha!

May 12, 2017 12:37 AM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Good anonymous said "Flynn's meeting with the Russians was obviously scandalous so he lied to VP Pence about it.".

Exactly. The trumpanzees tried to pretend that the worst of it was that he lied about the meetings and five phone calls in one day and that it was all innocuous.

As Sally Yates testified, it wasn't innnocuous, beyond the lying his underlying behavior was problematic and cause for grave concern.

That's why Flynn lied about it, he knew his meetings and calls were crooked. If it had been innocuous he wouldn't have felt the need to lie about it.

May 12, 2017 12:42 AM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Wyatt/bad anonymous said "but why is the media focusing on this and not that McCabe shot down two lies the media has been pushing: 1. he said the FBI has adequate resources to conduct the investigation and that Comey hadn't requested more".

You lie. What he said was that he was "Not Aware" of Comey asking for extra resources. But then lying is standard procedure for Wyatt/bad anonymous who says "there are many situations where its apropriate to lie".

The truth is others have verified and Trump knew that Comey asked for more resources for the Russia/trump investigation because he's been uncovering more troubling evidence.

Comey started getting intelligence briefings every day instead of once a week in order to keep up with the increasing pace of the Trump/Russia investigation. Subpoenas have gone out and grand juries convened.

Trump was obviously scared of what the investigation was going to turn up and that's why he fired Comey now.

If he really was thinking Comey was doing a poor job he would have fired him back when Trump took office.
Trump was praising Comey up until a week ago and had said Comey had his full confidence. Trump saw Comey was trying to redeem himself after tipping the election to Trump and was crapping his pants.


There's only one possible reason for him to decide to fire Comey now - he saw the investigation heating up and Comey asking for more resources to pour into the investigation and he knew he had something to hide and he wanted to disrupt the investigation.

Trump will now appoint a loyalist to the FBI who will fire key people involved in the Russia/Trump investigation to derail it.

May 12, 2017 1:00 AM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Wyatt/bad anonymous said ""FBI's acting director rebukes White House claim that the FBI 'lost confidence' in Comey"

obviously, a matter of opinion

and, just as obviously, everyone will say nice things about someone who has had a setback".

No one in the FBI is saying they 'lost confidence' in Comey. Its only Trump and his spokespeople pushing that lie.

And the idea that "everyone will say nice things about someone who has had a setback" is obvious bullshite. Trump praised Michael Flynn repeatedly after he fired him despite Flynn's traitorous behavior but attacked Comey repeatedly. Why? Because Flynn was on his side and Comey wasn't playing ball with Trumps' requests to downplay the investigation.

And now in the interview with Lestor Holt Trump has dropped all pretense that he didn't fire Comey to try to derail the Russia investigation, he's just come right out and admitted it!

He said "When I decided [to fire Comey]I said to myself you know this Russia thing with Trump & Russia is just a made up story".

Even Trump's spokesperson later said "The point is we want this [Russia investigation] to come to its conclusion, we want it to come to its conclusion with integrity[LOL] and we think that we've actually by removing Director Comey taken steps to make that happen". And then she bolted for the door refusing to take any further questions.

We want this to come to its conclusion and by removing director Comey we think we've taken steps to make that happen. That's what she said and hid from questions about why if she really wanted it done with integrity they don't appoint an independent prosecutor.

So, the White house today has dropped the pretext and admitted what the firing of Comey was about - stopping the Russia investigation.

If Trump thought he was innocent he wouldn't be doing that, he'd be happy to let it play out in its own time. He knows that what he's hiding is far more damaging to him than firing Comey and making it blatantly obvious he wants to shut down this investigation. He knows he's better off with people thinking he's crooked than allowing the the investigation to go forward and prove that he is.

May 12, 2017 1:40 AM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Let that sink in. The White house has dropped its pretext, they've come out and said "Yeah, we fired him for the Russia thing, we fired him to stop the Russia thing, to bring the Russia thing to an end, what are you going to do about it?!"

A lot of people are now talking about obstruction of justice. If the president did do what he said he did, if he removed the director of the FBI because he wanted to affect the FBI's investigation into his campaign and his ties with Russia, that's the kind of example you might make up if you were teaching a low level class on obstruction of justice and you wanted to give your young students a crystal clear example what that might look like (in a banana republic where things like that happen).

The remedy for obstruction of justice if committed by a president? There's only one remedy for that which is impeachment.

Lock him up!

Lock him up!

Lock him up!

May 12, 2017 1:52 AM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Wyatt/bad anonymous said "Comey's departure won't affect the Russia investigation at all Comey wasn't an investigator, he was a figurehead".

He was the lead investigator you bozo!

Obviously Trump wouldn't have fired him if he didn't think it would hamper the investigation - he said himself he fired him to stop the Trump/Russia investigation!

The replacement Trump picks is going to be someone who fires key people in the investigation and derails it.

------------------------------------

Remember when Michael Flynn's lawyer said "General Flynn certainly has a story to tell, and he very much wants to tell it, should the circumstances permit."?

Today in the Atlantic magazine:

"I think he's worried about Flynn," said one source close to the White House, referring to Trump's former National Security Adviser who has offered to testify before Congress. [Trump] has questioned whether or not he should have fired Flynn. They don't know what Flynn's going to say.".

No wonder Trump is still praising Flynn and denigrating Comey.

May 12, 2017 2:15 AM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Senator Ron Wyden Senate Intelligence Committee "I believe key to a successful investigation is following the money. The treasury department is responsible for other programs and investigations that may uncover suspicions financial activities by Donald Trump and his associates. It is already a matter of public record that entities associated with Donald Trump have been the subject of millions of dollars in fines for willful and repeated and longstanding violations of anti-money laundering laws.

Information about Donald Trumps finances, his family and his associates may lead to Russia".

May 12, 2017 2:32 AM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

A poll came out today and a majority of Americans say the firing if James Comey wasn't appropriate and a majority of Americans say they feel less confident that the Russia/Trump investigation will be conducted fairly.

Trump and his spokeswoman have said they fired Comey to put an end to the Russia investigation - the Whitehouse by law has no say in when an investigation should come to an end.

May 12, 2017 2:57 AM  
Anonymous Trump supporter at the beach said...

https://www.facebook.com/NoriaAlward/videos/vb.100001404753761/1380882201968592/?type=2&theater

May 12, 2017 7:46 AM  
Anonymous good anonymous said...

"Every election has a popular vote"

no, it doesn't

for a vote to legitimately be considered a popular election, it has to be understood that the total votes cast will determine the winner of the election

in our presidential election process, each state elects representatives that then elect the President

people may choose to not vote if their state doesn't look competitive, even though the election is competitive from a national perspective

those same people, who didn't vote, would probably choose to do so if a national popular vote was being held

in the most recent election, it's probable that Trump would have won because the states that were overwhelming were predominantly Dem, especially California where the Presidential election wasn't competitive but there was no GOP Senate candidate on the ballot

10% of Americans live in California so the difference could have easily exceeded 3 million

it's really simple, and Dems show contempt for our country by lying about it

btw, Trump is probably right that illegal immigrants voted in the election, although I doubt if the number was as high as 3 million

May 12, 2017 9:16 AM  
Anonymous LMAO said...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2017/05/12/trump-threatens-to-cancel-white-house-briefings-because-it-is-not-possible-to-always-tell-the-truth/

May 12, 2017 9:44 AM  
Anonymous Nixon II said...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2017/05/12/trump-suggests-there-may-be-tapes-of-his-private-conversations-with-former-fbi-director/

May 12, 2017 9:47 AM  
Anonymous good anonymous said...

"As Sally Yates testified, it wasn't innnocuous, beyond the lying his underlying behavior was problematic and cause for grave concern"

what behavior was "problematic and cause for grave concern"?

an incoming administration appropriately has introductions with other governments and let's them know if they intend to follow any new policy direction

that's the only thing that's happened

"That's why Flynn lied about it, he knew his meetings and calls were crooked"

well, since his "meetings and calls" were monitored and leaked, let us know how they were "crooked"

what was illegally leaked to the public doesn't meet that standard

"The truth is others have verified and Trump knew that Comey asked for more resources"

show us where someone has verified that

the acting director testified that they had adequate resources, of course they do, the whole lie is ridiculous

the truth is when people get fired, there are multiple reasons

there is rarely one reason

Comey said himself, just yesterday, that the FBI director serves at the pleasure of the President

Dems have called for him to be fired for months

there are so many reasons

developments in just the last week:

1. the second in command at the Justice Dept, that would be Comey's direct supervisor, who was just confirmed by Congress two weeks ago because of shenanigans from Dem "resisters" in Congress, finished his assessment of Comey's performance and recommended he be fired

2. on the day Comey was fired, the FBI had to send a memo to Congress rescinding his testimony earlier in the week before Congress because it was fraudulent (I guess that will help him escape a perjury charge)

3. both Susan Yates and James Clapper testified that the FBI had questioned neither of them concerning the only definitive felony committed by anyone in this whole matter: the leaking of classified information regarding a phone call of Gen Flynn; further, Comey testified that he had no intention of investigating the many leaks of classified information that occurred around the time of the transition

4. it was learned that last July when Comey detailed the case against Hillary Clinton and then announced that he would not recommend prosecution, he wasn't asked to do so by Loretta Lynch, as had previously been assumed; it's the only time in history an FBI director had made a prosecution decision for the justice department; it was the only time in history the justice department said they were not going to prosecute someone and explained in detail why they could do so if they chose to

May 12, 2017 11:10 AM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

LOL, Wyatt/bad anonymous is desperately spinning but its so unconvincing.

Right now Trump is like a drug dealer who hears the cops at the door and is desperately trying to flush the drugs down the toilet.

May 12, 2017 1:53 PM  
Anonymous good anonymous said...

Obamacare: the AFFORDABLE healthcare act

Obama's raking in 6 figures for speeches to big bankers and laughing his fool head off!!

http://money.cnn.com/2017/05/10/news/economy/aetna-obamacare/index.html?iid=hp-stack-dom

May 12, 2017 1:55 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Right now Trump is like a drug dealer who hears the cops at the door and is desperately trying to flush the drugs down the toilet"

actually, he's like the chief of police who has just fired a rogue, corrupt cop

May 12, 2017 1:58 PM  
Anonymous good anonymous said...

Priya can't handle facts

here they are again:

1. the second in command at the Justice Dept, that would be Comey's direct supervisor, who was just confirmed by Congress two weeks ago because of shenanigans from Dem "resisters" in Congress, finished his assessment of Comey's performance and recommended he be fired

2. on the day Comey was fired, the FBI had to send a memo to Congress rescinding his testimony earlier in the week before Congress because it was fraudulent (I guess that will help him escape a perjury charge)

3. both Susan Yates and James Clapper testified that the FBI had questioned neither of them concerning the only definitive felony committed by anyone in this whole matter: the leaking of classified information regarding a phone call of Gen Flynn; further, Comey testified that he had no intention of investigating the many leaks of classified information that occurred around the time of the transition

4. it was learned that last July when Comey detailed the case against Hillary Clinton and then announced that he would not recommend prosecution, he wasn't asked to do so by Loretta Lynch, as had previously been assumed; it's the only time in history an FBI director had made a prosecution decision for the justice department; it was the only time in history the justice department said they were not going to prosecute someone and explained in detail why they could do so if they chose to

bonus fact: the media is lying - Comey didn't request more money for the investigation and his departure did not halt the FBI investigation

May 12, 2017 2:01 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

LOL, poor Wyatt/bad anonymous.

Can't even convince himself of his bullshite so he just impotently repeats it.

"WASHINGTON (AP) - Hillary Clinton received nearly 2.9 million more votes than President-elect Donald Trump, giving her the largest popular vote margin of any "losing" presidential candidate.

Even with the FBI and Russia colluding to interfere in the election to favour Trump and Republican politicians wide spread suppression of minority voters (who typically vote Democrat) Trump still lost the popular vote! Imagine if there had been a fair election!

Trumped barely eked out a win by 78,000 votes in three states.

Donald Trump is the most illegitimate president in U.S. history.


Comey was trying to redeem himself with the Russia/trump investigation after he treated Clinton unfairly. That's why Trump fired Comey

Trump himelf said it was his decision alone to fire Comey and said it had nothing to do with the Deputy Attorney General's suggestion he be fired for mistreating Hillary, he admitted it was because he wanted to end the Russia investigation.


He said "When I decided [to fire Comey]I said to myself you know this Russia thing with Trump & Russia is just a made up story".

Even Trump's spokesperson later said "The point is we want this [Russia investigation] to come to its conclusion, we want it to come to its conclusion with integrity[LOL] and we think that we've actually by removing Director Comey taken steps to make that happen". And then she bolted for the door refusing to take any further questions.

We want this to come to its conclusion and by removing director Comey we think we've taken steps to make that happen. That's what she said and hid from questions about why if she really wanted it done with integrity they don't appoint an independent prosecutor.

So, the White house today has dropped the pretext and admitted what the firing of Comey was about - stopping the Russia investigation.

May 12, 2017 2:21 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

You're so impotent and pathetic Wyatt/bad anonymous.

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!

Remember, Wyatt/bad anonymous said the sole reason he voted for Trump was to have an anti-gay Supreme court justice appointed.

He said he feared Trump would destroy the Republic but he felt destroying the Republic was a worthwhile trade-off for getting more oppression of innocent LGBT people.

Wyatt/bad anonymous is a truly deranged and evil self-loathing gay.

May 12, 2017 2:24 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Wyatt/bad anonymous said "bonus fact: the media is lying - Comey didn't request more money for the investigation and his departure did not halt the FBI investigation".

