Thursday, June 15, 2017

Trump Cabinet Meets

This went on for eleven minutes, I will clip from Vanity Fair's review of the first Trump cabinet meeting.

Note: This is not satire.

It started with Trump speaking a few words.
“Never has there been a president, with few exceptions . . . who has passed more legislation, done more things,” he began, hailing his purported accomplishments, even though Congress has yet to pass any major legislative bills. “We’ve achieved tremendous success. I think we’ve been about as active as you can possibly be and at a just about record-setting pace.” Trump Appointees Take Turns Praising Him In Bizarre Cabinet Meeting
In case you are wondering if your memory is going, no, you're fine. Trump has not passed any legislation.

They started with Mike Pence breaking the ice:
“It is the greatest privilege of my life to serve as the vice president to a president who is keeping his word to the American people,” he said.

Jeff Sessions came up next:
“It’s an honor to be able to serve you,” he said, describing the support he said Trump has from law enforcement across the country. “They have been very frustrated [and] they are so thrilled.”

Alex Acosta, Secretary of Labor:
“I’m deeply honored and I want to thank you for keeping your commitment to the American workers.”

Worse Than the Average Citizen Secretary of Energy Rick Perry got his turn:
“My hat’s off to you,” Energy Secretary Rick Perry said, hailing Trump’s decision to withdraw from the Paris climate agreement.
Though he is from Texas, he was not actually wearing a hat. I guess this explains why it was off.

Reince Priebus, who has held on to the worst job evah for this long anyway:
“On behalf of the entire senior staff around you, Mr. President, we thank you for the opportunity and the blessing you’ve given us to serve your agenda and the American people, and we’re continuing to work very hard every day to accomplish those goals.”

Are you ready to puke yet?

Now it was Nikki Haley's turn, you know, the renegade UN ambassador who speaks her mind no matter what the White House wants her to say:
“It’s a new day at the United Nations. We now have a very strong voice.”
Maybe she meant her own voice, though I would think she would tiptoe around any approximation of vanity in this situation.

OMB Director Mick Mulvaney:
“At your direction, we were able to also focus on the forgotten men and women who are paying taxes, so I appreciate your support on pulling that budget together.”
He is referring to the "dead on arrival" budget that Congress is ignoring.

HHS Secretary Tom Price:
“What an incredible honor it is to lead the Department of Health and Human Services at this pivotal time under your leadership. I can’t thank you enough for the privilege that you’ve given me, and the leadership you’ve shown.”

This is how to have a staff meeting. Why all the problems all the time? Don't worry, be happy, and worship your fearless leader. Or they walk you out and disappear you. Your choice.

Elaine Chao, Secretary of Transportation:
“Thank you for coming over to the Department of Transportation. Hundreds and hundreds of people were so thrilled to hang out, watching the whole ceremony. I want to thank you for getting this country moving again, and also working again.”
And tens and tens of them might still have a job if the Trump budget, with 13 percent cuts to DoT, passes. This Just In

Do you remember how we laughed when Saddam said he got ninety-nine per cent of the vote? How far are we from that now?

Robert Lighthizer, U.S. Trade Representative:
“I apologize for being late for work. For about four months, I got bogged down in that swamp you’ve been trying to drain.”
I missed the video but presume this got a hearty, and not at all ironic, laugh from the swamp creatures.

Sonny Perdue, Secretary of Agriculture:
“I just got back from Mississippi. They love you there.”

Steven Mnuchin, Secretary of the Treasury:
“It’s been a great honor traveling with you around the country for the past year, and an even greater honor to be serving you on your Cabinet . . .”

We have rolled our eyes at dictators past and present for this kind of thing, surrounding themselves with sycophants, firing those who fail to pledge loyalty. It is very strange and difficult now to see ourselves cast as residents of a country like this.

156 Comments:

Anonymous Putting COUNTRY ahead of party said...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/powerpost/senate-overwhelming-votes-to-curtail-trumps-power-to-ease-up-on-russia-sanctions/2017/06/14/8c02d73a-5134-11e7-be25-3a519335381c_story.html

"...if the Senate’s vote is any guide, congressional support for the measure will probably be veto-proof. The House has yet to vote on the measure, which was added as an amendment to a popular bill stiffening sanctions against Iran for that country’s recent ballistic missile tests.

Even the president’s staunchest supporters voted in lockstep with his sharpest critics Wednesday to endorse the Russia sanctions measure. Senate Banking Committee Chairman Mike Crapo (R-Idaho) referred to it applying “a correct amount of pressure” on Russia that will “ensure Congress exerts proper oversight over the use of these powerful sanctions.”

The measure lawmakers voted on Wednesday would give Congress the chance to block any efforts by the Trump administration — or any other president, for that matter — to roll back sanctions without the consent of Congress.

It would also codify existing sanctions against Russia over its annexation of Crimea and involvement in the war in eastern Ukraine.

The measure would then apply new sanctions against Russia for its activities in Syria, where the Kremlin is supporting the regime of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, and for its alleged meddling in last year’s U.S. presidential election.

The punitive measures in the legislation are focused on various areas, including the Russian intelligence and defense sectors, parts of its energy sector, and its metals, mining and railways economy. It also includes provisions to better track and combat corruption and illicit financing structures that lead back to Russia."

June 15, 2017 3:31 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

President Trump denies that he interfered with the Russia probe in any way, but it appears most Americans believe otherwise.

A recent AP-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research poll revealed that "six in 10 Americans...think Trump tried to obstruct or impede the investigation."

Only 1 in 5 agree with Trump's decision to fire former FBI Director James Comey.

Notably, there were great variations in the views expressed by Democrats and Republicans. An AP report about the results indicates, "Only a quarter of Republicans feel Trump meddled in the probe."

The poll was conducted from June 8 through 11, ending days before the Washington Post revealed that special counsel is now looking into attempted obstruction of justice by President Trump.

In its Wednesday report, the Post writes, "The move by special counsel Robert S. Mueller III to investigate Trump's conduct marks a major turning point in the nearly year-old FBI investigation, which until recently focused on Russian meddling during the presidential campaign and on whether there was any coordination between the Trump campaign and the Kremlin. Investigators have also been looking for any evidence of possible financial crimes among Trump associates, officials said."...

https://www.aol.com/article/news/2017/06/15/poll-most-americans-think-trump-attempted-to-interfere-in-russia-probe/22304842/

June 16, 2017 7:10 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Ever heard of Stalin?

He was a leftist totalitarian who used to leak information about his enemies before putting on a show trial to convict the.

Kind of like the unelected left in the government are doing now.

Why is Robert Mueller's staff stocked with Hillary supporters?

It's the deep state, baby!

Will democracy survive? Is civil war coming?

"How are we supposed to take the myriad leaks coming from Robert Mueller's special investigation of what I guess we could call "The Russian Matter"?

You would think that on the day Rep. Steve Scalise was shot the lava-like flow of illegal and frequently inaccurate leaked information being promulgated ad infinitum by the Washington Post, the New York Times, and CNN (among others) would stop for a moment's respectful pause, but no -- at least not at the Washington Post.

That very day they were "reporting" [scare quotes deliberate] that five, count 'em five, needless-to-say unnamed "officials" [scare quotes again deliberate] were saying Donald Trump is under investigation for obstruction of justice by Special Counsel Robert Mueller.

In Thursday's WaPo"exclusive," it's son-in-law Jared Kushner under the leak-o-scope. This article, like the one before, is accompanied by the paper's typical boilerplate that they seem to have in macro. (Do they teach this in j-school now?):

The officials who described the financial focus of the investigation spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak publicly.

I thought they weren't "authorized" to speak at all. I thought it was against the law to leak -- naive me.

Obviously, the Post doesn't care. A scoop's a scoop to these denizens of digital Grub Street who seem to have to sprung virtually unchanged from the pages of Boswell's "London Journal," or is it Evelyn Waugh?

These leaks have appeared only days after this supposedly confidential investigation began. Where did they come from? Inside the FBI? If so, that organization (with five leakers!) is seriously corrupt and should be disbanded. Yes, you read that correctly. If serial leaks are coming from the FBI, our leading law enforcement agency is betraying the America people and is staffed with a number of criminals of the most despicable entitled sort. They think they know what's best for us hoi polloi, so they are allowed to break the law with impunity when the rest of us poor schmucks have to tow the line on a parking ticket. Over such things are civil wars and revolutions fought (taxation without representation, etc.) -- with justification.

June 16, 2017 12:53 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

That is a big story, bigger even than Trump/Russia (well, that wouldn't be hard). Whether or not Trump obstructed justice we have no way of knowing (though Alan Dershowitz and Jonathan Turley are skeptical), but we do know that illegal leakers are all over our government from intelligence agencies to the FBI. This is quite simply totalitarianism on the march, the subversion of the rule of law in a democratic republic.

What we are witnessing is a cross between "Animal Farm" and Ugo Betti's "Corruption in the Palace of Justice" as produced by Jeff Bezos. It also resembles the techniques employed during Stalin's show trials when "information" was leaked to the reliable press to assure the discrediting of defendants in advance of their testimony. Considering what we have seen in recent days, I have no doubt that some of these leakers would love to see both Trump and Kushner sent to the Gulag, if only we had one.

Anyone looking at this investigation with even a tad of objectivity can see that it has been tainted before it has barely started. Leave aside the optics (apologies for the already tired cliché) of the close relationship with Comey and the three Democratic donors in key positions. This leaking is on another level altogether. It is obstruction of justice, in its pure Stalinist form. If I were Robert Mueller, I would be humiliated. If I were not able to find those leakers and prosecute immediately, I would recuse myself.