No, you're lying. Contrary to your claim that Mccabe said Comey had not asked for more resources, he said he was "NOT AWARE" of the request. Others have confirmed that Comey did ask for more resources as new evidence keeps coming in about how wide the corruption of the Trump campaign is.

And Trump and his spokespeople admitted the reason for firing Comey was to end the Russia/Trump investigation. Obviously they knew firing him would disrupt the investigation.

Mccabe is still getting up to speed. There's a lot going on in the Russia investigation. He'll gradually be confirming everything Comey said as he wades through the mountain of evidence showing the collusion with Russia to hack the American election.

May 12, 2017 2:31 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Wyatt/bad anonymous is really reluctant to give up on his lies even after they've been repeatedly debunked.

Because lies is all he has.

May 12, 2017 2:32 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"an incoming administration appropriately has introductions with other governments and let's them know if they intend to follow any new policy direction

that's the only thing that's happened"


Another bullshit lie.

The Pussy Grabber said during the campaign at a July 2016 debate with Clinton, "Russia, if you're listening, I hope you're able to find the 30,000 e-mails that are missing."

The Pussy Grabber also said at an October 2016 rally in Pensylvania "I love Wikileaks" which everyone knows publishes whatever Russia feeds it. Wikileaks steadily released a series of emails from the Democratic National Committee and Clinton campaign chairman. Trump repeatedly brought up the emails hacked by Russia and published by WikiLeaks, encouraged his supporters to see them for themselves, and also described several revelations inaccurately. His InfoWars "Performance Artists," who Trump praised as having an "amazing" reputation turned some of those emails into a conspiracy theories, one of which involved Comet Pizza in DC and led to gunfire inside the restaurant. In fact from Oct. 10 through Nov. 8, 2016, Trump mentioned the Russian mouthpiece Wikileaks more than 100 times.

And of course, what went on behind closed doors that Flynn wants immunity to discuss remains unknown, however, documents have been subpoenaed.

May 12, 2017 2:34 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

So much for Wyatt/bad anonymous's repeated and adamant insistence that I've got "nothing worthwhile to say" and "it'll be a cold day in hell before I ever respond to another one of your inane comments".

He's got as much self-control as the pussy grabbing Putin puppet.

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!

May 12, 2017 2:35 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Wyatt/bad anonymous said "an incoming administration appropriately has introductions with other governments and let's them know if they intend to follow any new policy direction".

No, that's not at all appropriate until they actually are in office. Its against the law for a private person to undermine the policy of the president which is what Flynn the private citizen did when he contacted the Russian ambassador to tell him Trump would remove the sanctions before Trump was in power - Flynn broke the law and that's why he's now seeking immunity to spill the beans on Trump.

As Sally Yates said, this went beyond Flynn lying about having held those phone calls, his underlying behavior was problematic and cause for grave concern. It was gross incompetence at best or collusion at worst that Trump didn't fire Flynn for 18 days after he was informed of his improper and probably illegal actions.

May 12, 2017 2:40 PM  
Anonymous good anonymous said...

"WASHINGTON (AP) - Hillary Clinton received nearly 2.9 million more votes than President-elect Donald Trump, giving her the largest popular vote margin of any "losing" presidential candidate."

it's kind of like Miracle on 34th St

you remember, the judge had to admit Santa Claus exists because the U.S. Postal Service said so

similarly, Priya think the greatest country in the world had a popular election because AP says so

in order for their to be a popular vote, Americans have to be informed we are having one

they weren't told that

they were told we were having our usual electoral college procedure

btw, Priya, Santa Claus did exist but he died 1800 years ago in Greece and he didn't go down chimneys and leave presents, he threw bags of gold into the windows of poor children while they slept; he once punched a priest in the face at an ecclesiastical council over a theological dispute

similarly, we did have an election in November but it wasn't a popular one; Dems have gotten violent over political disputes

"Even with the FBI and Russia colluding to interfere in the election"

other than a nasty transgendered individual in Canada, no one believes that

"Trumped barely eked out a win by 78,000 votes in three states"

yet, that's better than Hillary did in those states and they are traditionally Dem strongholds

his victory scares the hell out of Dems

"Comey was trying to redeem himself with the Russia/trump investigation after he treated Clinton unfairly"

very amusing fantasy

what do the other inmates at the asylum think?

"he wanted to end the Russia investigation"

who doesn't?

Americans are sick of the fruitless witch hunt

May 12, 2017 2:43 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

I posted "Trump wanted to end the Russia investigation"

Wyatt/bad anonymous said "who doesn't? Americans are sick of the fruitless witch hunt".

Wrong. The most recent polling shows the majority of Americans think the firing of Comey was inappropriate and that this will mean the Trump/Russia investigation won't be conducted fairly. If I remember correctly 65% of Americans want the Trump/Russia investigation to procede.

Its not for Trump to decide when the investigation should end, that's strictly the purview of the people conducting the investigation - that's called "checks and balances", something you your constitution that you're so ignorant of. How incredibly pathetic that a Canadian has to educate you on your constitution.

And obviously you haven't the slightest clue how fruitful the investigation is as now, unlike was the case with the Hillary email investigation, the FBI isn't discussing what they've found as is Justice Department policy.

May 12, 2017 2:59 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

The New York Times reports:

"Only seven days after Donald J. Trump was sworn in as president, James B. Comey has told associates, the F.B.I. director was summoned to the White House for a one-on-one dinner with the new commander in chief. The conversation that night in January, Mr. Comey now believes, was a harbinger of his downfall this week as head of the F.B.I., according to two people who have heard his account of the dinner.

As they ate, the president and Mr. Comey made small talk about the election and the crowd sizes at Mr. Trump’s rallies. The president then turned the conversation to whether Mr. Comey would pledge his loyalty to him. Mr. Comey declined to make that pledge. Instead, Mr. Comey has recounted to others, he told Mr. Trump that he would always be honest with him, but that he was not “reliable” in the conventional political sense.

By Mr. Comey’s account, his answer to Mr. Trump’s initial question apparently did not satisfy the president, the associates said. Later in the dinner, Mr. Trump again said to Mr. Comey that he needed his loyalty. Mr. Comey again replied that he would give him “honesty” and did not pledge his loyalty, according to the account of the conversation."

From the Washington Post:

"Trump would have known what Comey’s answer would be if he had taken the time to understand the oath taken by FBI officers — and members of the military for that matter. Those oaths are taken to the Constitution and not the president for a very specific reason. Right there on its website, the FBI says the bureau and its officials must only swear an oath to the Constitution — not even a president. The reason? Because the latter “too easily leads to tyranny.”."

Trump fired Comey because after last weeks testimony he realized Comey wasn't going to shut down the Russia/trump investigation. Trump fired him so he could put his own lap-dog in place who would shut it down.

May 12, 2017 3:04 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

People who have nothing to fear from the Trump/Russia investigation aren't afraid to let it play out in due course and go where the facts lead.

That's why Trump and his supporters like Wyatt/bad anonymous are desperate to put an end to it as soon as possible.

May 12, 2017 3:06 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The Troll is all over you like a cheap suit, Priya Lynn,

You go, girl!

"in order for their [sic] to be a popular vote, Americans have to be informed we are having one"

How stupid do you think Americans are?

Don't you think Americans realize every individual's vote gets counted and then the popular winner of each state (winners in some states) determines how the Electors will vote for that state?

Yeah, sure it's the Electoral Ratings that determine who wins the presidency but that doesn't mean there isn't a popular vote count for every American election.

Now for the fifth time since America's founding, a President has been elected in spite of the fact fewer Americans voted for him than voted for the other candidate.

Donnie Boy should be proud of himself for what he's done.

After all, THE PUSSY GRABBER LOST THE POPULAR VOTE BY A BIGGER MARGIN, BELIEVE ME, THAN ANYBODY ELSE, WHO MANAGED TO WIN THE PRESIDENCY ANYWAY.

Priya Lynn said:

"People who have nothing to fear from the Trump/Russia investigation aren't afraid to let it play out in due course and go where the facts lead.

That's why Trump and his supporters like Wyatt/bad anonymous are desperate to put an end to it as soon as possible."


Bingo!

May 12, 2017 3:23 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

If Trump wants to expedite the Trump/Russia investigation he can start by releasing all the documents requested relating to Flynn's time in his government instead of refusing to provide even one. Not to mention that he can release his tax returns and all the other documents requested that show his ties with Russia and where he has his loans and where he gets all his income.

I posted "Trump wanted to end the Russia investigation"

Wyatt/bad anonymous said "who doesn't? Americans are sick of the fruitless witch hunt".

I said "Wrong. The most recent polling shows the majority of Americans think the firing of Comey was inappropriate and that this will mean the Trump/Russia investigation won't be conducted fairly. If I remember correctly 65% of Americans want the Trump/Russia investigation to proceed."

It was 64% of Americans who say there should be an investigation into Trump/Russia

"When pressed, people who say they’re unsure about the issue generally support an investigation. With no “undecided” option given, Americans say by a 28-point margin, 64 percent to 36 percent, that the FBI’s investigation into possible ties between Trump’s associates and Russian government officials is necessary."

May 12, 2017 3:25 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Good anonymous said "The Troll is all over you like a cheap suit, Priya Lynn,

You go, girl!".

Thanks!

You're doing great work, I and all lovers of truth much appreciate your efforts!

May 12, 2017 3:29 PM  
Anonymous good anonymous said...

"Wrong. The most recent polling shows the majority of Americans think the firing of Comey was inappropriate and that this will mean the Trump/Russia investigation won't be conducted fairly. If I remember correctly 65% of Americans want the Trump/Russia investigation to procede"

***bad spelling alert***

I doubt that poll is correct

I live in the most liberal state in America, and I don't think that's what people want

but, if it's true, people will have a chance to remove Trump in 2020

have a feeling that won't be happening

"Its not for Trump to decide when the investigation should end, that's strictly the purview of the people conducting the investigation"

actually, they work for Trump

"that's called "checks and balances", something you your constitution that you're so ignorant of. How incredibly pathetic that a Canadian has to educate you on your constitution"

how pathetic are Canadians in general

the phrase "checks and balances" refers to the three branches of government

if the President is suspected of wrongdoing, the check and balance is that Congress will investigate and, if they find sufficient evidence, they can impeach him

the impeachment trial would then be presided over by the chief justice of the SCOTUS

it was probably OK for Comey to investigate Russian interference but anything he happens across pertaining to the President should be handed over to Congress

that way, the president couldn't just end the investigation by firing the FBI director and installing his own person

that's how the checks and balances work, not by creating a rogue actor who is accountable to no one

btw, there is no evidence for Comey to turn over

the only crime that's been committed is when someone made a classified report on Gen Flynn public

Comey should have pursued this threat to our national interests

"And obviously you haven't the slightest clue how fruitful the investigation is as now, unlike was the case with the Hillary email investigation, the FBI isn't discussing what they've found as is Justice Department policy"

problem is, Comey violated that policy repeatedly, which is among the reasons he had to go

""Trump would have known what Comey’s answer would be if he had taken the time to understand the oath taken by FBI officers — and members of the military for that matter. Those oaths are taken to the Constitution and not the president for a very specific reason. Right there on its website, the FBI says the bureau and its officials must only swear an oath to the Constitution — not even a president. The reason? Because the latter “too easily leads to tyranny.”."

Comey himself said yesterday he serves at the pleasure of the President

members of the military understand who the commander-in-chief is

unless Trump instructs them to violate the Constitution, they are obligated to follow his orders

"Trump fired Comey because after last weeks testimony he realized Comey wasn't going to shut down the Russia/trump investigation. Trump fired him so he could put his own lap-dog in place who would shut it down."

I would hope so. An investigation of Trump, if necessary, belongs to the Congress. There were multiple justifications for dismissing Comey

"People who have nothing to fear from the Trump/Russia investigation aren't afraid to let it play out in due course and go where the facts lead."

oh. please

this comment is the epitome of ignorance

these endless investigations into nothing are damaging to innocent people

not to mention a country that needs to move on

we need to plan our invasion of Canada

and find a real hard-line conservative to replace Kennedy on the SCOTUS

to quote Ella Fitzgerald: "the best is yet to come"


May 12, 2017 3:34 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

You are very welcome.

"You're doing great work, I and all lovers of truth much appreciate your efforts!"

Ditto!

May 12, 2017 3:35 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"people will have a chance to remove Trump in 2020"

LMAO

My money's on impeachment long before then.

May 12, 2017 3:37 PM  
Anonymous TTF wants to know how stupid they are said...

"How stupid do you think Americans are?"

it's hard to generalize

but you're pretty stupid

are you an American?

"Don't you think Americans realize every individual's vote gets counted and then the popular winner of each state (winners in some states) determines how the Electors will vote for that state?"

millions of people who would have voted for Trump stayed home because the electoral college structure meant their votes wouldn't affect the outcome

that wouldn't be true if we had a national popular vote

you fully understand what I'm saying and you know it's true

"Yeah, sure it's the Electoral Ratings that determine who wins the presidency but that doesn't mean there isn't a popular vote count for every American election."

actually, it does

the announced rules necessarily affect voter behavior

you fully understand what I'm saying and you know it's true

"Now for the fifth time since America's founding, a President has been elected in spite of the fact fewer Americans voted for him than voted for the other candidate."

that's meaningless because millions were eligible to vote who didn't because it wasn't a national popular vote

May 12, 2017 3:42 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

I said "People who have nothing to fear from the Trump/Russia investigation aren't afraid to let it play out in due course and go where the facts lead."
Wyatt/bad anonymous said "oh. please these endless investigations into nothing are damaging to innocent people".

LOL, innocent people have nothing to fear from this investigation. Its the guilty ones who are worried.

Hahahahahahahahahahaahahahahaha!


Let's not forget, it took two years for the Watergate investigation to lead to the ouster of Nixon and this is MUCH BIGGER than that!

Also, unlike then, now you have Republican majorities in the House and Senate who are trying to prevent any serious investigation from taking place.

May 12, 2017 3:44 PM  
Anonymous good anonymous said...

"My money's on impeachment long before then"

just the kind of fool who contributed billions to Hillary and Jeb

May 12, 2017 3:47 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"millions of people who would have voted for Trump stayed home because the electoral college structure meant their votes wouldn't affect the outcome"

Another bullshit lie.

That's just the "millions" of voices inside your head.

May 12, 2017 3:50 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"LOL, innocent people have nothing to fear from this investigation. Its the guilty ones who are worried.

Hahahahahahahahahahaahahahahaha!


Let's not forget, it took two years for the Watergate investigation to lead to the ouster of Nixon and this is MUCH BIGGER than that!"

as anyone knows who was around during Watergate, the country suffered greatly

but in Watergate, it was clear from the beginning that someone committed a crime

here, that's not true

there is no evidence any crime occurred at all

Also, unlike then, now you have Republican majorities in the House and Senate who are trying to prevent any serious investigation from taking place.

May 12, 2017 3:55 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

And let's not forget the eight Republican committees investigating Benghazi over four years when it was obvious after the fourth or five one no new ground was being covered.

Now hypocrites like Wyatt/bad anonymous want to stop the Russia investigations before a single one has been completed and after less than a year.

And this is not just far bigger than the nothing burger of Benghazi, its far bigger than Watergate!

May 12, 2017 3:57 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Wyatt/bad anonymous said "that's meaningless because millions were eligible to vote who didn't because it wasn't a national popular vote".

First, Bullshite.

Second, Hillary won the popular vote by 2%. If more people would have voted she would have won the additional voters by 2% as well which would have made the margin of her winning the popular vote even larger.


Third, the polls before the election take into account people who don't vote and the average of polls had her winning by 2% which is the margin she won by.

Anyway you slice it Hillary won the popular vote and no amount of "If more people had voted for Trump she wouldn't have" wishful thinking is going to change that.

Suck it up, in the spirit of Democracy Hillary is president.

May 12, 2017 4:03 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"And let's not forget the eight Republican committees investigating Benghazi over four years when it was obvious after the fourth or five one no new ground was being covered"

oh, I agree

it was known pretty quickly what happened

Hillary and Obama lied to cover themselves and wound up exacerbating violence around the Muslim

people died because of their lie

but, I never understood what the committees were looking into

"Now hypocrites want to stop the Russia investigations before a single one has been completed and after less than a year"

oh, I agree the Congressional ones should finish their work

until that idiot Trump did this, everyone had pretty much lost interest

"And this is not just far bigger than the nothing burger of Benghazi, its far bigger than Watergate!"

actually, this is nothing but it's worth having Congress consider how to defend against cyber war

"First, Bullshite"

I know I should have gotten more sleep but I'm not getting this play on words

"Second, Hillary won the popular vote by 2%. If more people would have voted she would have won the additional voters by 2% as well which would have made the margin of her winning the popular vote even larger."

not true, the states with large margins were disproportionately Dem

California alone likely would have made the difference

"Third, the polls before the election take into account people who don't vote and the average of polls had her winning by 2% which is the margin she won by."

but these polls had her winning in Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania

they showed trump was hopeless in those states

the polls were obviously wrong

"Anyway you slice it Hillary won the popular vote and no amount of "If more people had voted for Trump she wouldn't have" wishful thinking is going to change that."

no, it doesn't change it because there's nothing to change

it isn't true

we didn't have a popular vote

"Suck it up, in the spirit of Democracy Hillary is president"

really? let's see your poll showing Americans agree

May 12, 2017 4:26 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"really? let's see your poll showing Americans agree"

Ah yeah, sure.

This request is from the Troll who can't even cite any source for countless bullshit lies posted on Vigilance.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s2FCswTm-q4

May 12, 2017 4:39 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

being associated with transgenders is very unpopular:

http://www.msn.com/en-us/lifestyle/whats-hot/caitlyn-dropped-in-popularity-more-than-any-other-baby-name-in-2016/ar-BBB3N0R?OCID=ansmsnnews11

May 12, 2017 4:41 PM  
Anonymous Independent Special Prosecutor said...

"oh, I agree the Congressional ones should finish their work

until that idiot Trump did this, everyone had pretty much lost interest"


And what did he hear was coming this week that piqued his interest in the FBI's Russia/Trump campaign investigation again?

Grand jury subpoenas issued in FBI Russia probe: report

"...The subpoenas are a significant escalation of the FBI’s broader investigation into possible ties between Russia and President Trump’s 2016 campaign.
The news of subpoenas comes on the same night that Trump fired FBI Director James Comey...."

May 12, 2017 4:46 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"being associated with transgenders is very unpopular:"

Yet you hang around here, getting shite on by Priya Lynn, day after day.

Hmmmmmm

May 12, 2017 4:48 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Wyatt

May 12, 2017 4:57 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Wyatt/bad anonymous said "it was learned that last July when Comey detailed the case against Hillary Clinton and then announced that he would not recommend prosecution, he wasn't asked to do so by Loretta Lynch, as had previously been assumed; it's the only time in history an FBI director had made a prosecution decision for the justice department; it was the only time in history the justice department said they were not going to prosecute someone and explained in detail why they could do so if they chose to".

First, let's deal with your lie, no one in the Justice department said they could prosecute Hillary. And what they explained is that they couldn't do so, not that they could, because no crime had been committed.

The reason the Deputy Attorney General gave for firing Comey was that it is not justice department policy to give a press conference denegrating the subject of a declined prosecution and that Comey should not have spoke about more emails and said the investigation was being re-opened 11 days before the election, that Justice Department policy is not to discuss ongoing investigations in public.

We all pointed out that was wrong at the time and you furiously denied there was anything wrong with it. And initially Trump and his people said he fired Comey based on the recommendation of the Deputy attorney general.

Both you and Trump's people complaining about how Comey treated Hillary unfairly and laughably claiming that's why he was fired - thats a good one!

Back at the time when we were telling you Comey hadn't handled this according to Justice Department policy both you, Trump, and his people furiously denied there was anything wrong with what Comey had done. You were all praising Comey effusively and claiming Lynch was in the bag for Hillary.

Now you want to pretend Comey was fired for not treating Clinton fairly and imply that somehow Comey prevented Lynch from prosecuting her, it doesn't pass the laugh test.

You're hilarious Wyatt/bad anonymous!

Hahahahahahahahahahahahaahaha!

May 12, 2017 9:12 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Wyatt/bad anonymous said "we didn't have a popular vote".

Every election has a popular vote. Trump lost it by almost 3 million. I'm sorry reality is so painful for you.

I said "Suck it up, in the spirit of Democracy Hillary is president"

Wyatt/bad anonymous said "really? let's see your poll showing Americans agree".

The polls just before the election showed Hillary leading Trump by an average of 2%. The election backed up those polls with Hillary winning the popular vote by 2%. Reality won't go away just because you pretend it didn't happen. You're not even fooling yourself on this one.

Suck it up buttercup, in the spirit of Democracy Hillary is president - Trump "won" on a technicality.

May 12, 2017 9:16 PM  
Anonymous Captain Obvious said...

Man, for a guy who claims he's innocent, Trump sure is going out of his way to look like a guy who has something to hide.

Keep it up Pumpkin Head! You're doing great!

May 12, 2017 10:20 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Good anonymous said "Man, for a guy who claims he's innocent, Trump sure is going out of his way to look like a guy who has something to hide.".

LOL, I know, right!

Bookmakers spike Trump impeachment odds to 60%

May 13, 2017 1:53 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"First, let's deal with your lie, no one in the Justice department said they could prosecute Hillary. And what they explained is that they couldn't do so, not that they could, because no crime had been committed."

you're lying

Comey, speaking as a surrogate for the Justice Dept, gave a detailed explanation of her crimes and then said he didn't recommend prosecution, in this "context"

in other words, because she was the presidential nominee of a major party

"The reason the Deputy Attorney General gave for firing Comey was that it is not justice department policy to give a press conference denegrating the subject of a declined prosecution and that Comey should not have spoke about more emails and said the investigation was being re-opened 11 days before the election, that Justice Department policy is not to discuss ongoing investigations in public."

I didn't read his memo but this sounds correct

one thing that came to light last week was that Loretta Lynch had not delegated this to Comey, as had been the common perception

this makes sense though

if it had to be delegated because Lynch had compromised herself by secretly meeting with Bill Clinton, she likely would have asked her deputy attorney general

of course, she didn't object to Comey's overreach

likely because Dems were so thrilled with Comey's action, at that point

"We all pointed out that was wrong at the time and you furiously denied there was anything wrong with it."

at what time, liar?

these are two different events, months apart

in the first instance, when he laid out the case against Hillary and then recommended against prosecution, I objected

TTFers didn't point out that was wrong, they were singing hosannas and falsely claiming he had declared Hillary innocent

in the second case, I pointed out that it was necessary since he had already inserted himself into the campaign in the first instance and because he had promised Congress to inform them if any further evidence came to his attention

overall, however, he had acted improperly by making himself an independent and rogue agent

he is a member of the executive branch and works for the Chief Executive, who was elected and is accountable to the American people

May 13, 2017 7:18 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"And initially Trump and his people said he fired Comey based on the recommendation of the Deputy attorney general."

it was as good an explanation as any

the deputy AG was his boss

"Both you and Trump's people complaining about how Comey treated Hillary unfairly and laughably claiming that's why he was fired - thats a good one!"

I didn't say that although he did lie to Congress about her this week and the FBI had to rescind his testimony because it was false

but my overall objection is his attempt to create a public role for himself

his work should be discreet

"Back at the time when we were telling you Comey hadn't handled this according to Justice Department policy both you, Trump, and his people furiously denied there was anything wrong with what Comey had done. You were all praising Comey effusively and claiming Lynch was in the bag for Hillary."

this is the epitome of disingenuousness by conflating all the different antics of Comey

both Dems and Pachyderms said he was a great guy at times and, at other times, said he was horrendous

right he has become the face of a project that Dems desperately want to pursue regardless of any facts: impeachment

unfortunately for you, Trump has done nothing illegal

"Now you want to pretend Comey was fired for not treating Clinton fairly and imply that somehow Comey prevented Lynch from prosecuting her, it doesn't pass the laugh test."

you've simply made that up

I think Comey acted improperly in several instances, although the idea of "fairness" to Hillary was never mentioned by me

I've never believed Lynch had any intention of prosecuting Hillary

that's likely why she didn't object to his taking over her job last summer

she got what she wants without taking the heat for the decision

May 13, 2017 7:18 AM  
Anonymous good anonymous said...

"Every election has a popular vote. Trump lost it by almost 3 million."

we didn't actually have a national election

we had over fifty elections to choose the people from each state who would select the President

to add up the votes in all these elections and call that a national popular vote is erroneous

they are millions of eligible voters whose votes didn't matter so they chose not to vote and who probably would have had we had a national ppopular election

reality doesn't correlate to the Dems chosen propaganda

crazy Priya said "Suck it up, in the spirit of Democracy Hillary is president"

good anonymous said "really? let's see your poll showing Americans agree".

"The polls just before the election showed Hillary leading Trump by an average of 2%. The election backed up those polls with Hillary winning the popular vote by 2%."

ah, but those polls were clearly wrong as they had Hillary winning several states that she lost

"Man, for a guy who claims he's innocent, Trump sure is going out of his way to look like a guy who has something to hide."

he's always on the defensive

I agree it's not an attractive quality

but, unfortunately middle America seemed to like that about him

"innocent people have nothing to fear from this investigation. Its the guilty ones who are worried"

this is a statement ignorant of history

the last time there were Congressional hearings that presumed everyone who talked to Russians was guilty and needed to be interrogated was the McCarthy hearings in the 1950s and the damage to innocent people is well documented

May 13, 2017 7:36 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Parents aren’t naming their baby boys 'Donald' anymore

May 13, 2017 8:06 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Comey, speaking as a surrogate for the Justice Dept, gave a detailed explanation of her crimes and then said he didn't recommend prosecution, in this "context"

in other words, because she was the presidential nominee of a major party"


You are mistaken. The fact she was the presidential nominee of a major party was not his reason for not recommending prosecution. It was his reason for making his recommendation in disinfecting day light via a very public disclosure.

From the transcript of the July 5, 2016 Statement by FBI Director James B. Comey on the Investigation of Secretary Hillary Clinton’s Use of a Personal E-Mail System:

Comey's explanation for making his recommendation public in July 2016:

"...This will be an unusual statement in at least a couple ways. First, I am going to include more detail about our process than I ordinarily would, because I think the American people deserve those details in a case of intense public interest. Second, I have not coordinated or reviewed this statement in any way with the Department of Justice or any other part of the government. They do not know what I am about to say...."

Comey's explanation of his recommendation not to prosecute:

"...Although we did not find clear evidence that Secretary Clinton or her colleagues intended to violate laws governing the handling of classified information, there is evidence that they were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information...

...In this case, given the importance of the matter, I think unusual transparency is in order.

Although there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information, our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case. Prosecutors necessarily weigh a number of factors before bringing charges. There are obvious considerations, like the strength of the evidence, especially regarding intent. Responsible decisions also consider the context [this is the only time the word "context" appears in this statement] of a person’s actions, and how similar situations have been handled in the past.