There is no other way. With the leakers unpunished, Mueller's decisions will not have convinced half the country of what has been referred to by others as their "fairness." They will only exacerbate an already bad situation. And that is -- given the dreadfully divided state of our nation at the moment -- a recipe for civil war."

June 16, 2017 12:53 PM  
Anonymous Whup It Out said...

So ... it turns out what the Republicans want is secret government. The press and the public don't need to know what's going on. Whether it is "leakers" or passing a secret health bill, this is the theme: let the GOP do whatever it wants without scrutiny. Treason, collusion with the enemy, emoluments, nepotism, conflicts of interest, corruption of every sort -- these are fine, to the GOP the "real criminals" are those who tell the public about it.

June 16, 2017 1:16 PM  
Anonymous Confession is good for the soul said...

Terry Heaton, Contributor
Retired television executive; Author, ‘The Gospel of Self: How Jesus Joined the GOP’

How The Religious Right Pioneered Propaganda As News
Before Fox News, there was Pat Robertson’s ‘700 Club,’ where I was an executive producer.


"...Americans find themselves drowning in this unseemly and childish battle for the soul of news and information purveyance, and the undiscussed problem is that the entire mess is built on the false narrative of “the liberal (elite) press.” I know, because I was among the people who advanced the concept and shaped the discussion in the early ‘80s, as senior and executive producer of Pat Robertson’s flagship television program The 700 Club.

Before Fox News, there was The 700 Club with CBN News and “TV Journalism With A Different Spirit.” We knew what we were doing in the exploitation of the word “liberal,” and truth-telling demands its deconstruction today. The all-or-nothing split between conflicting political narratives has reached its pinnacle with the election of Donald Trump, and it needs to be hacked into a million pieces.

William F. Buckley was among the first to give the word “liberal” a pejorative interpretation, but it was the wordsmith William Safire writing for Spiro Agnew who in 1969 elevated it to a political talking point in his famous speech that opened the war against the press during Richard Nixon’s secret battles in Vietnam. The word became the central weapon in a strategy that involved attacking the messenger instead of changing the message.

That political strategy has been so effective to date that it has given birth to the idea that mainstream news is actually “fake news” and not to be believed in the administration of President Donald Trump. The number of people who now believe this falsehood is staggering, and it poses a real threat to our democracy.

At The 700 Club, we exploited attacking the press in order to insert ourselves to the right of everybody else in presenting a Biblical, a.k.a. Republican perspective on current events. We offered a daily news program that expressed Republican party talking points that we marketed as a Christian worldview. Thus began the shifting of evangelicals to the GOP and the shifting of the GOP to the right. We served as the intellectual wing of the Moral Majority, although there was no theological love lost between Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell.

So let’s look at these events closely, because it has a direct bearing on the conflict today. Let me be very clear: the right-wing “news” that we created was a political response to the progressive nature of news and information. It’s important to understand this, because “right-wing news” is oxymoronic. There is no such thing, because the right represents olds, not news. By definition, news is new, and new is progressive. That conservatives view this as a bias is fine, but elevating that to some evil command-and-control mechanism for political liberals is a false narrative. Rush Limbaugh has made a living off of this phony hegemony, as well as Sean Hannity, Tucker Carlson, and whole host of mostly broadcasting personalities. Why? Because it sells and has been selling for almost 50 years..."

June 16, 2017 3:29 PM  
Anonymous TTF Troll bottoms out said...

Roger L. Simon, the author of the TTF Troll's two part screed about Stalin above," is an Academy Award-nominated screenwriter, award-winning novelist and blogger, and the co-founder of PJ Media."

Simon is the type of writer the Trumpette considers to be reliable news source.

< EYE ROLL >

June 16, 2017 3:44 PM  
Anonymous Out of the mouths of babes said...

Courageous 12-Year-Old Mormon Girl Comes Out As Gay In Front Of Her Entire Church:
“I believe that God wants us to treat each other with kindness, even if people are different — especially if they are different.”

June 16, 2017 5:02 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"So ... it turns out what the Republicans want is secret government. The press and the public don't need to know what's going on."

What an odd statement, coming from an idiot who thought Russia stole the election from Hillary by hacking her e-mail and letting the public "know what's going on"

say, what's your IQ?

"Whether it is "leakers""

you are aware, right, that Obama prosecuted more reporters for espionage than any President in history?

yes, believe or not, criminal investigations are supposed to be confidential until they are concluded

"or passing a secret health bill,"

you are aware, right, that Obamacare was a mystery, even to the Dems who voted lockstep for it? Pelosi said people will like it when they find out what's in it

"this is the theme: let the GOP do whatever it wants without scrutiny."

and by "scrutiny", you mean media lies and anonymous sources, right?

June 17, 2017 12:51 AM  
Anonymous Whup It Out said...

Nobody hacked Hillary's email.

Somebody did hack into the DNC's email and published it but I don't think it did much damage. There was some insider maneuvering to push Hillary ahead of Bernie but I don't think the DNC emails had much effect.

And BTW -- the DNC is not "the government." People and businesses have a right to privacy. Government agencies classify too much information and if you weren't so preoccupied with opposing liberals you would agree with that.

Obamacare was not a mystery, it was published and debated and edited for months before it was voted on. Everybody knew what they were getting, and of course it became a partisan thing because, huh, familiar theme, the Republicans were preoccupied with with opposing liberals.

Trump has a loyal inner circle of ... his family members. Everybody else is along for the handouts. The dumbest thing he could have done, on many levels, was to alienate the intelligence community. Now things will "happen" unexpectedly and he can't prevent them. And he has no secrets.

Republicans like you have defined yourselves as opposing liberals, where "liberals" is a stereotype that you don't understand and that doesn't exist as you have painted it. This oppositional reflex expresses a sort of bitter pointlessness, the party at this point has no beliefs of its own. It was fine to be "the party of No" when you were the underdogs, doesn't work now. SAD.

June 17, 2017 9:11 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Nobody hacked Hillary's email.

Somebody did hack into the DNC's email and published it but I don't think it did much damage. There was some insider maneuvering to push Hillary ahead of Bernie but I don't think the DNC emails had much effect."

I couldn't agree more. My point wasn't that the leaks did any damage. The point is that Dems have built a whole fantasy scenario that leaks as a result of hacking by Russians, in collusion with Trump, caused them to lose the election. That's pretty hypocritical if you support unlimited leaking of private conversations in the Trump administration. Is there are right to private conversation or not?

"And BTW -- the DNC is not "the government." People and businesses have a right to privacy."

When the President meets with his staff and discusses options he does too. Once he makes a decision, then is the time to discuss. As far as foreign relations, it's a serious impediment to our interests to have a blow by blow publication of every discussion.

"Government agencies classify too much information and if you weren't so preoccupied with opposing liberals you would agree with that."

Actually, I agree with that now. But prosecutors investigating a crime could clearly have their work impeded if their staff is leaking information.

"Obamacare was not a mystery, it was published and debated and edited for months before it was voted on."

Oh, come off it. Pelosi and others at the time admitted they hadn't read it before passing it, much less the public. The public, however, had heard enough that they were strongly opposed. Indeed, in the public's only opportunity to stop it, a Repub won a Senate seat in deep blue Massachusetts by promising to oppose it. Dems then quickly pushed through whatever they had through legislative chicanery to thwart the will of the American voter.

"Everybody knew what they were getting, and of course it became a partisan thing because, huh, familiar theme, the Republicans were preoccupied with with opposing liberals."

Repubs supported the will of their constituency. It's how democracy works.

"Trump has a loyal inner circle of ... his family members. Everybody else is along for the handouts."

He has advisors he trusts. Obama did the same. You may remember that the Obamacare IT systems failed because they gave the job to some friend of Michelle from high school.

"The dumbest thing he could have done, on many levels, was to alienate the intelligence community. Now things will "happen" unexpectedly and he can't prevent them. And he has no secrets."

The intelligence community? Who elected them to oversee our other elected officials?
Trump was elected by us to oversee the intelligence agencies. trump should replace any of them that have a problem with that.

June 17, 2017 1:20 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Republicans like you have defined yourselves as opposing liberals, where "liberals" is a stereotype that you don't understand and that doesn't exist as you have painted it. This oppositional reflex expresses a sort of bitter pointlessness, the party at this point has no beliefs of its own. It was fine to be "the party of No" when you were the underdogs, doesn't work now. SAD."

Wow. What's sad is your lack of self-awareness.

I'm actually a registered Democrat. I've become disillusioned over the years as the Mensheviks have morphed into Bolsheviks. I'd consider myself a libertarian now.

I first got wind of this when I was living in California in the 70s and Jerry Brown was running for re-election. His GOP opponent, Evelle Younger, supported legalization of marijuana. Brown's reaction: "I think it's a substance that should be controlled"

The Dems have been at it ever since: their goal, to control

you make money?

give it to us, we'll decide how it's spent

millions will lose health insurance is Obamacare is repealed?

they don't tell you that this calculation is that with the mandate gone, those are the people that won't be forced to buy insurance

is the climate warmer than it used to be?

there are myriad possible solutions but Dems only favor those that involve regulating behavior

there are people who don't believe in gay marriage and don't feel they should support it?

the government will force them to bake that cake

toward the end, the Obama administration was even discussing how to forcibly impose the racial diversity of America on a block-by-block basis

Dems stand for the idea that the government needs to supervise our lives

June 17, 2017 1:20 PM  
Anonymous Whup It Out said...

you make money?
give it to us, we'll decide how it's spent


Exactly the stereotype I was talking about.

Look at the actual history of taxation, deficits, bang-for-the-buck, with one party or the other in power, and you will see exactly the opposite of this stereotype. It sells in Peoria, but here in DC we see what's going on -- hey, how come you aren't mumbling Hannitarian slogans about your neighbors, the "deep state?" I'm sure career federal employees can be blamed for most of your personal dissatisfaction with life.