In looking back at our investigations into mishandling or removal of classified information, we cannot find a case that would support bringing criminal charges on these facts. All the cases prosecuted involved some combination of: clearly intentional and willful mishandling of classified information; or vast quantities of materials exposed in such a way as to support an inference of intentional misconduct; or indications of disloyalty to the United States; or efforts to obstruct justice. We do not see those things here.

To be clear, this is not to suggest that in similar circumstances, a person who engaged in this activity would face no consequences. To the contrary, those individuals are often subject to security or administrative sanctions. But that is not what we are deciding now.

As a result, although the Department of Justice makes final decisions on matters like this, we are expressing to Justice our view that no charges are appropriate in this case...."

May 13, 2017 8:45 AM  
Anonymous good anonymous said...

well, let me say, I appreciate you saying I'm mistaken rather than lying

in most forums that wouldn't be remarkable but here at TTF it represents rare civility

so, thanks

problem is with his explanation for why he did this is, as he says, he did it without consulting anyone else. going rogue is not appropriate for his position. I think if his conclusion had not been such a relief to Dems, he would have been fired by Obama that day

"...Although we did not find clear evidence that Secretary Clinton or her colleagues intended to violate laws governing the handling of classified information, there is evidence that they were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information...

Although there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information, our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case. Prosecutors necessarily weigh a number of factors before bringing charges. There are obvious considerations, like the strength of the evidence, especially regarding intent."

problem is, intent is not necessary at all to prosecute carelessness in handling classified information. at the time, there were several cases detailed in the media of people who clearly had no intent but who mishandled classified information and were prosecuted and jailed.

"Responsible decisions also consider the context of a person’s actions, and how similar situations have been handled in the past."

I still think the "context" referred to is that she was the presidential nominee of a major party and he thought the crime wasn't serious enough to throw the election into chaos

May 13, 2017 9:24 AM  
Anonymous In Russia, Pussy Grab You! said...

Trump Sics Lawyers on Teen for Making Silly Site Where Kittens Punch Him

Donald Trump has made it clear to the public that he doesn’t like being mocked. Apparently, he won’t even take a punch from a teenager (or a kitten).

Lucy is a 17-year-old from San Francisco who spends her spare time reading at coffee shops, splurging on guac at Chipotle and practicing her tech skills. The high schooler dreams of working at a disruptive tech company and has recently been applying for web development jobs to get an early jump on her career. She wanted a “fun, little” project to put on her resume, so she coded a site called TrumpScratch.com where users click on Donald Trump’s face to punch him with tiny kitten paws.

But what was meant as nothing more than a jokey website for coding practice has turned into a legal nightmare. Now Lucy is facing the wrath of the big man himself.

“I was going to just let this go, but I think it’s, pardon my French, fucking outrageous that the president of the United States has his team scouring the internet for sites like mine to send out cease and desists and legal action claims if we don’t shut down,” Lucy told the Observer in an email. “Meanwhile, he tweets about The Apprentice ratings and sends out power-drunk tweets about phone tapping. HOW ABOUT BEING THE PRESIDENT?”

Three weeks after the site went live, Lucy was served a cease and desist letter from Trump’s general counsel stationed in Trump Tower on Fifth Avenue in NYC.

The letter, confirmed by the Observer, reads exactly as you’d expect a Trump C&D would. It begins touting him as a “well-known businessman” and television star and boasts, “As I’m sure you’re aware, the Trump name is internationally known and famous.”

Guided by a family lawyer, Lucy changed the name of the site to KittenFeed.com

“But after changing, they still came at me,” she said.

Lucy is currently enrolled in a coding bootcamp and began learning the skill when she was 16. The site in question is so simple it took her only three hours to code it. But even though it was a quick project, she’s furious out of principle.

“It’s so sad that his administration is focused more on being liked, burying real news and taking down sites like mine as they supposedly make him look bad,” she said.

After changing the name, Lucy and her lawyer haven’t responded to the Trump counsel and are currently waiting to see what happens.

May 13, 2017 9:56 AM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Trump lied that Comey had lost the support of FBI

Trump canceled his planned visit to FBI headquarters. Trump and his people want everyone to believe that Comey had lost the faith of the FBI agents under his authority, which is one excuse for firing him. That he had to cancel his vist disproves that idea. Trump had to cancel it because he would face a hostile reaction from the agents there.

MSNBC’s Peter Alexander was doing a live appearance from the White House when news came in on his phone that the president has canceled his visit, which he intended as a goodwill mission in the wake of dismissing Comey.

“The FBI told the White House the optics would not be good,” Alexander said. “FBI officials apparently said the president was unlikely to be greeted warmly after having just unceremoniously fired a very popular director.”

Andrew McCabe, now the acting director in the wake of Comey’s firing, also told the Senate Intelligence Committee on Thursday that Comey was very popular with those under his charge and still is:

Mr. McCabe rejected the White House’s assertion that Mr. Comey had lost the backing of rank-and-file F.B.I. agents, a pointed rebuke of what had been one of the president’s main defenses for the move.

“Director Comey enjoyed broad support within the F.B.I. and still does to this day,” Mr. McCabe said at the hearing.

“The vast majority of F.B.I. employees enjoyed a deep and positive connection to Director Comey,” he added.

Another lie shot down in flames. Trump having to cancel his planned vist because he'd get a hostile reaction debunks Wyatt/bad anonymous's absurd claim that it was "a matter of opinion" whether or not Trump had the support of FBI emplyees.

May 13, 2017 12:59 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Good anonymous posted Parents aren't naming their baby boys Donald anymore

Contrary to Wyatt/bad anonymous's claim that parents don't like Caitlyn because she's transgender, the real reason they don't like her is because she's an out of touch rich person who voted for Donald Trump and is a hypocritical Republican.

May 13, 2017 1:09 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"the last time there were Congressional hearings that presumed everyone who talked to Russians was guilty and needed to be interrogated was the McCarthy hearings in the 1950s and the damage to innocent people is well documented "

And who gave the pussy grabber his first lessons about politics?

Eugene McCarthy's right hand man, Roy Cohn, that's who.

The man who showed Donald Trump how to exploit power and instill fear

'Village Voice' Reporter Recalls Roy Cohn's Early Influence On Trump

"problem is, intent is not necessary at all to prosecute carelessness in handling classified information. at the time, there were several cases detailed in the media of people who clearly had no intent but who mishandled classified information and were prosecuted and jailed. "

Surprise Vigilance readers by providing documentation and/or links/URLs to these so-called cases "detailed in the media of people who clearly had no intent but who mishandled classified information and were prosecuted and jailed" by the FBI that refute Comey's July 5, 2016 claim:

"In looking back at our investigations into mishandling or removal of classified information, we cannot find a case that would support bringing criminal charges on these facts. All the cases prosecuted involved some combination of: clearly intentional and willful mishandling of classified information; or vast quantities of materials exposed in such a way as to support an inference of intentional misconduct; or indications of disloyalty to the United States; or efforts to obstruct justice. We do not see those things here."

May 13, 2017 1:10 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

I said "Suck it up, in the spirit of Democracy Hillary is president"

Wyatt/bad anonymous said "really? let's see your poll showing Americans agree".

I responded "The polls just before the election showed Hillary leading Trump by an average of 2%. The election backed up those polls with Hillary winning the popular vote by 2%."

Wyatt/bad anonymous said "ah, but those polls were clearly wrong as they had Hillary winning several states that she lost".

Polls of smaller groups of people are less accurate than polls of larger groups of people just as a single poll is less accurate than an average of several polls. Also, the states where Hillary was predicted to win but didn't were very close with Trump barely ekeing out a win by 78,000 votes in 3 states, so its not unusual for those state polls to predict the wrong winner in such a situation.

The much larger more accurate national polls on the other hand predicted a Hillary win by 2% of the votes and she won the popular vote by 2%, so there's your polls showing Americans agree that they liked Hillary more than Trump.

You can fantasize that if it weren't for the unfair electoral college more Trump voters would have shown up at the polls but the same would then be true of Hillary voters and she still would have massively won the popular vote. Further, telephone polls don't require people to go out and vote and aren't affected by people's unwillingness to vote because they think their candidate is going to lose that state - people just express who they want to win.

If your hypothetical was true that in a no electoral college election Trump would have won the popular vote that would have shown up in the polls before election day and Trump would have been leading in the average of polls just before the election and then lost the popular vote as the people who supported trump in the polls didn't show up to vote.

But that wasn't what happened, Hillary lead in the average of polls just before the election by 2% and then won the popular vote by 2%. There was no large mass of discouraged Trump supporters who would have otherwise shown up to vote for him, Trump would have lost the popular vote by 2% electoral college or not.

It would have taken very little for Hillary to have gotten an additional 78,000 votes and been the electoral college winner but it would have taken a great deal for Trump to have gotten an additional 3 million votes and been the popular vote winner.

In Michigan alone Republican voter suppression efforts prevented 200,000 mostly poor black people from voting. If it weren't for Republican voter suppression efforts Hillary would be president.

If it weren't for Russian interference in the election Hillary would be president.

If it weren't for Comey blabbing against departmental policy and talking about the Hillary investigation but not the Trump investigation Hillary would be president.

There are several corrupt and unfair attacks on Hillary that clearly cost her the trivial number of votes she needed to win the the electoral college.

The scenario that has trump getting a huge number of additional votes to win the popular vote isn't credible in any way, its absurd and would have never happened.

The scenarios that have Hillary getting a vanishingly small number of additional votes and being president are many, completely credible, and obvious.

There is no doubt that without any of the situations of corrupt Republican voter suppression efforts, Russian espionage, or Comey's breaking FBI policy, let alone all three combined, Hillary would be president.

Trump is the most illegitimate president ever.

May 13, 2017 1:38 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Wyatt/bad anonymous said "the last time there were Congressional hearings that presumed everyone who talked to Russians was guilty and needed to be interrogated was the McCarthy hearings in the 1950s and the damage to innocent people is well documented".

Americans have learned from that mistake and won't repeat it. Innocuous conversations with the Russians isn't going to be nearly enough for anyone to be prosecuted, its going to take a lot of convincing evidence to do that.

Don't forget, Sally Yates confirmed that it wasn't just Michael Flynn's lying about having spoken to the Russian ambassador about sanctions that was a problem, his underlying behavior was problematic and a grave concern she was shocked Trump didn't act on. If that wasn't the case Flynn wouldn't have felt the need to lie about it and wouldn't be now asking for immunity in exchange for spilling the goods on others in the Trump campaign.

Trump was either grossly incompetent or complicit in waiting 18 days after he was informed of the concerns about Flynn to fire him. And clearly Flynn would still be in his job today if the knowledge of his corruption hadn't been made public by the Washington Post. Trump hasn't stopped praising Flynn and complaining about how he was "unfairly" treated. Flynn the asset of an adversarial Russian government would still be sitting in on the highest level security council meetings and having access to the highest and most sensitive of classified material, a security threat to this day if his misdeeds had been kept secret as Trump wanted.

May 13, 2017 1:51 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Trump having to cancel his planned vist because he'd get a hostile reaction debunks good anonymous's absurd claim that it was "a matter of opinion" whether or not Trump had the support of FBI emplyees"

ah, but it is a matter of opinion

for one thing, it's fallacious to believe all FBI agents think the same thing

clearly, there is significant disgruntlement among agents that Hillary wasn't charged

and, obviously, it is rare for an FBI director to be dismissed so there is naturally a circle-the-wagons mentality that takes over, regardless of what the agents thought prior to Comey's departure

and, as far as cancelling, if just 10% of agents were livid, it would make for a bad event

simpletons like Priya live in a dream world

that's why they are under psychiatric care

"Contrary to claim that parents don't like Caitlyn because she's transgender, the real reason they don't like her is because she's an out of touch rich person who voted for Donald Trump and is a hypocritical Republican"

but all transgenders are out of touch

and Trump is the most gay-friendly Prez ever, so there's that

May 13, 2017 4:27 PM  
Anonymous good ol' anonymous said...

"Polls of smaller groups of people are less ... situation.

The much larger more accurate ... more than Trump.

You can fantasize that ... want to win.

If your hypothetical was ... up to vote.

But that wasn't ... electoral college or not.

It would have taken ... vote winner.

In Michigan ... Hillary would be president."

wow, look at crazy priya go

clearly thinks babbling on will convince someone

"You can fantasize that if it weren't for the unfair electoral college"

I never said the electoral college wasn't fair

I think it's the best way to find a President with widespread support rather regional popularity

I merely pointed out what is readily apparent to anyone with a functioning mind: you can't just add up all the votes in the various states and pretend there was a popular vote

there wasn't, and the electorate would have been different if there had been

"If it weren't for Russian interference in the election Hillary would be president"

what you call "interference" was merely disclosing some uncomfortable truths

the media does the same all the time

Russian activity wasn't any more interfering than the work of the worldwide media

"If it weren't for Comey blabbing against departmental policy and talking about the Hillary investigation but not the Trump investigation Hillary would be president"

he did that?

maybe he should be fired!!

"There are several corrupt and unfair attacks on Hillary that clearly cost her the trivial number of votes she needed to win the the electoral college."

if you can't handle unfair attacks, you're aren't fit for the Presidency

May 13, 2017 4:48 PM  
Anonymous good ol' anonymous said...

good anonymous sagely pointed out "the last time there were Congressional hearings that presumed everyone who talked to Russians was guilty and needed to be interrogated was the McCarthy hearings in the 1950s and the damage to innocent people is well documented".

crazy priya:

"Americans have learned from that mistake and won't repeat it"

apparently not

"Innocuous conversations with the Russians isn't going to be nearly enough for anyone to be prosecuted, its going to take a lot of convincing evidence to do that"

people hurt by McCarthy weren't all prosecuted, their lives were still damaged

just like Flynn

"Don't forget, Sally Yates confirmed that it wasn't just Michael Flynn's lying about having spoken to the Russian ambassador about sanctions that was a problem, his underlying behavior was problematic and a grave concern"

I've asked you what behavior and the crickets just keep on chirping

she's a partisan, like those who supported Mccarthy

evidence is required to accept her word

"If that wasn't the case Flynn wouldn't have felt the need to lie about it"

he only lied to other people in the White House

maybe he was afraid he had overstepped his role or some political crap like that

"and wouldn't be now asking for immunity"

he's smart enough that innocent people get hurt during witch hunts

"in exchange for spilling the goods on others in the Trump campaign"

he obviously has no goods to spill, or he would have gotten immunity

"Trump was either grossly incompetent or complicit in waiting 18 days after he was informed of the concerns about Flynn to fire him"

or he didn't consider him a threat but considered lying to him and Pence as crossing a line that required a response

"Flynn the asset of an adversarial Russian government"

he should sue you

he can't do it hear but Canada isn't subject to NY Times v Sullivan so he could bring you to justice there

May 13, 2017 5:14 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

I said "Don't forget, Sally Yates confirmed that it wasn't just Michael Flynn's lying about having spoken to the Russian ambassador about sanctions that was a problem, his underlying behavior was problematic and a grave concern"

Wyatt/bad anonymous said "I've asked you what behavior and the crickets just keep on chirping".

I don't read all your comments, I missed that one.

The behavior is classified sweetheart.

If you want to know what it is ask Trump to declassify it. I'm sure he thinks its innocuous and he'll jump right on that.

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!

May 14, 2017 2:40 AM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

I said "You can fantasize that if it weren't for the unfair electoral college more Trump voters would have shown up at the polls but the same would then be true of Hillary voters and she still would have massively won the popular vote."

Wyatt/bad anonymous said "I never said the electoral college wasn't fair".

I never claimed you said that, I was just stating a fact. I know, I know, you hate facts...

Wyatt/bad anonymous "I think it's the best way to find a President with widespread support rather regional popularity".

It actually resulted in a president with much less widespread support - Hillary won the popular vote by almost 3 million. Blatant lying doesn't score you any points Wyatt/bad anonymous. It just casts doubt on everything you post even those rare occasions when you post the truth.

Wyatt/bad anonymous said "I merely pointed out what is readily apparent to anyone with a functioning mind: you can't just add up all the votes in the various states and pretend there was a popular vote".

Of course you can, its been done that way for hundreds of years. Its universally accepted across the United States that there's a popular vote in every election, even Trump constantly whines about losing it. The only person who absurdly claims there is no popular vote is you.

I said "If it weren't for Russian interference in the election Hillary would be president"

Wyatt/bad anonymous said "what you call "interference" was merely disclosing some uncomfortable truths the media does the same all the time".

Just like you to try to trivialize criminal activity when it benefits your side. Republicans have no morals. This was espionage. Also the Russians didn't tell the truth they initiated a massive fake news campaign with over 1000 paid trolls targeting swing states to deceive voters. The only media that does this is conservative media. Study after study has shown Republicans and conservative media are prolific liars while mainstream media and Democrats are much more honest.

I said "There are several corrupt and unfair attacks on Hillary that clearly cost her the trivial number of votes she needed to win the the electoral college."

Wyatt/bad anonymous "if you can't handle unfair attacks, you're aren't fit for the Presidency".

Well, obviously Trump isn't fit for the presidency and doubly so according to you because he wouldn't have been able to handle it either if Russians had committed espionage and fake news campaigns against him and if Comey had made public the investigation into Trump/Russia but not Hillary and if Democrats had undertaken widespread voter suppression laws targeted at Republican voters.

The fact is the Hillary campaign was above board, the Trump campaign was criminal and corrupt.

We know you think not being corrupt and engaging in criminal activities like the Trump campaign means she wasn't fit to be president but all good and moral people disagree with you.

Look at depths of corruption and criminality you've dragged your country down to. You're a disgrace to your country and humanity.

May 14, 2017 3:06 AM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Gee Wyatt, for someone who said I have nothing worthwhile to say and that you would never read or respond to my comments you sure are obsessed with them.

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!

May 14, 2017 3:08 AM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Two top EPA scientists resign in protest of Trump's undermining scientific work showing global warming is real

You know what Wyatt/bad anonymous says, scientists only claim global warming is real in order to get money so them turning down money to continue to assert global warming is real means...wait, what? How's that work again?

Aaaaahhhh, integrity - something global warming deniers like Wyatt/bad anonymous know nothing about.

May 14, 2017 3:15 AM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Teen turns in 127-page 'Gay Marriage is Fabulous' manifesto to defend love

There's clapping back at a teacher, and then there's writing a 127-page paper explaining to your teacher, in explicit, heavily sourced detail, why gay marriage is a right.

Not everyone has the energy, drive, vocabulary, time, or pure, flammable rage to do the second one.

Basically, not all of us are this 11th grade Catholic high school student from rural Missouri, who was given an assignment to defend the church's stance on gay marriage, and instead turned in a hefty manifesto called "Gay Marriage is Fabulous."


For all the skeptics out there, the student posted the paper in its entirety on Reddit under the username averagesmurf.

Averagesmurf said that classmates responded positively: he received applause after a class discussion, which we totally would've joined in on.

The paper is, "more or less, a presentation of research done by lots of people and drawing conclusions," meaning a huge amount of research and reading went into its composition— in fact, averagesmurf started writing it in January, and just finished this week in time to turn in.

Averagesmurf posted out his favorite paragraph in the whole thing, and it serves as a thesis for the paper: "God created you, and he made no mistakes, God created me bisexual, and he made no mistakes, and he creates some people gay, and makes no mistakes: 'For everything created by God is good, and nothing is to be rejected' (1 Tim. 4.4-5). Marriage is not between man and woman, marriage is between love and love. Love is not wrong, love is not a mistake, love is not an abomination, love is just love."
View photos

From the mouths of babes comes... radical empathy, intelligence, and progression, we hope?

May 14, 2017 3:21 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

crazy priya said "Don't forget, Sally Yates confirmed that it wasn't just Michael Flynn's lying about having spoken to the Russian ambassador about sanctions that was a problem, his underlying behavior was problematic and a grave concern"

good anonymous said "I've asked you what behavior and the crickets just keep on chirping"

crazy priya said:

"I don't read all your comments, I missed that one.

The behavior is classified sweetheart."

oh, you've made that response before

let's see the quote where she says he engaged in treasonous behavior but she can't reveal what that behavior is because it's classified

all she said was she thought he could be blackmailed because he talked to Russians and lied about it to Pence

which really doesn't make sense because the content of the conversation, which has been publicly leaked, wasn't scandalous in any way

and, further, how would the Russians know what Flynn told Pence?

May 14, 2017 5:59 AM  
Anonymous good ol' anonymous said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

May 14, 2017 6:42 AM  
Anonymous good anonymous said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

May 14, 2017 6:52 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Following the TTF Troll's example:

The TTF Troll thinks it can prey on all the LGBT commenters on Vigilance it wants but that doesn't mean its homophobia is not a social disease akin to racism.

The crickets are still chirping for TTFT to provide "documentation and/or links/URLs to these so-called cases "detailed in the media of people who clearly had no intent but who mishandled classified information and were prosecuted and jailed" by the FBI that refute Comey's July 5, 2016 claim.

Typical.

Leading by example, I provide the following several quotes of Sally Yates saying Flynn "engaged in treasonous behavior but she can't reveal what that behavior is because it's classified"

In her opening statement, Attorney General Yates reminded us all:

"My duty to protect classified information applies just as much as a former official, as it did when I led the department."

Later:

"GRAHAM: Ms. Yates, do you have any evidence — are you aware of any evidence that would suggest that in the 2016 campaign anybody in the Trump campaign [Flynn is included in this group] colluded — colluded with the Russian government intelligence services [an act of treason] in improper fashion?

YATES: And Senator, my answer to that question would require me to reveal classified information. And so, I — I can't answer that."


And again later:

"GRAHAM: Well the reason you knew it wasn't true was because you had collected some intelligence from an incidental collection system, is that fair to say?

YATES: And I can't answer that because that again would call me - for me to reveal classified information...."


And still later:

"YATES: So I told them again that there were a number of press accounts of statements that had been made by the vice president and other high-ranking White House officials about General Flynn's conduct that we knew to be untrue. And we told them how we knew that this - how we had this information, how we had acquired it, and how we knew that it was untrue.

And we walked the White House Counsel who also had an associate there with him through General Flynn's underlying conduct, the contents of which I obviously cannot go through with you today because it's classified. But we took him through in a fair amount of detail of the underlying conduct, what General Flynn had done...the first thing we did was to explain to Mr. McGahn that the underlying conduct that General Flynn had engaged in was problematic in and of itself. "

May 14, 2017 10:27 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

And later:

"WHITEHOUSE: And the first thing you know is that you have information that one thing was said and the White House is saying something different. And you know that that information irrespective of who is involved needs to get up to the White House quickly. And so at that point, the decision was made to do the interview so that that was locked down before you went up to White House counsel?

YATES: Right, so that that would not have a negative impact on the FBI investigation at that point.

And there was a request made by Mr. McGahn, in the second meeting as to whether or not they would be able to look at the underlying evidence that we had that we had described for him of General Flynn's conduct. And we told him that we were inclined to allow them to look at that underlying evidence, that we wanted to go back to DOJ and be able to make the logistical arrangements for that. This second meeting on the 27th occurred late in the afternoon, this is Friday the 27th. So we told him that we would work with the FBI over the weekend on this issue and get back with him on Monday morning. And I called him first thing Monday morning to let him know that we would allow them to come over and to review the underlying evidence.

WHITEHOUSE: And was that the phone call or is there a separate phone call?

YATES: There was the phone call initially to let him know I needed to come see him.

WHITEHOUSE: Yeah?

YATES: Two meetings and then a phone call at the end to let him know...

WHITEHOUSE: That the material was available if he wanted to see it.

YATES: ... that the material was available. He had to call me back. He was not available then and I did not hear back from him until that afternoon of Monday the 30th.

"WHITEHOUSE: And that was the end of this episode, nobody came over to look at the material?

YATES: I don't know what happened after that because that was my last day with DOJ."


There's plenty more in the transcript:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2017/05/08/full-transcript-sally-yates-and-james-clapper-testify-on-russian-election-interference/

We know it took 18 days for the White House to stop compromised criminal Flynn from attending meetings at the highest level, but three days after learning about Flynn, they fired Yates for letting them know Flynn was a compromise criminal.

Were Flynn's crimes treasonous and was the White House allowing him to continue is his high level position for 18 days later learning about the underlying evidence about his conduct treasonous too?

May 14, 2017 11:29 AM  
Anonymous Interesting development said...

Pro-Putin Pussy Grabber Supporters Picnic in Public Park

See the video of them wielding their torches.

Hear them chant, "Russia is our friend."

May 14, 2017 11:48 AM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

An NBC/WSJ poll shows 78% of Americans support an independent investigation into Trump/Russia.

I quoted a poll from a month or so ago showing 64% support. Obviously the public sees it being increasingly likely that Trump colluded with Russia to illegally hack the American election.

So much for Wyatt/bad anonymous's absurd claim that Americans are tired of the Russia/Trump investigation and want it ended - that couldn't be farther from the truth.

May 14, 2017 3:20 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

And only 29% of Americans support Trump's firing of Comey.

May 14, 2017 3:21 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Good anonymous, thanks for the transcripts of Sally Yates testimony :)

May 14, 2017 3:36 PM  
Blogger JimK said...

This morning there were some slanderous allegations in these comments, which I have deleted. One commenter asserted that a transgender commenter here "can prey on young girls in the ladies' room as much as possible," using the person's real name. I am sure that this commenter does not know the person he was referring to, or know anything about her personal life or behavior. I am further pretty sure this commenter cannot cite one instance in the news where any transgender person has "preyed on young girls in the ladies' room" anywhere, ever. The comment is nothing more than the expression of a stereotype that has no basis in reality, based on the delusions of a bigot.

To my mind this is a potential lawsuit, and so I did not delete the evidence imediately, but now I have taken the comments down because I did not want to have that ugliness on this blog. We have the commenter's identifying information from our web log in case it is needed.

To be clear, this kind of comment crosses a line from opinion to extreme stupidity. It also crosses a line between insult and libel.

JimK

May 14, 2017 5:26 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

I said "The behavior is classified sweetheart."

Wyatt/bad anonymous said "oh, you've made that response before".

You lie. I never before stated why I hadn't given any specifics as to what behavior of Flynn Sally Yates said was "problematic".

Wyatt/bad anonymous said "let's see the quote where she says he engaged in treasonous behavior but she can't reveal what that behavior is because it's classified"

You lie again. I never claimed she said his behavior was "treasonous". I was very clear that she said his behavior was "problematic" and a grave concern (no quotation marks around grave concern).

May 14, 2017 5:28 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

A new Quinnipiac poll shows 54% of Americans want a Democratic controlled House of Congress in 2018 compared to 38% who want Republicans to stay in control of the House.

This is the widest margin Quinnipiac has ever recorded.

Historically in mid-term elections the party of the president loses many seats.

And this is the Republican's "honeymoon" period!

May 14, 2017 6:12 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Jim posted "This morning there were some slanderous allegations in these comments, which I have deleted. One commenter asserted that a transgender commenter here "can prey on young girls in the ladies' room as much as possible," using the person's real name.".

So much for Wyatt/bad anonymous's repeated adamant claim that no one ever accuses trans people of sexually assaulting females in the bathroom, that they only assert allowing trans people to use the bathroom of the gender they identify with allows non-transgender predators to do so.