June 17, 2017 2:08 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"The point is that Dems have built a whole fantasy scenario that leaks as a result of hacking by Russians, in collusion with Trump, caused them to lose the election. "

This BS is Trump's attempt to deflect attention from his tangled Russian connections.

Mueller will not be deflected. He's going to follow the money.

"As far as foreign relations, it's a serious impediment to our interests to have a blow by blow publication of every discussion."

I know, right?

Yet Trump plays foreign relations things so close to his vest like for instance by doing things like: Trump Vows to Scrutinize 'Dumb' Refugee Deal After a Reportedly Hostile Call with Australia's Leader.

Go figure!

"Oh, come off it."

You come off it.

You are taking a portion of one line out of a 20 minute speech out of context and spinning it just like the the right wing echo chamber has since Pelosi made the comment on March 9, 2009.

Here's Pelosi's entire statement where you can find that one line:

"...“We have to do this in partnership, and I wanted to bring up to date on where we see it from here. The final health care legislation that will soon be passed by Congress will deliver successful reform at the local level. It will offer paid for investments that will improve health care services and coverage for millions more Americans. It will make significant investments in innovation, prevention, wellness and offer robust support for public health infrastructure. It will dramatically expand investments into community health centers. That means a dramatic expansion in the number of patients community health centers can see and ultimately healthier communities. Our bill will significantly reduce uncompensated care for hospitals.

“You’ve heard about the controversies within the bill, the process about the bill, one or the other. But I don’t know if you have heard that it is legislation for the future, not just about health care for America, but about a healthier America, where preventive care is not something that you have to pay a deductible for or out of pocket. Prevention, prevention, prevention–it’s about diet, not diabetes. It’s going to be very, very exciting.

“But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it, away from the fog of the controversy. Furthermore, we believe that health care reform, again I said at the beginning of my remarks, that we sent the three pillars that the President’s economic stabilization and job creation initiatives were education and innovation–innovation begins in the classroom–clean energy and climate, addressing the climate issues in an innovative way to keep us number one and competitive in the world with the new technology, and the third, first among equals I may say, is health care, health insurance reform. Health insurance reform is about jobs. This legislation alone will create 4 million jobs, about 400,000 jobs very soon.

“We must have the courage, though, to get the job done. We have the ideas. We have the commitment. We have the dedication. We know the urgency. Now we have to have the courage to get the job done..."

June 17, 2017 2:46 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

That one line has been truncated to “we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it,” or even paraphrased like you did above.

Rational people remember the PPACA was discussed and worked on for years by both the House and Senate. and we all heard about mandates, subsidies, pre-existing conditions, allowing kids to stay on parents' policies through age 26 and all the rest.

But whatever. All that's ancient history now. Now we know that Gallup reports WASHINGTON, D.C. -- Fifty-five percent of Americans now support the Affordable Care Act (ACA), a major turnaround from five months ago when 42% approved and 53% disapproved.

Even Trump has enough sense to call Ryan's House approved dead-in-the-water Trumpcare that will cause 23 million Americans to lose their health insurance coverage "mean."

June 17, 2017 2:46 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

So much for the false claim that allowing trans people to use the bathroom they prefer will put biological women in danger of attack from male predators pretending to be women

Canada has passed a federal law that bans discrimination against people based on gender identity and gender expression. Prior to this ever province and territory had passed transgender anti-discrimination protections. This goes back as far as 2002 and contrary to the liars claiming this will allow men to legally enter women's bathrooms to sexually assault them this has never happened - its a fake concern intended to dishonestly justify allowing continued discrimination against harmless people using the bathroom of the gender they identify with.

The truth is there is strong empirical evidence to suggest that transgender people themselves are uniquely vulnerable to discrimination, harassment and violence in sex-segregated spaces.

June 17, 2017 3:08 PM  
Anonymous Correction said...

Pelosi' speech referenced at 2:46PM above was made on March 9, 2010, not 2009.

June 17, 2017 3:17 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"So much for the false claim that allowing trans people to use the bathroom they prefer will put biological women in danger of attack from male predators pretending to be women"

people want the restrooms segregated by gender

they believe it is safer but they don't have an obligation to present empirical evidence that its true

there is no legitimate grievance, there is no proof transgenders are in danger when they use the restroom of their actual gender

the request for that proof is months old and the crickets died from the endless chirping

Canada has passed a federal law that bans discrimination against people based on gender identity and gender expression. Prior to this ever province and territory had passed transgender anti-discrimination protections. This goes back as far as 2002 and contrary to the liars claiming this will allow men to legally enter women's bathrooms to sexually assault them this has never happened - its a fake concern intended to dishonestly justify allowing continued discrimination against harmless people using the bathroom of the gender they identify with.

The truth is there is strong empirical evidence to suggest that transgender people themselves are uniquely vulnerable to discrimination, harassment and violence in sex-segregated spaces.
June 17, 2017 3:08 PM Anonymous Correction said...
Pelosi' speech referenced at 2:46PM above was made on March 9, 2010, not 2009.

June 17, 2017 6:12 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Pelosi' speech referenced at 2:46PM above was made on March 9, 2010, not 2009"

nothing about Pelosi's expanded comments changes the context

she clearly said people would find out what's in it, AFTER IT PASSES

she was in a rush because the American people were opposed and had just elected a Senator whose opposition would stop it

June 17, 2017 6:15 PM  
Anonymous Captain Obvious said...


"they believe it is safer but they don't have an obligation to present empirical evidence that its true"

Obviously then, you have "no legitimate grievance."

June 17, 2017 7:13 PM  
Anonymous Whup It Out said...

Of course Pelosi meant that people will appreciate the ACA once they see it in action. And she was absolutely right, it was disliked when it was passed -- remember people who loved the Affordable Care Act and hated Obamacare? -- and now it is very popular, no matter what you call it.

This kind of gotcha rightwing wordplay, taking a phrase out of context, is sickening. The ACA had plenty of debate and discussion and was voted into law. It is now America's healthcare policy and people like it. The Trump administration is choosing to starve it to death financially, and that's their prerogative, people will die but that will just be collateral damage as far as the GOP is concerned -- they have donors to pay back.

If they think they have a better idea, well the Republicans control both houses of Congress and the Presidency. There is no one to stop them. Of course they know what the consequences will be when they take people's insurance away -- actually they could, in theory, pass a humane and good healthcare bill. But everybody knows that though it is theoretically possible, it's not going to happen.

That's why they are doing it all in secret.

The people will be screwed one way or the other; the real problem for the GOP now is how to do this and blame the Democrats.

June 17, 2017 7:33 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Of course Pelosi meant that people will appreciate the ACA once they see it in action. And she was absolutely right, it was disliked when it was passed -- remember people who loved the Affordable Care Act and hated Obamacare? -- and now it is very popular, no matter what you call it."

Is that how democracy works? Thwart the will of the voters and see what they'll think years later?

After opposing Obamacare for years, suddenly in the last couple of months, they've decided they like it when Congress ignores them? One problem is that, since Trump was elected, the press has lost all pretense of objectivity and now feels it has an obligation to stop Trump, no matter what kind of lie they have to tell. People don't know what to believe anymore and they receive so much false information.

Perfect example: press keeps saying how many will "lose" their health insurance. SIRTEEFYED by the OFISHEL CBO. What they don't tell anyone is they will lose it by choice, simply because the government won't force them to buy it.

"This kind of gotcha rightwing wordplay, taking a phrase out of context, is sickening."

Yeah, that kind of "gotcha" where everyone assumes she means what she says. If you think the statement is taken out of context, do tell us how.

"The ACA had plenty of debate and discussion and was voted into law."

the details were changing by the day, Pelosi didn't have time to review the final because she had to get it through before Scott Brown's election blew her narrow window of opportunity to thwart the will of the voter

"It is now America's healthcare policy and people like it."

do they, or are they simply reacting to the nightmare caricature draw up by the press?

"The Trump administration is choosing to starve it to death financially,"

in other words, not subsidize the program that was sold to the American people as a program that will cut the budget

Obamacare didn't work

"and that's their prerogative, people will die"

actually no one will - this is simply a lie

"but that will just be collateral damage as far as the GOP is concerned -- they have donors to pay back."

they could have made a lot of money if they were paid off by big Pharma and wealthy doctors, who love Obamacare and have showered its supporters with funds

Dems' supportersd are making a bundle off Obamacare

"If they think they have a better idea, well the Republicans"

this presumes that providing health care to the public is the government's responsibility

you won't find it in the COnstitution

June 19, 2017 9:48 AM  
Anonymous Not the Anon who has repeatedly said "There are many situations where lying is appropriate." said...

"Pelosi didn't have time to review the final because she had to get it through before Scott Brown's election blew her narrow window of opportunity to thwart the will of the voter" said the Anon who has repeatedly said "There are many situations where lying is appropriate."

More lying bullshit.

Scott Brown was sworn in to the US Senate on Feb. 4, 2010 (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/02/04/signed-certification-hand-scott-brown-heads-washington.html) and the House passed the Senate version of the PPACA weeks later on March 21, 2010 (https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/111-2010/h165).

June 19, 2017 11:29 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"More lying bullshit"

charming form of expression

where were raised? a whorehouse?

"Scott Brown was sworn in to the US Senate on Feb. 4, 2010 (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/02/04/signed-certification-hand-scott-brown-heads-washington.html) and the House passed the Senate version of the PPACA weeks later on March 21, 2010 (https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/111-2010/h165)"

they only had a few hours left to pass it through a process began before he took office and only required only a majority vote

if they had waited until the next day, the process would have had to begin again and Brown could have stopped it by filibuster, which they would need more than a majority to stop and move the bill forward

say, were you in the country then or were you ....?