May 14, 2017 6:37 PM  
Anonymous good anonymous said...

"This morning there were some slanderous allegations in these comments, which I have deleted. One commenter asserted that a transgender commenter here "can prey on young girls in the ladies' room as much as possible," using the person's real name. I am sure that this commenter does not know the person he was referring to, or know anything about her personal life or behavior. I am further pretty sure this commenter cannot cite one instance in the news where any transgender person has "preyed on young girls in the ladies' room" anywhere, ever. The comment is nothing more than the expression of a stereotype that has no basis in reality, based on the delusions of a bigot."

oh, to be clear, Jim, I did not say the person did prey on young girls. I said they "can". the statement could obviously be made about anyone on the planet. and, as I'm sure you know from reading the exchanges this morning that Priya had done the same thing earlier. had said someone "could" do something, and when the person protested they didn't do that, priya said priya never said that they did. so, I was just making a point about how ridiculous that exchange is.

regardless, in case anyone is being misled by Jim's post, I don't know anything about Priya other than the nasty things priya says here and I don't think priya preys on young girls. as a matter of fact, I'm pretty certain priya doesn't do that

May 14, 2017 10:06 PM  
Anonymous good anonymous said...

"I never claimed she said his behavior was "treasonous". I was very clear that she said his behavior was "problematic" and a grave concern (no quotation marks around grave concern"

OK, well let's see where she said his behavior was "problematic" but she can't tell us how because it's classified

she claimed he was subject to blackmail and said why

"So much for good anonymous's repeated adamant claim that no one ever accuses trans people of sexually assaulting females in the bathroom, that they only assert allowing trans people to use the bathroom of the gender they identify with allows non-transgender predators to do so"

as you know well, I wasn't saying that

problem is, though, as you paraphrased, it could allow guys to dress as girls and go in the bathrooms

personally, I don't think that happens but females are entitled to feel safe in the bathroom, even if their fears are unfounded

and I'm still waiting for any evidence that guys who think they are girls are endangered when they use the men's room

those crickets are getting tired

May 14, 2017 10:17 PM  
Anonymous good anonymous said...

Just 38 percent of Americans say they disapprove of President Donald Trump's decision to fire FBI Director James Comey, according to results from a new NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll.

The NBC/WSJ poll — conducted May 11-13, after Trump's dismissal of Comey — doesn't show a significant change in the president's overall standing.

Trump's job-approval rating stands at 38 percent, which is unchanged from last month.

May 14, 2017 10:47 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

By picking the next FBI director outside of the typical process – and circumventing a confirmation hearing – the White House hopes to get an ally in the middle of the investigation – another strong motive for firing Comey in the first place. Even if a full-time replacement eventually comes along, the dysfunction and partisanship created in this scenario could make the entire case dissolve. If you were a witness who knew of criminal wrongdoing from someone on Trump’s team and you just watched the FBI director get fired and replaced by someone handpicked by Trump’s close friend would you want to come forward? It’s clear Trump sure hopes not.

McConnell is enabling all of this. As usual. In a show of loyalty to the president, McConnell slammed Democrats who had called for an independent investigation and instead went on a lengthy rant about Obamacare

May 15, 2017 2:46 AM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

I said "So much for Wyatt/bad anonymous's repeated adamant claim that no one ever accuses trans people of sexually assaulting females in the bathroom, that they only assert allowing trans people to use the bathroom of the gender they identify with allows non-transgender predators to do so."

Wyatt/bad anonymous said "as you know well, I wasn't saying that".

Oh, you most certainly were saying that. There's no doubt that's what you wanted people to believe. You may have made a half-hearted attempt to word it so that you could later B.S. and claim you didn't really mean it but you knew full well how people would take it and you intended them to take it that way. Your pathetic denials of that carry no weight given your long history of lying, misleading, misquoting, implying things you later claim you never meant, and general deception.

Wyatt/bad anonymous said "just 38 percent of Americans say they disapprove of President Donald Trump's decision to fire FBI Director James Comey, according to results from a new NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll.".

No surprise here, Wyatt/bad anonymous again trying to create the false impression that most americans approve of Trump firing Comey by leaving out key information that puts it all in context. This is typical behavior for him. Here's the key bit of the NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll he left out:

Only 29% of Americans approve of Trump's decision to fire Comey

And contrary to the false impression Wyatt/bad anonymous tried to create that Americans are unconcerned about the Trump/Russia investigation an NBC/WSJ poll shows 78% of Americans support an independent investigation into Trump/Russia.

May 15, 2017 3:22 AM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Wyatt/bad anonymous said "regardless, in case anyone is being misled by Jim's post,".

NO ONE was misled by Jim's post. He stated it EXACTLY as it was. It's YOU doing all the misleading and lying.

May 15, 2017 3:27 AM  
Anonymous good anonymous said...

"You may have made a half-hearted attempt to word it so that you could later B.S."

it was actually a full-hearted attempt to demonstrate how the logical construct you had used your previous post, and which I clear referred to, could be used to imply some extreme things

"and claim you didn't really mean it but you knew full well how people would take it and you intended them to take it that way"

well, if I wanted them to take it that way, why would I want to claim I didn't really mean it?

it's obvious I knew no one would "take it that way"

"NO ONE was misled by Jim's post. He stated it EXACTLY as it was."

he stated it out of context

people who read this blog frequently know that is a common rhetorical device to mislead

"By picking the next FBI director outside of the typical process – and circumventing a confirmation hearing – the White House hopes to get an ally in the middle of the investigation – another strong motive for firing Comey in the first place. Even if a full-time replacement eventually comes along, the dysfunction and partisanship created in this scenario could make the entire case dissolve. If you were a witness who knew of criminal wrongdoing from someone on Trump’s team and you just watched the FBI director get fired and replaced by someone handpicked by Trump’s close friend would you want to come forward?"

obviously, if you do actually know that someone in the administration has done something wrong, you don't report it to their subordinate

you would go to your representatives in Congress, who constitutionally provide the check on the executive branch

in this case, however, no one has found anyone in the administration to have done anything wrong

and three committees in Congress are investigating the dubious allegations so the FBI is somewhat irrelevant

May 15, 2017 6:54 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Trump's job-approval rating stands at 38 percent, which is unchanged from last month."

38% is the worst job-approval of any US president at this point in the presidency.

It's pathetic.

Meanwhile, Gallup reports today: US Support for Gay Marriage Edges to New High

"WASHINGTON, D.C. -- Sixty-four percent of U.S. adults say same-sex marriages should be recognized by the law as valid. Although not meaningfully different from the 61% last year, this is the highest percentage to date and continues the generally steady rise since Gallup's trend began in 1996...."

Support for Gay Marriage Grows Among Independents, Republicans

Over the past two decades, Democrats have almost always been the political group most likely to say gay marriages should be legally recognized. Among Americans who identify as Democrats, support first reached the majority level in 2004, as the issue was heavily politicized in that year's presidential election.

Majority support for gay marriage among political independents followed a few years later, in 2007. The latest poll finds that more than seven in 10 independents (71%) and Democrats (74%) support same-sex marriage.

In recent decades, many GOP leaders adamantly opposed gay marriage, but rank-and-file Republicans' support has nearly tripled since 1996. The current 47% of Republicans favoring it, although not at the majority level, is the highest for this group in the more than two-decade trend..."


Stating the obvious:

Recent polling indicates Trump wins the approval of 38% Americans while gay marriage wins the support of 64% of Americans.

May 15, 2017 7:21 AM  
Anonymous Once again for the fact-phobic commenter lacking reading comprehension skills: said...

"OK, well let's see where she said his behavior was "problematic" but she can't tell us how because it's classified"

I've already done it in the comments posted above on May 14, 2017 at 10:27AM:

""YATES: So I told them again that there were a number of press accounts of statements that had been made by the vice president and other high-ranking White House officials about General Flynn's conduct that we knew to be untrue. And we told them how we knew that this - how we had this information, how we had acquired it, and how we knew that it was untrue.

And we walked the White House Counsel who also had an associate there with him through General Flynn's underlying conduct, the contents of which I obviously cannot go through with you today because it's classified. But we took him through in a fair amount of detail of the underlying conduct, what General Flynn had done...the first thing we did was to explain to Mr. McGahn that the underlying conduct that General Flynn had engaged in was problematic in and of itself. "
"

And on May 14, 2017 at 11:29AM:

""YATES: Right, so that that would not have a negative impact on the FBI investigation at that point.

And there was a request made by Mr. McGahn, in the second meeting as to whether or not they would be able to look at the underlying evidence that we had that we had described for him of General Flynn's conduct. And we told him that we were inclined to allow them to look at that underlying evidence, that we wanted to go back to DOJ and be able to make the logistical arrangements for that. This second meeting on the 27th occurred late in the afternoon, this is Friday the 27th. So we told him that we would work with the FBI over the weekend on this issue and get back with him on Monday morning. And I called him first thing Monday morning to let him know that we would allow them to come over and to review the underlying evidence."
"

May 15, 2017 7:38 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"38% is the worst job-approval of any US president at this point in the presidency.

It's pathetic"

well, it is

it hasn't changed much since the election though and Hillary's was as bad

Americans should have chosen two better nominees

I would have, I actually posted my suggestions here

Biden and Jerry Brown for the Dems

Scott Walker and Marco Rubio and Mike Pence and Mike Huckabee and Ben Carson for the GOP

most of this is the fault of the media, that warps the electorate's perception to the point where you have to do a lot of work to overcome it

with everyone whining about the Russians interfering, the truth is that most of the leaks by wikileaks (IF they actually were of Russian origin) were accurate

you could argue that these accurate disclosures were things a candidate is entitled to keep secret but that doesn't seem to be a widely held belief

the media, however, was more likely to mislead and, thus, interfere in the election (if you call that interfering)

"Meanwhile, Gallup reports today: US Support for Gay Marriage Edges to New High"

true, the liberal-entertainment complex has worked very hard to normalize homosexual marriage and make Americans comfortable with it

homosexual marriages are now common in TV shows, for example

"Over the past two decades, Democrats have almost always been the political group most likely to say gay marriages should be legally recognized. Among Americans who identify as Democrats, support first reached the majority level in 2004, as the issue was heavily politicized in that year's presidential election."

most Dem politicians opposed gay marriage until 2012

""YATES: we walked the White House Counsel who also had an associate there with him through General Flynn's underlying conduct, the contents of which I obviously cannot go through with you today because it's classified. But we took him through in a fair amount of detail of the underlying conduct, what General Flynn had done...the first thing we did was to explain to Mr. McGahn that the underlying conduct that General Flynn had engaged in was problematic in and of itself. ""

thanks for answering the question

since Yates is somewhat partisan, I think we need more detail to concur with her characterization of Flynn's behavior as "problematic"

her assessment of what would make someone subject to blackmail, for example, was questionable

May 15, 2017 7:52 AM  
Blogger JimK said...

Anon, many years ago I had a friend who was a teacher and coach, and one time he had given a kid a bad grade for something. You might know that in football the quarterback sets up to receive a hike by placing his hands between the center's legs for the count (see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JmMGVTl5r7M ). Well this student decided to report the coach for having the boys grope one another. This got the coach fired, ended his career in the schools, and made it impossible for him to get a job of any kind, ever.

When you say in public that somebody -- giving their name -- "can prey on young girls in the ladies' room as much as possible" you are slandering that person in a way that can be very costly for them. It is up to the other person to decide whether to pursue the complaint, and it is interesting that you seem to be completely unaware that private people have some right to protect their reputation from falsehoods. It is as if in your righteousness you have lost perspective on the fact that the world is actually objectively real, as if you can state anything and it will be sufficiently truthlike as long as it is consistent with your stereotypes. In reality, I don't think you can find one example -- ever -- of any transgender woman preying on young girls in any ladies room. It is not a joke, not a talking point, transgender women are real people who actually do need to use the ladies room sometimes, and there is -- in reality, though not necessarily in your belief system -- absolutely no harm done.

Pussyfooting around with words does not correct the situation. My advice to you is to just shut up about it and be glad I deleted your comments.

JimK

May 15, 2017 8:12 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"since Yates is somewhat partisan"

Where do you come up with such totally false information?

It wouldn't be all the spun right wing media you follow would it?

If you think Yates is "somewhat partisan" then perhaps you can explain how Yates was approved by the Senate to serve as Barack Obama's Deputy Attorney General by an 84-12 vote on May 13, 2015.

"YEAs ---84

Alexander (R-TN)
Ayotte (R-NH)
Baldwin (D-WI)
Barrasso (R-WY)
Bennet (D-CO)
Blumenthal (D-CT)
Booker (D-NJ)
Boxer (D-CA)
Brown (D-OH)
Burr (R-NC)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Capito (R-WV)
Cardin (D-MD)
Carper (D-DE)
Cassidy (R-LA)
Coats (R-IN)
Cochran (R-MS)
Collins (R-ME)
Coons (D-DE)
Corker (R-TN)
Cornyn (R-TX)
Cruz (R-TX)
Daines (R-MT)
Donnelly (D-IN)
Durbin (D-IL)
Enzi (R-WY)
Ernst (R-IA)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Fischer (R-NE)
Flake (R-AZ)
Franken (D-MN)
Gardner (R-CO)
Gillibrand (D-NY)
Graham (R-SC)
Grassley (R-IA)
Hatch (R-UT)
Heinrich (D-NM)
Heitkamp (D-ND)
Heller (R-NV)
Hirono (D-HI)
Hoeven (R-ND)
Isakson (R-GA)
Johnson (R-WI)
Kaine (D-VA)
King (I-ME)
Kirk (R-IL)
Klobuchar (D-MN)
Leahy (D-VT)
Lee (R-UT)
Manchin (D-WV)
Markey (D-MA)
McCain (R-AZ)
McCaskill (D-MO)
McConnell (R-KY)
Menendez (D-NJ)
Merkley (D-OR)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Murkowski (R-AK)
Murphy (D-CT)
Murray (D-WA)
Nelson (D-FL)
Paul (R-KY)
Perdue (R-GA)
Peters (D-MI)
Portman (R-OH)
Reed (D-RI)
Reid (D-NV)
Roberts (R-KS)
Rounds (R-SD)
Sasse (R-NE)
Schatz (D-HI)
Schumer (D-NY)
Scott (R-SC)
Shaheen (D-NH)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Tester (D-MT)
Thune (R-SD)
Tillis (R-NC)
Udall (D-NM)
Warner (D-VA)
Warren (D-MA)
Whitehouse (D-RI)
Wicker (R-MS)
Wyden (D-OR)"


Two years ago forty Republican Senators supported Yates' nomination to serve as Deputy Director of the DOJ, proving contrary to your false statement above, Yates clearly had strong bipartisan support.

May 15, 2017 10:23 AM  
Anonymous good anonymous said...

"Two years ago forty Republican Senators supported Yates' nomination to serve as Deputy Director of the DOJ, proving contrary to your false statement above, Yates clearly had strong bipartisan support"

you're confusing parties

the GOP doesn't base conformation decisions on politics, so voting to confirm the nominee of a President doesn't mean they can't be potentially partisan

pretty sure Yates voted for Hillary

what do you think?

May 15, 2017 10:51 AM  
Anonymous good anonymous said...

hey look here, kids

Ken Starr says calls for a special prosecutor are premature

turns out there has be evidence for this theoretical person to examine

if they ever come out with insurance against stupidity, Dems would have a pre-existing condition:

https://www.wsj.com/articles/rosensteins-compelling-case-against-comey-1494785294

May 15, 2017 11:08 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

So 40 GOP, 43 Democrats and 1 Independent Senator approved Yates as Deputy Attorney General, which is a strong bipartisan vote.

Compare to the vote to approve Jeff Sessions as Attorney General:

"YEAs ---52

Alexander (R-TN)
Barrasso (R-WY)
Blunt (R-MO)
Boozman (R-AR)
Burr (R-NC)
Capito (R-WV)
Cassidy (R-LA)
Cochran (R-MS)
Collins (R-ME)
Corker (R-TN)
Cornyn (R-TX)
Cotton (R-AR)
Crapo (R-ID)
Cruz (R-TX)
Daines (R-MT)
Enzi (R-WY)
Ernst (R-IA)
Fischer (R-NE)
Flake (R-AZ)
Gardner (R-CO)
Graham (R-SC)
Grassley (R-IA)
Hatch (R-UT)
Heller (R-NV)
Hoeven (R-ND)
Inhofe (R-OK)
Isakson (R-GA)
Johnson (R-WI)
Kennedy (R-LA)
Lankford (R-OK)
Lee (R-UT)
Manchin (D-WV)
McCain (R-AZ)
McConnell (R-KY)
Moran (R-KS)
Murkowski (R-AK)
Paul (R-KY)
Perdue (R-GA)
Portman (R-OH)
Risch (R-ID)
Roberts (R-KS)
Rounds (R-SD)
Rubio (R-FL)
Sasse (R-NE)
Scott (R-SC)
Shelby (R-AL)
Sullivan (R-AK)
Thune (R-SD)
Tillis (R-NC)
Toomey (R-PA)
Wicker (R-MS)
Young (R-IN)"


https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=115&session=1&vote=00055

This vote clearly shows the partisanship of Jeff Sessions' support in the Senate.

Watch: Trump fired Sally Yates for doing what Jeff Sessions urged her to do in 2015

Pussy Grabber "Trump fired Acting Attorney General Sally Yates after she refused to defend his controversial immigration order in court. Yates, a holdover from the Obama era, said she was not “convinced that the Executive Order is lawful.”

Trump’s team said Yates “betrayed” the department. But back in 2015, Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL) — Trump’s current pick for attorney general — encouraged Yates to be ready to stand up to the president. “You have to watch out,” Sessions said, “because people will be asking you to do things that you just need to say no about.”

Watch the C-SPAN video

This all came during Yates’s Senate confirmation hearing in 2015. The exchange is more than a little surreal in light of what went down [in January 2017]:

"Sessions: You have to watch out, because people will be asking you to do things that you just need to say no about. Do you think the attorney general has a responsibility to say no to the president if he asks for something that’s improper? A lot of people defended the [Loretta] Lynch nomination by saying well, [then-President Obama] appoints somebody who’s going to execute his views. What’s wrong with that? But if the views that the president wants to execute are unlawful, should the attorney general or the deputy attorney general say no?

Yates: Senator, I believe that the attorney general or the deputy attorney general has an obligation to follow the law and the Constitution, and to give their independent legal advice to the president."
...


Sessions would do better if he remembered that is his responsibility now and do it.

May 15, 2017 11:28 AM  
Anonymous Captain Obvious said...

"the GOP doesn't base conformation decisions on politics"

Bwahahahhahahahaha!

Two words:

Merrick Garland

May 15, 2017 11:35 AM  
Anonymous good anonymous said...

"So 40 GOP, 43 Democrats and 1 Independent Senator approved Yates as Deputy Attorney General, which is a strong bipartisan vote.

Compare to the vote to approve Jeff Sessions as Attorney General"

like I said, Dems consider the approval to be political and Repubs don't

it's nothing you should be proud of

"if the views that the president wants to execute are unlawful, should the attorney general or the deputy attorney general say no?"

problem: Trump didn't ask her to do anything unlawful

May 15, 2017 11:37 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Ken Starr wins as a special prosecutor: 0

Ken Starr was an epic failure as a special prosecutor.

"the GOP doesn't base conformation [sic] decisions on politics, so voting to confirm the nominee of a President doesn't mean they can't be potentially partisan"

LMAO

Review the vote for Sessions "conformation" and tell us again!

May 15, 2017 11:38 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

" Trump didn't ask her to do anything unlawful"

He most certainly did as several courts around the nation have declared his Muslim ban, which Yates refused to defend, to be unconstitutional.

May 15, 2017 11:40 AM  
Anonymous good anonymous said...

"Bwahahahhahahahaha!

Two words:

Merrick Garland"

the SCOTUS is not part of the Executive branch

further, the objection to Garland is that he doesn't understand the Constitution

that's kind of key to doing the job

Goresuch knows the constitution and the judge that replaces Kennedy this summer will too

to the chagrin of Dems, the constitution will be defended from dilution for the next quarter of a century

May 15, 2017 11:41 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

further, the objection to Garland is that he doesn't understand the Constitution

Nobody objected to Garland in 2016 as he didn't even get a hearing because of the partisanship of the GOP who denied Obama his constitutional right to have his SCOTUS nominees considered for "advise and consent" by the Senate.

In 1997 Garland was approved in the US Senate by a bipartisan voice vote of 76-23 to become a US Circuit Judge for the District of Columbia.

May 15, 2017 11:59 AM  
Anonymous Try growing a pair said...

"and I'm still waiting for any evidence that guys who think they are girls [about the most vile way of saying "trans women" as possible-FUCK YOU!] are endangered when they use the men's room"'

Asked and answer provided a week ago on May 8.

2016 was the deadliest year on record for transgender people

A few paragraphs in:

"...The victims of this violence are overwhelmingly transgender women of color, who live at the dangerous intersections of transphobia, racism, sexism, and criminalization which often lead to high rates of poverty, unemployment, and homelessness. While some of these homicides have not yet been identified as hate crimes due to lack of information about the perpetrators or motives, the National Coalition of Anti-Violence Programs reports an alarming multi-year trend showing that transgender women experience a greater risk of death by hate violence than any other group..."

However, Vigilance readers have been waiting for days for your documentation with URLs/links supporting your claims:

Since May 8:

"Now let's see your stats showing how many cases there have been reported of trans women committing crimes in public bathrooms against cis woman."

And since May 13:

"Surprise Vigilance readers by providing documentation and/or links/URLs to these so-called cases "detailed in the media of people who clearly had no intent but who mishandled classified information and were prosecuted and jailed" by the FBI that refute Comey's July 5, 2016 claim:

"In looking back at our investigations into mishandling or removal of classified information, we cannot find a case that would support bringing criminal charges on these facts. All the cases prosecuted involved some combination of: clearly intentional and willful mishandling of classified information; or vast quantities of materials exposed in such a way as to support an inference of intentional misconduct; or indications of disloyalty to the United States; or efforts to obstruct justice. We do not see those things here.""

May 15, 2017 12:03 PM  
Anonymous Captain Obvious said...

"the SCOTUS is not part of the Executive branch"

Nobody said it was. Pay attention.

Garland understands the Constitution just fine.

Unlike Republicans though, he doesn't believe it should be interpreted the same way that men who owned slaves and didn't allow their wives to vote over 200 years ago wrote it. They had great ideas, but the limited views of their times, lives, and environment couldn't even let them live up to "all men are created equal." We've been struggling to make that come true in practice for decades, and we still have more work to do.

May 15, 2017 12:16 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...


Supreme Court won’t review decision that found N.C. voting law discriminates against African Americans


The Supreme Court will not consider reinstating North Carolina’s 2013 voting law that a lower court ruled discriminated against African American voters, the justices said Monday.

A unanimous panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit had found in 2016 that North Carolina legislators had acted “with almost surgical precision” to blunt the influence of African American voters.

Although Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. took pains to note that the court’s decision did not reach the merits of the case, Democrats, civil rights groups and minority groups celebrated the demise of the law. It was one of numerous voting-rights changes passed by Republican-led legislatures in the wake of the Supreme Court’s 2013 decision striking down a key section of the Voting Rights Act that effectively removed federal oversight of states with a history of discrimination.

“This is a huge victory for voters and a massive blow to Republicans trying to restrict access to the ballot, especially in communities of color,” said Democratic National Committee Chairman Tom Perez.

The appeals court did not allow the law to be used in the 2016 election, and voters replaced Republican governor Pat McCrory with Democrat Roy Cooper.

Cooper and the state’s new Democratic Attorney General Josh Stein told the Supreme Court they did not want to appeal the lower court’s decision that the law violated the Constitution and the Voting Rights Act.

“We need to be making it easier to vote, not harder — and the court found this law sought to discriminate against African-American voters with ‘surgical precision,’ ” Cooper said in a statement after the Supreme Court acted. “I will continue to work to protect the right of every legal, registered North Carolinian to participate in our democratic process.

As is its custom, the justices did not give a reason for declining to review the lower court’s decision. But in an accompanying statement, Roberts noted the particular circumstances of the appeal, in which the Republican legislative leadership attempted to continue the appeal and the Democratic governor and attorney general sought to abandon it.

“Given the blizzard of filings over who is and who is not authorized to seek review in this court under North Carolina law, it is important to recall our frequent admonition that ‘the denial of a writ of certiorari imports no expression of opinion upon the merits of the case,’” Roberts wrote.

Last summer Roberts and the court’s other conservatives — Justices Anthony M. Kennedy, Clarence Thomas and Samuel A. Alito Jr. — said they would have allowed the law to be used in the 2016 elections while the appeals continued.

But they were unable to find a necessary fifth vote from one of the court’s four liberals.

The battle against the law, considered one of the nation’s most far-reaching, consumed years of litigation by the Obama administration and a wide coalition of civil rights organizations.

“An ugly chapter in voter suppression is finally closing,” said Dale Ho, director of the ACLU’s Voting Rights Project.

“Today we experience a victory for justice that is unimaginably important for African Americans, Latinos, all North Carolinians, and the nation” said Rev. Dr. William J. Barber II, president of the North Carolina NAACP, the lead organizational plaintiff in the case..."

May 15, 2017 1:01 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Interesting reading:

http://spectrum.ieee.org/energywise/energy/policy/energy-policy-defies-jobsversusenvironment-rhetoric

May 15, 2017 2:02 PM  
Anonymous good anonymous said...

I wonder if anyone will read that

I know I won't

"Ann Coulter was one of President Donald Trump's most outspoken supporters during the 2016 election, but so far she's been underwhelmed by his presidency.

In an interview with The Daily Caller on Sunday, Coulter said she still has hope in Trump, but she is ready to jump ship if things don't change.

"I’m not very happy with what has happened so far," Coulter said. "I guess we have to try to push him to keep his promises. But this isn’t North Korea, and if he doesn’t keep his promises, I’m out. This is why we voted for him. I think everyone who voted for him knew his personality was grotesque, it was the issues.""

May 15, 2017 2:40 PM  
Anonymous Live and learn said...

Then you will miss an interesting article about the split within the new administration over the Paris Agreement:

"...EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt and Trump policy advisor Steve Bannon want the president to follow through on his campaign pledge, calling Paris a “bad deal” for the U.S. Others, including Energy Secretary Rick Perry, Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, and the President’s daughter Ivanka advocate staying in so the U.S. can help steer global climate policy.

The Paris “foes” had “gained the upper hand” early this month, according to the Washington Post, when a decision seemed imminent. But last week, that decision was deferred, and Tillerson took full advantage. On Thursday, he signed on to an agreement among Arctic nations (the Fairbanks Declaration of 2017) that refers to the human causes and severity of climate change and also cites the Paris Agreement.