June 19, 2017 12:01 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Pelosi didn't have time to review the final because she had to get it through before Scott Brown's election blew her narrow window of opportunity to thwart the will of the voter

...say, were you in the country then or were you ....?"


Yes, I was in the US then same as you.

The difference between us is I know Pelosi was the Speaker of the House while Scott Brown was elected to the Senate, unlike certain cretins who post here.

I also remember Senate Majority Leader Reid: We'll wait on Brown for health care vote

But there you are, lying through your teeth about actual history like the typical Fox News misinformed Trumpette.

Do I have to remind you where the pussy grabber says you can go and what you can do to yourself there yet again?

The Constitution says "The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States" yet it's odd we don't hear a peep of concern out of you Trumpettes about Trump's abdication of that responsibility by turning it over to the Pentagon.

Nobody elected Jim Mattis to be the Commander in Chief.

June 19, 2017 1:30 PM  
Anonymous Whup It Out said...

Anon, it is as if you feel an obligation to respond but have nothing to say.

Elected representatives often have knowledge and information beyond what the general public holds, while normally the public gets its information from commercial news sources. (I say "normally" because the current President gets his information from Breitbart and Fox rather than more knowledgeable inside-government sources.) The Republicans mounted an intense publicity campaign against the ACA and the public was exposed to that, but Congress and the President decided based on the actual bill and actual debate and it was passed and signed into law. You might not like that, especially when Democrats hold power, but ... that's how it works.

The Context Behind Nancy Pelosi’s Famous ‘We Have to Pass the Bill’ Quote And please don't bother criticizing the site for being liberal; if you find a misstatement or inaccuracy then please share as excitedly as you please.

And yes, good: "not subsidize the program." The GOP is failing to subsidize the program as called for in the bill and patients will lose their coverage and die. You think that sounds a little harsh, I know, you would like to soften the wording, but the US has the worst health care in the civilized world; it had a chance of improving but that chance is disappearing. Without healthcare people do die.

"this presumes that providing health care to the public is the government's responsibility / you won't find it in the COnstitution"

The government is not providing healthcare to the public, the government is making sure that everyone has a right to healthcare -- which *is* in the Constitution.

June 19, 2017 3:07 PM  
Anonymous Rats prefer hiding from daylight too said...

The Not-So-Secret Truth About the Senate GOP’s Secret Health Care Bill
The details matter. But at its core, it’s still a massive tax cut paid for by depriving millions of health care.


"Senate Republicans are hurling themselves toward passing an incredibly unpopular set of health care reforms that even they don’t understand, haven’t seen and likely won’t see until just before it hits the floor.

This rightly has raised the hackles not only of Senate Democrats and the media, but anyone who values transparency in government or is anxious about the consequences of reordering the American health care system and taking away health coverage from millions of people.

But as important as the legislation’s details will turn out out to be, there’s a simple, fundamental, incontrovertible fact about whatever the Senate health care reform bill winds up looking like: The purpose of this bill is to dramatically scale back the safety net so wealthy people and health care companies can get a massive tax cut.

It’s the biggest open secret about the secret Senate health care bill....

June 19, 2017 3:17 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

you people are insane

first, you complain that the GOP healthcare bill is secret

when I point out the same was true of Obamacare, you say everyone know what was in that and debated it

and now you've come around to saying you know what's in the GOP bill and are debating it

could you either stick the same story for two seconds, or, alternatively, admit you're wrong when you realize it

btw, Obamacare had to pass both houses

it was done by a reconciliation bill, only requiring a majority to approve

but that window was expiring, reconciliation bills must be wrapped up and voted on within a certain period of time. under Congressional rules, they would have had to start over again from the beginning, meaning Brown could have stopped it, just like the voters wanted, if Pelosi and Reid hadn't pushed it through pronto

that's why it was such a rush to get it out without reading it

it was the only way Pelosi, Reid, and Obama could make sure the American voter didn't win

June 19, 2017 4:32 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

you know that Supreme Court with Neil Goresuch sittin' in?

they say "fight for ol' DC!"

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-court-band-idUSKBN19A1YP

June 19, 2017 4:34 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"that Supreme Court with Neil Goresuch sittin' in"

boy, TTF must bitterly regret supporting the corrupt and craven Hillary

Biden or Jerry Brown woulda beat Trump with one hand tied behind their back!!

heck, even Bernie and his violent supporters would have had a good shot!!

ah, the wages of error!!

June 19, 2017 4:37 PM  
Anonymous The Ghost of the Future said...

Watch this -- we are going to start hearing people saying, look, the US attacked a Syrian jet and now the Russians are attacking us -- proof, I tell ya, that Russia is not supporting Trump.

But nobody ever said Russia was "supporting Trump." They wanted him to win the election because that is good for them in every possible way. Russia's goal is disruption. Their philosophy is to support extreme right or left wing populist movements against the middle, all around the world. They wanted Trump to win the election because they knew it would throw the US into chaos. Now that he's President, they don't mind going to war with us. They know the Commander in Chief is a moron who has no foreign policy, no military strategy, no knowledge of international (or domestic) affairs. How could this not end well for them?

June 19, 2017 9:31 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

https://www.aol.com/article/news/2017/06/19/trumps-approval-drops-days-after-posting-on-twitter-about-50-pe/22490520/

June 20, 2017 7:39 AM  
Anonymous Whup It Out said...

Polls show that 99.99% of Americans believe Trump is an incompetent moron. However, 35% think it is wonderful that the other 65% are outraged by him. Trump's followers mainly support him because he upsets liberals.

In the meantime, the Republicans are planning to pass a health bill that is, judging by its House precedent and various scraps that have been publicized, harsh and dangerous for those American people who are not corporate CEOs. They are developing the bill in secret and will vote on it with no estimate, formal or informal, of what it will cost, how it will affect taxes, what it will do to the economy in the short run or the long run. So far this administration has been a total failure; they need a win and will take it any way they can get it.

Every day Trump gives us more evidence that he is a hometown gangster cashing in on a political pyramid scheme. Let's take our eyes off him and look at where the real damage is being done.

June 20, 2017 7:53 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Registered to Vote? If So, A GOP Firm Probably Exposed Your Personal Data

June 20, 2017 8:37 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"you've come around to saying you know what's in the GOP bill and are debating it"

The only one spinning pirouettes is you.

Only a handful of GOPers in the Senate backroom know what's in the GOP bill.

Knowing the outcome of Trumpscare will mean millions of American citizens will lose coverage, does not mean the details of the Senate bill are known.

Not even most GOP Senators know what will be in the bill being written secretly in that backroom -- prescriptions, guaranteed coverage for pre-existing conditions, preventive care, ER visits, death panels?

2017 "...A group of GOP senators has been writing the bill in private. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) plans to take legislation directly to the Senate floor, where it will most likely get just 20 hours of formal discussion. Neither the Finance Committee nor the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee ― the two with jurisdiction ― plan to hold hearings. (In 2009 and 2010, Democrats held literally hundreds of hours of hearings, as part of a process for the Affordable Care Act that took more than a year to complete.)..."

Compare the 2017 BS above to the Chronology of passing PPACA into law:

"January 2009 Obama takes office; health care reform high on the agenda...

March 2009 White House health care forum...

Spring 2009 Max Baucus becomes point man...

Spring 2009 A secret deal with the pharmaceutical industry...

Summer 2009 Focus on writing bill; bipartisanship...

August 2009 Congressional recess; angry town hall meetings...

Aug. 25, 2009 Sen. Ted Kennedy dies...

Sept. 9, 2009 "You lie!"...

Fall 2009 Democrats take the lead; war with the insurance industry; more deals are cut...

Dec. 24, 2009 Senate passes bill...

January 2010 Scott Brown's Massachusetts win throws reform in doubt...

January/February 2010 Obama takes charge; a last attempt at bipartisanship?...

March 21, 2010 Health care bill passes House..."

June 20, 2017 9:44 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Watch this -- we are going to start hearing people saying, look, the US attacked a Syrian jet and now the Russians are attacking us -- proof, I tell ya, that Russia is not supporting Trump.

But nobody ever said Russia was "supporting Trump.""

actually, what you've said, often, is that Trump is supporting Russian interests to the detriment of America, in exchange for their help in the election

it was always a lie, you never believed it yourself

and, yes, this again shows that you are full of IT

"Polls show that 99.99% of Americans believe Trump is an incompetent moron. However, 35% think it is wonderful that the other 65% are outraged by him."

I think most people reading that will have a hearty laugh

65% of America is liberal?

hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

funny how they don't control any level or branch of government

what could explain how that 65% keeps losing elections?

today Georgia is voting

the media has pulled the usual scam

if you believe the hype, Osoff has been winning in the polls until right at the end and now it's neck-and-neck

just like Hillary was killing Trump in the polls

right....

and if Osoff wins, the liberal media will act as if the fate of our civilization is finally clear and if Handel wins...it's sour grapes wine all around

"Trump's followers mainly support him because he upsets liberals."

no one really cares about the emotional state of liberals

people have, by-and-large, voted to preserve our constitutional rights

"Compare the 2017 BS above to the Chronology of passing PPACA into law:"

recently, y'all were whining because Trump's health bill is taking so long

now, you say Obama's is better because ot took so long

sheesh, make up your low IQ mind

hey, look, the European Court has ruled that gays have a right to propaganda and Putin violated it

"http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-40338637"

that oughta scare the hell outta 'em!!

June 20, 2017 10:55 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

A few days ago a Republican Senate aide was asked by a reporter why the GOP leadership felt the need to keep all the discussions for the health care bill completely under wraps and he replied, “We’re not stupid.” Leading Republicans know that what they’re planning is so poisonous to the voters that if they let anyone see the monstrosity they’re constructing before the bill is hurriedly voted on and signed into law by President Donald Trump, it could well cause riots. After all, according to recent polling, only 17 percent of the American people surveyed said they approved of the bill as it currently stands.