Business leaders, meanwhile, are speaking out in greater numbers against a Paris pullout, including top executives from the energy industry:

-General Electric chairman Jeff Immelt told a Georgetown University audience this month that the deal is a big business opportunity, reminding the students that GE operates a $12 billion renewable energy business. (Immelt also stated categorically that “climate change is real.”)
-Colin Marshall, CEO of coal firm Cloud Peak Energy, wrote Trump last month arguing that he can best support the coal industry by staying in. For example, the Paris rules could determine the global acceptance of carbon capture and storage, which could ultimately make or break coal’s fate.
-Last week, two dozen major firms financed ads in the New York Times, Wall Street Journal and the New York Post that “strongly urge” Trump to stick with Paris. Signatories include Google, Intel, utilities National Grid and PG&E, and power equipment giant Schneider Electric.

Boling ("Mark ... Boling, an executive vice president at the Houston-based natural gas producer Southwestern Energy") says there are multiple issues at play, but he counts five big ones: science, social concerns, economic issues, environmental factors, and political calculations. All but one, says Boling, are slam dunks for staying the course: “The only possible way one could get to a ‘no’ on the Paris Agreement is under the political category.”

The critics get Paris wrong, says Boling, by viewing it as a “death march” rather than a “roadmap” for an economic marathon. As Boling puts it: “We have to move to a low carbon energy economy. The smart people will see that as an economic opportunity for those who want to get there first.”

If other issues are any guide, the upside potential presented by global cooperation on climate change may be something important—something the President did not thoroughly analyze before his election. Trump attacked and antagonized China on the campaign trail, and has subsequently befriended Beijing in order to put pressure on North Korea. Might the climate skeptic discover similar nuance on climate change, embracing cleaner energy and the Paris Agreement to “make America great again”? "

May 15, 2017 3:04 PM  
Anonymous Tricky Prick said...

It may prove to be the most consequential of all of Donald Trump’s tweets. On Friday morning, as part of a not-so-veiled threat towards former FBI Director James Comey, the president said Comey “better hope that there are no ‘tapes’ of our conversations before he starts leaking to the press!”

Hours later, the White House would neither confirm nor deny the existence of the president’s secret recordings.

Trump sat down with Fox News’ Jeanine Pirro late Friday, and when the issue came up, the president was quick to swat it down.

PIRRO: What about the idea that in a tweet you said there might be tape recordings–

TRUMP: Well, I can’t talk about. I won’t talk about that.


That’s very likely the line the White House’s counsel’s office told Trump to take, but it was far too late. The president’s tweet already opened the door that won’t be easily closed.

The significance of this, of course, is that these recordings – if they exist – can be subpoenaed. This is especially true in regards to recordings related to James Comey’s firing, since the president may have obstructed justice during their chat.

Indeed, on many of the Sunday shows yesterday, there was bipartisan agreement among several senators that White House recordings, assuming Trump didn’t just make this up, won’t remain private indefinitely. “You can’t be cute about tapes,” Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) said on NBC’s “Meet the Press,” adding, “If there are any tapes of this conversation, they need to be turned over.”

Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) added on Fox News that “it’s probably inevitable” that any existing tapes would be subpoenaed. The Utah Republican added that it’s “not necessarily the best idea” for the president to secretly record conversations in the White House without his guests’ knowledge.

Congressional Democrats, not surprisingly, spoke about obtaining the recordings in even more forceful terms and have begun weighing procedural steps they could pursue to tie up Capitol Hill until this question is resolved.

It’s at this point that some of you are probably wondering whether Team Trump spent the weekend destroying recordings before they could be subpoenaed. With this question in mind, Daniel Jacobson, who was an attorney in the Obama White House, noted over the weekend that the Presidential Records Act – which, ironically, was created in part in response to Richard Nixon’s secret recordings – would require that these recordings be archived. It would be a literal crime to delete them.

The debate continues, meanwhile, as to whether the recordings are real or a figment of Donald Trump’s deeply strange imagination. We’ll probably learn the truth soon enough, but in the interim, it’s worth noting for context that Trump has a lengthy track record of recording communications – at Trump Tower, at various other Trump-owned properties, and elsewhere.

In other words, this wouldn’t exactly be out of character for him.

May 15, 2017 3:18 PM  
Anonymous Captain Obvious said...


"I’m not very happy with what has happened so far," Coulter said. "I guess we have to try to push him to keep his promises. But this isn’t North Korea, and if he doesn’t keep his promises, I’m out. This is why we voted for him."

News flash Ann, the Dumpster isn't known for keeping promises. Just ask some of the contractors that used to work for him, the bankers that lent him millions of dollars to buy casinos, or the people who believed he had lawyers digging up bad birth certificate news in Hawaii for Obama. Let me give you a hint, since you clearly haven't figured this out yet: The only person sure to gain from a Trump presidency is the big orangutan himself; perhaps some close family members. Everyone else is just a tool for him to use however he sees fit at any given moment.


"I think everyone who voted for him knew his personality was grotesque, it was the issues."

Black Kettle, meet Orange POTus.


May 15, 2017 3:58 PM  
Anonymous NC GOP's disgusting partisanship to hurt minority children said...

North Carolina Senate GOP targets children who live in Democratic districts
A budget amendment passed at 3 a.m. targets spending on education, public works in Democratic districts.


"...A rural district in northeastern North Carolina, represented by Sen. Erica Smith-Ingram (D), is impacted the most by this amendment. The budget would strip $316,646 in funding away from two early college high schools in her district, and prohibits state funding for Eastern North Carolina STEM, a summer program for science, math, and technology. The program primarily serves African-American students from low-income families, and Smith-Ingram said that if the amendment is included in the final budget, it will effectively shut down the STEM program.

“I don’t know what motivated the amendment, but it will have a devastating effect on an area that is already suffering,” Smith-Ingram told the News & Record. “The future of children should not be caught up in a political disagreement between members.”

The amendment also reallocates funding for a program that offers stipends to teachers assistants if they are working towards their college degree and teaching licenses. As a result, the program will no longer be available to residents of seven counties represented by Democratic Senators Smith-Ingram and Angela Bryant. Instead, it will only be available to residents in counties represented by Republican senators.

Additionally, the amendment removes $200,000 to bring fresh produce to food deserts, $250,000 for additional staff to accommodate an expansion at the N.C. Museum of Art, and $550,000 for downtown revitalization projects — the only remaining funding for downtown improvement programs is in Robeson County, which, you guessed it, is represented by a Republican in the state senate.

This ugly amendment is just another example of the highly partisan nature of politics in the state legislature."

May 15, 2017 4:00 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Good anonymous said "38% is the worst job-approval of any US president at this point in the presidency.

It's pathetic"

Wyatt/bad anonymous said "well, it is it hasn't changed much since the election though and Hillary's was as bad".

That's a lie. Hillary's approval numbers were consistently much better than Trump's.

But then what do you expect from Wyatt/bad anonymous who says "there are many situations where its appropriate to lie

May 15, 2017 7:04 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Hillary lead Trump in all the polls throughout the election often by as much as 14%. She was leading by 4% in the average of the polls up until Comey came out and gave the false impression he was reopening the email investigation into her and that there was a scandal. Then her lead in the average of polls dropped to 2% which is the amount she won the popular vote by.

Wyatt/bad anonymous's constant attempts to pretend Hillary was as unpopular as Trump just isn't true. Throughout the election she didn't have good approval ratings but they were always significantly better than Trump's.

May 15, 2017 7:15 PM  
Anonymous Independent Special Prosecutor said...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/trump-revealed-highly-classified-information-to-russian-foreign-minister-and-ambassador/2017/05/15/530c172a-3960-11e7-9e48-c4f199710b69_story.html

May 15, 2017 10:45 PM  
Anonymous good ol' anonymous said...

"good ol' anonymous's constant attempts to pretend Hillary was as unpopular as Trump just isn't true. Throughout the election she didn't have good approval ratings but they were always significantly better than Trump's

A Gallup poll from the week before the election showed Hillary had 40% favorable and 57% unfavorable.

Yesterday, Gallup had Trump at 38% favorable and you all say he has dropped a lot.

Do you even think before you type?

A recent ABC News-Washington Post poll that said that 96 percent of respondents didn't regret their vote for Trump. Fewer Clinton supporters would stick around with 85 percent. This would have meant Trump would win a hypothetical rematch 43 percent to 40 percent.

"Hillary lead Trump in all the polls throughout the election often by as much as 14%. She was leading by 4% in the average of the polls up until Comey came out and gave the false impression he was reopening the email investigation into her and that there was a scandal"

Comey didn't give a false impression. He sent a letter to Congress when new evidence came to light which was then leaked to the press.

It's true that this lead to a break in the momentum and I would agree it was probably the turning point in the election. That momentum was building over reaction to the leaked tape of Trump talking privately about sexual activities with women. The Trump sex talk was suddenly forgotten at this time. It's notable, however, that while Hillary has complained about wikileaks releasing her private conversations, she had been benefitting from someone releasing Trump's private conversations. Such a nasty woman!

"Then her lead in the average of polls dropped to 2%"

and why did her lead not recover when Comey announced he had reviewed the emails and nothing was new in them?

perhaps it was it was because America had realized Hillary's closest aide was married to a pervert who had access to the campaign

"which is the amount she won the popular vote by"

we didn't have a popular vote for her to win

"May 15, 2017 7:15 PM Anonymous Independent Special Prosecutor said...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/trump-revealed-highly-classified-information-to-russian-foreign-minister-and-ambassador/2017/05/15/530c172a-3960-11e7-9e48-c4f199710b69_story.html"

typical media adventures in misleading the public

the Post has this as a screaming headline today

last week, the day after Comey was fired, Trump met with the Russian ambassador

happens all the time

but the press had to find some way to keep the Comey story going

you had to read deep in the story before it was pointed out that Trump did nothing illegal and, as President, has complete discretion about what information to share with whom

by definition, he can't share "secret" information

all Presidents would have made similar disclosures

it goes with the job

further, Trump made clear when he ran that he considers Russia an ally on the war against ISIS

I don't necessarily agree that to be wise but it was the stance he was elected on


May 16, 2017 9:33 AM  
Anonymous Independent Special Prosecutor said...

Yeah, I'll bet you'd rather talk about Hillary than the Trump White House disasters a foot.

It's a good thing some GOP Senators are willing to do what needs to be done, uncover the secrets to get to the facts.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2017/05/16/gop_senators_its_time_for_facts_on_comey_tapes_russia.html

"...The president’s unilateral decisions – firing Comey on Tuesday, complaining to NBC News about the Russia investigations as a reason for the sudden dismissal, and sharing secrets hours later with Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov and Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak – are encouraging lawmakers to keep digging, either with West Wing cooperation or without.

Republican lawmakers joined their Democratic colleagues in seeking additional White House information, including records such as tapes or recordings, to assist their investigations...

..."The White House has got to do something soon to bring itself under control and in order. It's got to happen," Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Bob Corker told reporters.

“Obviously they’re in a downward spiral right now and they’ve got to figure out a way to come to grips with all that’s happening. The shame of it is there’s a really good national security team in place and there are good, productive things that are underway through them and through others. But the chaos that is being created by the lack of discipline … creates a worrisome environment," he said.

Shortly before McMaster’s brief defense of Trump in front of the West Wing on Monday, Corker told USA Today, "To compromise a source is something that you just don't do. …That's why we keep the information that we get from intelligence sources so close ... to prevent that from happening."

Corker and other GOP senators said they were surprised by Trump’s tweet on Friday, in which he directed an apparent warning at the former law enforcement official he fired.

"I think the White House needs to be perfectly clear about a matter like that. … Needs to come clean on that immediately,” Corker added. Any decisions about congressional subpoenas should wait “a few days” to gauge how the White House responds, he said.

Sen. Chuck Grassley, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, said Richard Nixon’s downfall after the disclosure and subsequent battle over White House tapes should give any president serious pause.

“I think there should have been a lesson learned from Nixon," he told RCP. If Trump has tapes of official conversations, “there’s no way that’s going to be kept secret.”

Sen. James Lankford, a member of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, said the president was encouraging an impression that he secretly tapes conversations, which could effectively muzzle candid advice and discussion.

“I think he should clarify that [tweet] just to be able to tell anyone who's in the Oval Office whether they're being recorded," Lankford said. When asked about potential subpoenas, the Oklahoma senator said the president first “needs to clarify.”

If Trump asked Comey about whether he would be “loyal” to him during a January dinner at the White House, as reported, and a recording of that conversation was created, Congress would “want to hear those tapes” as relevant to why the president terminated Comey, Sen. Marco Rubio, a member of the Foreign Relations and Intelligence committees, told RCP.

“If he has tapes, we should listen to them,” Rubio said."

May 16, 2017 9:44 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"you had to read deep in the story before it was pointed out that Trump did nothing illegal and, as President, has complete discretion about what information to share with whom"

https://www.archives.gov/about/laws/presidential-records.html

§ 2205. Exceptions to restricted access

Notwithstanding any restrictions on access imposed pursuant to sections 2204 and 2208--

(1) the Archivist and persons employed by the National Archives and Records Administration who are engaged in the performance of normal archival work shall be permitted access to Presidential records in the custody of the Archivist;

(2) subject to any rights, defenses, or privileges which the United States or any agency or person may invoke, Presidential records shall be made available--

(A) pursuant to subpoena or other judicial process issued by a court of competent jurisdiction for the purposes of any civil or criminal investigation or proceeding;

(B) to an incumbent President if such records contain information that is needed for the conduct of current business of the incumbent President’s office and that is not otherwise available; and

(C) to either House of Congress, or, to the extent of matter within its jurisdiction, to any committee or subcommittee thereof if such records contain information that is needed for the conduct of its business and that is not otherwise available; and

(3) the Presidential records of a former President shall be available to such former President or the former President’s designated representative.

May 16, 2017 9:50 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The Donald Trump Impeachment Clock Is Ticking

May 16, 2017 9:55 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home