The fact is that Republicans are willing to destroy the health and financial security of millions of Americans so they can give massive tax cuts to Ivanka Trump, Jared Kushner and others like them who are lucky enough to be vastly wealthy. This is their first real chance to enact permanent tax cuts since 1986... Republicans have been chasing this dream a very long time. It is their white whale, so important that even the prospect of millions of people suffering and going bankrupt is not enough to make them think better of it. They are willing to hold hands, jump over a cliff and commit political suicide for it.

Majority Leader Mitch McConnell is insistent that senators get this hugely unpopular piece of legislation done as quickly as possible, preferably before the Fourth of July recess when they might have to go home and face their desperate and horrified constituents. The Wall Street Journal reported Monday evening that McConnell plans to release the text later this week, then have the Congressional

Budget Office release its estimate of the cost and the devastation to human lives early next week — which would be followed by an immediate vote and then a quick getaway. This is presumably so Republican lawmakers can spend the holiday counting up all the money they’ve just voted to give themselves and their rich friends.

In the meantime, GOP leaders are dealing with the avalanche of criticism that they’re receiving the way their puerile president has taught them. Here’s the response of Senate Majority Whip John Cornyn of Texas:

Adam Schiff ✔@RepAdamSchiff
Trumpcare by the numbers: 850% premium spike for elderly, 14 mil lose healthcare in 1st year, 1 in 6 w pre-existing conditions lose coverage
9:55 AM - 27 May 2017

JohnCornyn ✔@JohnCornyn
Fake news https://twitter.com/repadamschiff/status/868465684933734400 …
2:56 PM - 27 May 2017

Brian Schatz ✔@brianschatz
No hearings, no women, no Democrats involved. No expert testimony, no listening to healthcare providers. This is legislative malpractice.
4:44 PM - 15 Jun 2017

JohnCornyn ✔@JohnCornyn
Fake news https://twitter.com/brianschatz/status/875453883975434242 …
8:46 AM - 16 Jun 2017...

June 20, 2017 2:48 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

...David Lauter ✔@DavidLauter
Senate GOP health bill hurtles toward vote amid level of secrecy not seen since b4 WWI, @NoamLevey & @LisaMascaro http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-republicans-obamacare-secrecy-20170616-story.html …
2:57 PM - 16 Jun 2017

Republican secrecy faces mounting criticism...
GOP leaders face increasing criticism over their secret process for writing legislation to repeal Obamacare.
lattices.com

JohnCornyn ✔@JohnCornyn
This is crazy talk https://twitter.com/davidlauter/status/875789372305682432 …
7:40 PM - 16 Jun 2017

None of it is “fake news.” It’s all true.

And this is how Cornyn tweeted about the Affordable Care Act in 2010:

JohnCornyn ✔@JohnCornyn
The people have a right to know what is happening behind closed doors with secret HC negotiations
2:31 AM - 7 Jan 2010

Unlike the current Senate bill, the ACA went through dozens of hearings and amendments, many of them offered by Republicans and accepted — although every single Republican senator voted against the bill in the end.

If Republican senators manage to get their bill passed in their chamber presumably they will hammer out some kind of compromise in conference with members of the House, with whom the senators will pretend to have a big fight over some details that they will then “fix,” telling the public that the final version of the law will provide everyone who needs it with cheap, excellent health care. It will be a lie but that won’t matter because they’ll hurriedly get it to Trump’s desk so he can declare that it’s no longer a “mean, cold-hearted son of a bitch” and sign it, staging his greatest photo op show on earth.

That’s the plan, at any rate. At this point it’s unknown whether McConnell can pull it off. He only has two votes to spare and it looks as if Sen. Susan Collins of Maine and Sen. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska have called dibs. (It was nice of Republicans to give those to two of the five GOP women senators, since they weren’t even invited into the boys-only health care club.)

We’ll have to see if there is one other GOP senator with any empathy for the people Republicans are going to make suffer or any sense of the terrible risk they would take with the American economy. Since the authors of this legislation have done virtually no research, held no hearings and consulted with no experts (according to health care industry leaders), they may just manage to destroy the entire health care sector, which comprises one-sixth of the U.S. economy. But, hey, they’ll have their tax cuts...

http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2017/06/the-gop-will-kill-to-get-their-tax-cuts.html

June 20, 2017 2:49 PM  
Anonymous Too hot to take off said...

American Airlines has canceled around 40 flights that were scheduled to take off from Phoenix’s Sky Harbor International Airport on Tuesday, as afternoon highs in the area are expected to exceed the operating temperatures of the company’s smaller aircraft.

The airline confirmed in a statement to HuffPost that its Bombardier CRJ, which it uses for regional “American Eagle” flights, can’t take off in weather hotter than 118 degrees Fahrenheit. Phoenix is projected to hit 120 degrees today.

The airline canceled seven flights on Monday for the same reason.

Should temps edge much higher, American would have to increase its number of cancellations. Its longer-range Boeing jets can’t fly in temperatures exceeding 126 degrees, and its Airbus jets are stuck at 127 degrees.

So far, no other airlines have canceled flights from the airport, according to Heather Lissner, the airport’s public information manager. Lissner said airlines have canceled flights due to the heat twice before: on July 1, 2013, and on June 26, 1990, when Phoenix set an all-time heat record of 122 degrees.

Heat affects planes because hot air expands until it isn’t dense enough for them to generate lift ― and without lift, we’re all grounded.

Patrick Smith, an airline pilot, blogger and the author of Cockpit Confidential, explained the phenomenon to Business Insider in 2013:

Hot air is less dense. This affects the output of the engines as well as aerodynamic capabilities, increasing the required runway distance and reducing climb performance. Therefore the amount of passengers and cargo a plane can carry are often restricted when temps are very high.

To state the obvious: That’s hot. Really hot. Or, as the Phoenix New Times puts it, the city is “a literal hellscape” and “an unlivable inferno.”

June 20, 2017 3:21 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

CNN's "Survey of the Week" backfired on the left-wing cable news network, as participants overwhelmingly indicated that they did not believe President Trump should be investigated for obstruction of justice.

The non-scientific, online survey shows that 68.8% of close to 3 million respondents believe Trump should not be investigated, while only 31.2% believe he should.

The shocking results come after CNN's wall-to-wall coverage of the largely discredited Trump-Russia collusion conspiracy

June 20, 2017 5:16 PM  
Anonymous the times they are a-changin' said...

"today Georgia is voting

the media has pulled the usual scam

if you believe the hype, Osoff has been winning in the polls until right at the end and now it's neck-and-neck

just like Hillary was killing Trump in the polls

right...."

yup, same story over and over

if you believe the media, the Dem is always leading until a couple of days before the election, when, suddenly, it's tied

then, the Repub wins by a comfortable margin

to paraphrase Paul Simon

"if I was the President,

the minute the media put out a poll

I'd say,

who do,

who do you think you're foolin'?"

they were hypin' it, saying this will show the country will reject Trump in 2018 by flipping Congress

well, we've had four special elections and the one promoted by Trump has won all four

this, despite the pouring of tens of millions of dollars into this tiny Georgia district by nutty TTF types from across the country and the hugely unpopular Trump campaigning for Handel with daily tweets

"Republican Karen Handel shrugged off a challenge from Democrat Jon Ossoff on Tuesday in a race to represent a suburban Atlanta seat in Congress, as the GOP and President Donald Trump won the most expensive U.S. House contest in history.

A former Georgia secretary of state, Handel emphasized her experience and roots in Georgia’s 6th Congressional District to defeat Ossoff and keep a seat that’s long been held by Republicans in GOP hands. She becomes Georgia’s first female Republican member of the U.S. House.

Her victory is a win for Trump, who campaigned for Handel and hurled a string of antagonizing tweets at Ossoff. And it could buoy GOP incumbents who now know that allying with Trump is the key to turning out voters.

Ossoff is a 30-year-old investigative filmmaker who the media was trying to turn into a rising Democratic star. Ossoff shattered fundraising records as he appealed to liberals (you know, the 65%- haha!) infuriated by Trump and GOP voters frustrated at Washington gridlock.

His huge fundraising hauls – he raised at least $23 million – kept his message on metro Atlanta’s airwaves and allowed him to target irregular voters and others who rarely cast ballots for Democrats. And a legion of more than 12,000 outside Ossoff volunteers inundated the district with appeals to vote. But in the end, the money and Democratic energy wasn’t enough to overcome Trump's tweets.

Handel ran in this contest as a traditional conservative voice who backed Trump and his top priorities. She also relentlessly attacked Ossoff as an inexperienced stooge of national Democrats funded by out-of-state interlopers. At every turn, she sought to remind voters that Ossoff lived outside the district and that his values were “3,000 miles away.” After keeping Trump at arm’s length early in the race, she aggressively embraced him after she landed a spot in the runoff in April."

June 20, 2017 11:45 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

what?!?!?!?!?

the Dems won the fourth special election in a row?

it's the KGB, I tell ya, The KGB!!

June 20, 2017 11:47 PM  
Anonymous be there or be square said...

"yup, same story over and over"

it's not just elections

they are constantly trying to pretend Americans are rabidly liberal

according to them, Americans are mad and avid supporters of gay rights

which makes you wonder why they always pull out all the stops to prevent votes on the subject

remember California, of all places, rejecting gay marriage at the voting booth

remember Dana Beyer intimidating people collecting signers to a petition to put gay rights on the ballot

now, they try to claim everyone is wildly crazy in love with Obamacare and furious at Trump for cancelling the Paris accords and dying to impeach Trump for being a Russian agent

see you at the polls in 2018!!

June 21, 2017 12:05 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Gay former NFL player Ryan O’Callaghan on coming out

June 21, 2017 7:18 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Georgia U.S. House 6th District
Results: FEB. 10, 2017

Tom Price*Republican
191,792 61.6%
Rodney Stooksbury Democrat
119,536 38.4%
100% reporting (206 of 206 precincts)

Results: June 20, 2017
Karen Handel*Republican
134,595 51.9%
Jon Ossoff Democrat
124,893 48.1%
100% reporting (208 of 208 precincts)

June 21, 2017 8:21 AM  
Anonymous GOP on a roll said...

In the race to fill the seat vacated by President Trump’s budget director, Republican real estate developer Ralph Norman on Tuesday beat his Democratic opponent in South Carolina’s 5th congressional district. Like the results of other special elections this year, it will also go down as another loss for Democrats.

Norman is viewed as a conservative who battled against wasteful spending in the statehouse and was one of only three legislators to earn an “A” from South Carolina’s Club for Growth. He made no secret of the fact that he supports President Trump. Trump tweeted Monday that Norman “will be a fantastic help to me in cutting taxes and getting great border security and healthcare. #VoteRalphNorman” In the last week, Trump recorded robocalls to the district on Norman’s behalf.

June 21, 2017 8:24 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Georgia U.S. House 6th District
Results: FEB. 10, 2017"

Despite the money pouring in from nutcases across the country and 12,000 volunteers from outside the state and an obsessive barrage of propaganda from the national media for weeks, Trump's popularity has held in Goergia, as in all other five special elections since he was elected.

Voters are disgusted by the Dems' focus on the Russia hoax.

June 21, 2017 8:31 AM  
Anonymous cheer up, it's all relative said...

If only TTF hadn't stupidly supported the incurably corrupt Clinton machine

maybe then things could be different

but, alas....

let's face it: Dems came out in favor of gay marriage, fully embracing the gay agenda, about 4 years ago and the result has been disastrous for them ever since

their best play now would be to support research into time travel so they could someday go back and undo all their moronic mistakes

June 21, 2017 9:51 AM  
Anonymous Trump taint -- sinking voter numbers said...

"Trump's popularity has held in Goergia [sic]"

The GOP's popularity in Georgia's 6th district dropped from 61.6% in the vote taken in November 2016 to 51.9% yesterday, a drop of nearly 10 full percentage points in 8 months.

The GOP's popularity in South Carolina's 5th district dropped from 59.2% in the vote taken in November 2016 to 51.1% yesterday, a drop of 8 percentage points in 8 months.

These results are clear evidence that the GOP's grip in some southern areas has slipped lower since Trump was elected.

Fifteen months from now, who knows how much lower the GOP's popularity in these once deep red districts will go?

June 21, 2017 4:43 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Fifteen months from now, who knows how much lower the GOP's popularity in these once deep red districts will go?"

considering the national and media onslaught by liberals, the Georgia win is significant for the GOP

Dems were only able to pour in that kind of money because there was only one place they were focused

they can't do that in 435 districts simultaneously

additionally, all the lies connected with the Russian hoax, and you know they are lies, will be clear by then

Dems chose the battleground

they couldn't deliver

just like they couldn't in November 2016

don't expect any different result on November 2018

June 21, 2017 10:34 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

https://www.aol.com/article/news/2017/06/21/poll-donald-trump=approval-rating-new-low-president-white-house/22546669/

June 22, 2017 7:01 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

No major religious group in America supports refusal of service to LGBT people: poll
Poll finds that for the first time in its polling history that Americans oppose businesses refusing to serve LGBT


"Some would think that the rise of President Donald Trump proved that a majority of Americans were not ready for the complete separation of church and state. But a new poll conducted by Public Religion Research Institute revealed that every major religious group in the U.S. is against businesses discriminating against gay and lesbian people based on religion.

It was the first time a PRRI poll found this result.

“For the first time in a PRRI poll of this size, no major religious group reports majority support for religiously based service refusals of gay and lesbian Americans,” Robert P. Jones, PRRI CEO, said in a press release. “And most religious groups today support same-sex marriage. The religious groups in which majorities oppose same-sex marriage make up less than 20 percent of the public.”

More than 60 percent of Americans taking the survey indicated that they opposed the idea of small business owners in their state refusing to provide products or services to gay and lesbian people — even if doing so would violate their religious beliefs.

Only 50 percent of white evangelical Protestants and fewer than half of Mormons (42 percent), Hispanic Protestants (34 percent), black Protestants (25 percent), and Jehovah’s Witnesses (25 percent) believe that small business owners should have the right to refuse services to gay and lesbian people.

“At a time when Americans appear more divided than ever by partisanship and religion, there is increasing evidence that debates over gay rights have a short shelf life,” Dan Cox, PRRI research director, said. “For the first time since PRRI has polled on this issue, a majority of young Republicans and young white evangelical Protestants support same-sex marriage.”

June 22, 2017 9:19 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

https://www.prri.org/research/americans-views-discrimination-immigrants-blacks-lgbt-sex-marriage-immigration-reform/

June 22, 2017 9:23 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

...Fox News reported Tuesday that the Trump State Department has opened a formal inquiry into former Secretary of State Clinton’s emails. You may have thought this question had been thoroughly investigated and finally dropped, but apparently some Republicans are determined to keep digging until they find a reason to “lock her up.”

And it’s not just the State Department. Fox reports that the Senate Judiciary Committee, chaired by Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, has “launched its own inquiry into Clinton’s handling of emails.”

Grassley cited among his concerns the July 5 statement of former FBI Director James Comey that the agency found Clinton and her staff members were “extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information.” Grassley also contended there is “evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information …”

Hillary Clinton left the State Department in 2012. Five years ago.

Grassley has finally roused himself to look into the possible obstruction-of-justice charges against Trump, but according to Politico it’s mainly out of pique that the administration hasn’t turned over documents he has requested. You’ll be glad to know that along with that investigation Grassley plans to take up the federal case of Loretta Lynch suggesting that James Comey use the word “matter” rather than “investigation” in the middle of a presidential campaign.

Rep. Trey Gowdy, R-S.C., in his new role as House Oversight Committee chair (replacing the abruptly retired Jason Chaffetz) said yesterday that his committee plans to pull back on calling witnesses that might interfere with special counsel Robert Mueller, which essentially means that the committee’s investigation will grind to a halt. Gowdy’s view is that “Congress tends to politicize everything” (which is hilarious coming from the Grand Benghazi Inquisitor) and that the real issues with the Russia probe are not the possible collusion, which he believes is overblown, but rather the active measures taken by Russia, the Obama administration’s response and the leaks coming out of the Trump administration. In other words, his priorities have absolutely nothing to do with Donald Trump.

Gowdy hasn’t said whether he also plans to get back in the Clinton investigation business, but he told Fox News’ Martha McCallum last month that he believed James Comey “had access to information” that made it necessary to wrest the email investigation from the Department of Justice and then hinted broadly at collusion between former Attorney General Lynch and Hillary Clinton. He may get another crack at his old nemesis after all.

Mueller has been up on Capitol Hill this week filling in the various committees on his investigation. Undoubtedly, and for good reason, he has asked them to be cautious about compromising his investigation. It’s entirely possible that the Republican-led committees will defer to Mueller and let the special counsel’s office work quietly behind the scenes to determine if our president is a Russian agent while they stage a public spectacle featuring Hillary and Bill Clinton, Loretta Lynch and James Comey for the viewing pleasure of their president and their voters. Don’t say they would never do that. You know they would.

http://www.salon.com/2017/06/22/never-mind-trump-and-russia-gop-still-longs-to-investigate-obama-hillary-clinton-and-loretta-lynch/

June 22, 2017 10:39 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

https://www.wsj.com/articles/obamacare-gets-higher-marks-than-house-gop-overhaul-poll-finds-1498147200?tesla=y&mod=e2tw

June 23, 2017 10:27 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

https://www.aol.com/article/news/2017/06/23/poll-more-americans-believe-comey-over-trump/22674205/

"Director James Comey than President Donald Trump when it comes to their differing accounts of events that led up to Comey's firing, according to the latest NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll.

Forty-five percent of respondents say they are more likely to believe Comey's version of events from his June 8 testimony to the U.S. Senate, versus 22 percent who are more likely to believe what Trump has said.

An additional 21 percent say they believe neither of them, and 8 percent say they believe both of them.

By party, 76 percent of Democrats side with Comey, while 50 percent of Republicans believe Trump. Independents break for Comey over Trump, 47 percent to 17 percent.

The NBC/WSJ poll also finds 46 percent of Americans disapproving of Trump's decision to fire Comey — up from 38 percent in May.

Just 27 percent approve of Comey's ouster..."

June 23, 2017 3:30 PM  
Anonymous Never forget said...

https://medium.com/@Amy_Siskind

June 26, 2017 7:23 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

good news, the SCOTUS has scheduled an end to gay tyranny:

https://www.aol.com/article/news/2017/06/26/supreme-court-hear-case-baker-refusing-same-sex-couple-wedding-cake/23002353/

June 26, 2017 10:34 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

More good news from AOL

https://www.aol.com/article/news/2017/06/26/poll-trump-approval-plummets-health-care/22981092/

June 26, 2017 12:23 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The monthly anomaly of the global average surface temperature in May 2017 (i.e. the average of the near-surface air temperature over land and the SST) was +0.36°C above the 1981-2010 average (+0.73°C above the 20th century average), and was the 3rd warmest since 1891. On a longer time scale, global average surface temperatures have risen at a rate of about 0.71°C per century.

Five Warmest Years (Anomalies)

1st. 2015(+0.38°C), 2nd. 2016(+0.37°C), 3rd. 2017(+0.36°C), 4th. 2014(+0.31°C), 5th. 1998(+0.27°C)

June 26, 2017 1:15 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"global average surface temperatures have risen at a rate of about 0.71°C per century"

holy cow, Batman!

we only have a century to figure something out before it gets less than a degree warmer

BOFF! POW!

June 26, 2017 2:25 PM  
Anonymous Vlad the Inhaler said...

big changes at the SCOTUS are.... coming!

today's decision that Trump's travel ban can go into effect is just the appetizer to whet your appetite:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/supreme-court-allows-limited-version-of-trumps-travel-ban-to-take-effect-will-consider-case-in-fall/2017/06/26/97afa314-573e-11e7-b38e-35fd8e0c288f_story.html?utm_term=.f93bea9aab9f&wpisrc=nl_most-draw16&wpmm=1

June 26, 2017 2:38 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

when governments denies funds to churches that it gives to others, it is violating the Constitution

based on today's court decision, that means religious schools will qualify for school choice funds

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2017/06/26/supreme-court-declares-churches-eligible-public-funds/102438402/

what's so sad is that this had to go to the SCOTUS!

anyway, thanks to all of you who pushed Hillary for President

this couldn't have happened without you

June 26, 2017 2:47 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Happy Two Year Anniversary Obergefell et al

June 26, 2017 3:35 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"when governments denies funds to churches that it gives to others, it is violating the Constitution"

When governments fail to collect taxes from churches that it collects from others, that is the benefit churches get.

Churches have the Constitutional freedom to raise their own money needed for their own "indoctrination centers."

June 26, 2017 3:41 PM  
Anonymous Making Americans Sick Again said...

https://www.aol.com/article/news/2017/06/26/22-million-americans-would-lose-health-care-coverage-2026-under-senate-bill/23002979/

June 26, 2017 5:40 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"When governments fail to collect taxes from churches that it collects from others, that is the benefit churches get"

why would churches pay tax on the collection of their members' funds for common use?

churches are groups of people who have all paid tax on their individual returns for money they pool together for a common cause

they are all kinds of secular associations with the same tax status

bias against religion is unconstitutional

"Churches have the Constitutional freedom to raise their own money needed for their own "indoctrination centers.""

how is that different from the Democratic Party?

"https://www.aol.com/article/news/2017/06/26/22-million-americans-would-lose-health-care-coverage-2026-under-senate-bill/23002979/"

this propaganda is dated

most who "lose" will do so because they will be free to do so

if you don't have the freedom to make mistakes, you'll never be free

not that it's necessarily a mistake

the deductibles are out of reach for most lower income people so few will ever see any benefit

not having health insurance doesn't make you sick, btw



June 26, 2017 10:29 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"why would churches pay tax on the collection of their members' funds for common use?"

A common use would be to surface their commonly used playground with their own collected funds.

"churches are groups of people who have all paid tax on their individual returns for money they pool together for a common cause"

And church-goers get to deduct the money they give their churches from their income taxes.

Church-goers already get to drive to church on roads and to hook into the municipal water and electric systems paid for by all tax payers, except the church, which pays no taxes to support infrastructure it freely uses, and church-goers, who get to not pay taxes on money they give the church to take care of its own needs.

""Churches have the Constitutional freedom to raise their own money needed for their own "indoctrination centers.""

how is that different from the Democratic Party?"


The Democratic Party doesn't build "indoctrination centers."

"not having health insurance doesn't make you sick, btw"

Nobody said it does.

But getting sick -- for instance like someone who is dealing with stage four lung cancer now spread to tumors on the spine and liver -- and not having health insurance has led many families to bankruptcy.

Enjoy your tax cuts paid for by insurance premium hikes like:

“Premiums for a 64-year old with middle income go from $6,800 under ACA to $20,500 under BCRA.”


June 27, 2017 8:53 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"A common use would be to surface their commonly used playground with their own collected funds"

this statement makes so little sense that it's difficult to even know where to start

the state decided that public safety would be enhanced if playgrounds were fixed

to say that means all playgrounds except those on the property of religious people is, in the words of a 7-2 majority of the SCOTUS, "odious"

"And church-goers get to deduct the money they give their churches from their income taxes."

virtually every business in America belongs to an association and deducts the dues from their taxes

your idea that churches can't do the same and be entitled to the same rights as other citizens is bias against a religious viewpoint you disagree with

you shouldn't make Henry the VIII your role model

"Church-goers already get to drive to church on roads and to hook into the municipal water and electric systems paid for by all tax payers, except the church, which pays no taxes to support infrastructure it freely uses,"

churches and church-goers are synonymous

they pay taxes just like everyone else

"The Democratic Party doesn't build "indoctrination centers.""

of course they do

June 27, 2017 12:22 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"this statement makes so little sense that it's difficult to even know where to start"

Yet you jumped in with both feet but had nothing, not a single word to say about middle class seniors having their premiums more than tripled to fund tax cuts for the already rich or about people whose serious illnesses may lead to bankruptcy.

That's un-Christian in my book.

"churches and church-goers are synonymous"

Not according to US tax laws.

The IRS defines a "Church" as:

"Certain characteristics are generally attributed to churches. These attributes of a church have been developed by the IRS and by court decisions. They include:

- distinct legal existence;
- recognized creed and form of worship;
- definite and distinct ecclesiastical government;
- formal code of doctrine and discipline;
- distinct religious history;
- membership not associated with any other church or denomination;
- organization of ordained ministers;
- ordained ministers selected after completing prescribed courses of study;
- literature of its own;
- established places of worship;
- regular congregations;
- regular religious services;
- Sunday schools for the religious instruction of the young; and
- schools for the preparation of its ministers."


This is clearly quite different than the definition of church-goers.

""The Democratic Party doesn't build "indoctrination centers.""

of course they do"


Oh do tell.

June 27, 2017 2:22 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Yet you jumped in with both feet but had nothing, not a single word to say about middle class seniors having their premiums more than tripled to fund tax cuts for the already rich or about people whose serious illnesses may lead to bankruptcy."

your stats are what's known these days as fake news

they don't deserve any response

they aren't honest

wealthy people have, do and will pay plenty

it's great chutzpah to steal from them and then say its a "tax cut" to dial back the Obama socialist experiment in the slightest

"That's un-Christian in my book."

your book must be written by Karl Marx

that philosophy has led to more evil and suffering than probably any other in history

at the beginning of the 20th century, most people thought world-wide utopia was at hand

then this concept that masses own all the assets of the successful took hold and by the middle of the century, darkness had fallen over half the globe

move to North Korea

you and the Dear Leader can make sure no one thinks they own anything

"Not according to US tax laws."

the idea that groups of people, whether churches or corporations, morph into some kind of super-being is a convenient fiction the revenue agencies of governments create to justify extorting more funds out of certain people

June 27, 2017 2:59 PM  
Anonymous the truth is coming into focus said...

In a video released overnight by 'Project Veritas' founder James O'Keefe, CNN producer John Bonifield is caught on film admitting that the network's constant coverage of the Trump-Russia narrative is "mostly bullshit" and "the president is probably right to say CNN is witch-hunting him."

He also noted the story is "good for business."

"I haven’t seen any good enough evidence to show that the President committed a crime," he said. "I just feel like they don’t really have it but they want to keep digging. And so I think the President is probably right to say, like, look you are witch hunting me. You have no smoking gun, you have no real proof."

He also said: "It’s a business, people are like the media has an ethical phssssss…All the nice cutesy little ethics that used to get talked about in journalism school you’re just like, that’s adorable. That’s adorable. This is a business."

About CNN CEO, Jeff Zucker, the producer said: "Just to give you some context, President Trump pulled out of the climate accords and for a day and a half we covered the climate accords. And the CEO of CNN, Jeff Zucker, said in our internal meeting, he said good job everybody covering the climate accords, but we’re done with that, let’s get back to Russia."

June 27, 2017 3:09 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

America's own Dear Leader has lavish vacation while that money could be used to pay for health care for seniors. Just think how many people will die because Obama decided to spend money yachting with billionaires instead of paying for some middle class citizen's health insurance.

"There are many on the left who feel left out in the cold by former President Barack Obama’s string of luxury vacations.

A number of progressive activists have complained that Obama’s actions since leaving office in January have seemed out of touch with Democrats—at a time when the party is struggling to regroup after the 2016 election.

Among the high-profile jaunts, Obama and his family have visited late actor Marlon Brando’s private island; the Four Seasons in Bali; Sir Richard Branson’s private Caribbean island; a 13th-century Tuscan villa; and taken a ride on David Geffen’s private yacht.

“These trips are like the lifestyles of the rich and famous,” Democratic strategist Pat Caddell, a former adviser to ex-President Jimmy Carter, said.

“I think the Bernie Sanders wing of the party, when they see President Obama, whom they instinctively want to defend being the corporatist president, I think it makes the base uneasy,” he added.

The lavish vacations come at a time that Obama is also under fire for accepting hundreds of thousands of dollars to speak to big Wall Street firms.

“I’m a little sick of seeing photos of President Obama on vacation with Richard Branson.” HBO host John Oliver in an interview with Seth Meyers in February.

“I’m not sure he’s ever been more out of touch than he is right now.”"

June 27, 2017 4:52 PM  
Anonymous Laughing all the way to the bank said...

LMAO What a cut up!

John Oliver calls Trump “America’s wealthiest hemorrhoid."

WASHINGTON, June 27 (Reuters) - Facing a potentially disastrous defeat by members of his own party, U.S. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell decided on Tuesday to delay a vote onhealthcare legislation in order to get more support from Republican senators.

President Donald Trump summoned all 52 Republican senators to the White House on Tuesday afternoon to discuss how to proceed.

McConnell had been pushing for a vote ahead of the July 4 recess that starts at the end of the week. The legislation would advance a repeal of major elements of Obamacare and replace it with a new federal healthcare program.

The delay showed McConnell and Trump have failed so far to attract enough votes amid a solid block of Democratic opposition and attacks from both moderate and conservative Republican senators.

McConnell, who has a razor-thin majority in the Senate, told reporters that Republican leaders were still working to get the 50 votes to pass the bill, adding that the White House was anxious to help write legislation that could pass the Senate.

While the House of Representatives narrowly passed a measure last month to replace Obamacare, the Senate version stalled on Tuesday as a small but potentially crippling group of senators held out.

Moderate senators worried that millions of people would lose their insurance. Conservatives said the bill does not do enough to erase Democratic former President Barack Obama's signature domestic legislation.

U.S. stock prices fell on Tuesday after the decision to postpone the vote. U.S. stocks have rallied this year on hopes for tax reform, deregulation and changes to the health sector. Markets are beginning to doubt whether the Trump administration can fulfill its promises.

'ROOT AND BRANCH'

McConnell has promised since 2010 that Republicans, who view Obamacare as a costly government intrusion, would destroy the law "root and branch" if they controlled Congress and the White House. Their electoral victories in 2014 and 2016 were directly tied to that promise, they say.

Republicans worry that failure to deliver will tell voters that they are unable to govern effectively in the run-up to next year's congressional elections.

If the Senate passes a bill, it will either have to be approved by the House, which passed its own version last month, or the two chambers would reconcile their differences in a conference committee. Otherwise, the House could pass a new version and bounce it back to the Senate.

Democrats remained united in opposition, blasting the Senate bill as a tax break for the wealthy.

June 27, 2017 5:56 PM  
Anonymous FOX News misinforms readers yet again said...

As Health Care Bill Burns, Fox News Claims Outrage Over Obama Vacations

"As news broke Tuesday that Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) would delay a vote on the Senate GOP health care bill, Fox News touted a report on former President Barack Obama’s “lavish” family vacations.

“Lap of Luxury,” read the lead headline on Fox News’ online site. “Obamas’ Lavish Globetrotting Vacations Raise Democrats’ Eyebrows."

About an hour after news broke on the fate of the health care bill ― which the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimates would result in 22 million fewer people with health insurance by 2026 and 15 million fewer just in the next year ― Twitter users took notice of Fox News’ lead story vacation-shaming Obama, who’s currently touring Bali with his family.

Fox News’ loosely sourced story cites two “left-wing activists” who say they’re troubled by Obama’s vacations in the months since he left office. The two sources, Democratic strategist and Fox News contributor Patrick Caddell and David Michael Smith of the Houston Socialist Movement, criticized Obama for leading “the lifestyle of the rich and famous.”

The story claims that the “left-wing media” and comedian John Oliver ― whose sarcastic sense of humor Fox News appears to be unfamiliar with ― are “worried about Obama’s luxury vacations.” The report cites a February interview Oliver did with “Late Night” host Seth Meyers in which Oliver jokingly begged Obama to “tone it down with the kite-surfing pictures” while the U.S. grappled with the new Trump administration.

Trump, if you’re curious, has taken costly trips to his Mar-a-Lago or Bedminster resorts for eight of the 23 weekends he’s been in office..."

June 28, 2017 7:28 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

https://www.aol.com/article/news/2017/06/28/poll-majority-prefer-obamacare-over-senate-gop-health-care-bill/23004295/

In the face of a major revolt from within its own party, Senate Republicans on Tuesday decided to delay a vote on health care legislation. While the delay is intended to sway lawmakers -- it appears many others have already made up their mind -- and they'd like to stick with Obamacare.

The Senate Republican health care bill remains, even with changes to the House's version of the legislation, less popular than the Affordable Care Act, according to a new AOL News survey.

The poll finds 58 percent said they prefer the Affordable Care Act, better known as Obamacare. Meanwhile, only 28 percent of respondents said they prefer the new GOP bill. Another 14 percent of respondents said they weren't sure which legislation they preferred.

Congressional Budget Offices report released this week estimated that 22 million Americans would lose health insurance coverage over the next decade under the GOP bill, thrusting the bill's future into question.

The poll finds the public sentiment toward the Senate's version of the legislation is similar to the version passed by the House. A poll from May 10, taken shortly after that bill passed, found 60 percent of respondents had an unfavorable opinion of the Republican health care bill, while just 31 percent said they had a favorable opinion. Nine percent said they were unsure.

Repealing and replacing Obamacare has been an uphill battle for Republicans trying to follow through on President Trump's key campaign promises. They've received pushback on the new bill from Democrats and even from within their own ranks...

June 28, 2017 9:20 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

https://amgreatness.com/2017/06/28/late-great-russian-collusion-myth/

June 29, 2017 7:54 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Michael Flynn seeks immunity, says he has a ‘story to tell’

June 29, 2017 9:03 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

ha-ha

how could he not?

he would have gotten immunity long ago if he had any way to implicate Trump

but, as we all know, the whole Russia thing is a hoax

he no doubt has a story, though

and Dems won't like it

June 29, 2017 9:40 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Republicans are risking becoming the party of Putin

By Evan McMullin

Evan McMullin is a former CIA operations officer who ran as an independent candidate in the 2016 presidential election. He is co-founder of the nonprofit Stand Up Republic.

"Whether its leaders and members realize it, the Republican Party is at risk of becoming the Vladi­mir Putin-aligned party in the United States. It can be convincingly argued that it’s already similar to Putin-supported parties in Europe, given Donald Trump’s presidency, the Republican base’s increasingly favorable views of Moscow and the House GOP leadership’s disinterest in investigating and preventing Russian interference.

Increasingly sophisticated Russian influence and cyberoperations threaten Americans’ ability to choose their own leaders. This isn’t hyperbole; in fact, it’s hard to overstate just how serious this issue is. Yet President Trump continues to sow doubt about whether Moscow even interfered in the 2016 presidential elections and to suggest the question’s insignificance by ignoring it all together.

Our commander in chief seems more interested in protecting Moscow than he does in deterring its future attacks. The Post reported that the administration is actually considering allowing the Russian government to reopen the two spy compounds that President Barack Obama closed in late December in response to Russia’s election attack. There are also reports that the White House plans to step up lobbying efforts against a new Russia sanctions bill that the Senate passed with overwhelming bipartisan support this month. The measure would add new financial sanctions and require congressional review before Trump could lift these or other retaliatory measures currently levied against Moscow, including the closing of the two compounds.

Worse, Trump appears to have some support in this from Republican leaders in the House. Speaker Paul D. Ryan (R-Wis.) and Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) have delayed the bill, citing the constitutional requirement that such bills originate in the House.

This is little more than a red herring. Nothing prevents them from inserting the text of the Senate bill into a House measure, passing it and sending it back to the Senate for final approval, which it would likely grant under expedited procedures. Instead, Ryan and McCarthy appear to be more interested in delaying and weakening the bill..."

June 29, 2017 10:31 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"...Behind their neglect are changing Republican voter opinions, which are becoming alarmingly more pro-Russian. According to a Morning Consult-Politico poll conducted in May, 49 percent of Republican voters consider Russia to be either an ally or friendly. Only 12 percent consider it an enemy. In 2015, only 12 percent of Republicans held a favorable view of Russian President Vladimir Putin, according to Gallup. As of February, that figure had jumped to 32 percent.

These dangerous trends impair the nation’s will to protect itself, and they are entirely the result of Republican leadership’s failure to oppose Trump from the beginning. Republican voters had long held a healthy distrust of Putin, but Trump’s persistent affinity for Moscow and other Republican leaders’ silence are changing Republican voters’ minds, now making it politically costly for GOP leaders to defend the nation from this foreign adversary.

Because they control both the executive and legislative branches, it is ultimately up to Republican leaders to prevent future Russian attacks on American democracy, even if such attacks may benefit the party electorally. Deterrence is an indispensable part of this equation. It cannot be accomplished without punishing Moscow for its violations of our sovereignty and threatening harsher responses for future trespasses.

In passing the Russia sanctions bill, Senate Republicans have shown they understand this. GOP leaders in the House must work with their Senate colleagues to pass a strong sanctions package that requires a congressional review of changes to Russia sanctions implementation desired by the president. He simply cannot be trusted to protect the integrity of America’s democracy on his own.

Republican leaders and the party are at a crossroads. They will either choose liberty in an independent America or to serve a distant, foreign master who seeks no more than to enrich and empower himself at the expense of free society everywhere. If Republican leaders choose the latter, the majority of Americans will have no choice but to hold them accountable as opponents to the cause of freedom."

June 29, 2017 10:31 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

thanks for that unbiased opinion from a candidate that lost to Trump in 2016

Americans didn't decline to elect Hillary because of anything a third-rate economic power like Russia did

even if the worst said is true, their activity was no different from that of the media and thousands of other interests and advocacy groups, both domestic and foreign

their effect was no greater than other

and there is no logical reason to base our entire foreign policy strategy on weakening them

we have far greater enemies

unlike, say radical Islam, you can at least count on Russians to act rationally

you can work with that

June 29, 2017 11:23 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"thanks for that unbiased opinion from a [GOP] candidate that lost to Trump in 2016"

You're welcome for providing an alternate GOP voice to remind you not all GOPers march in lockstep.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/06/29/fox-news-poll-voters-say-trumps-tweets-hurting-agenda.html

"Few voters approve of President Trump’s tweeting, and most agree it’s making his job harder.

Seventy-one percent say the president’s tweets are hurting his agenda, according to the latest Fox News Poll. Just 17 percent see the tweets as helpful.

The poll was conducted Sunday through Tuesday evenings -- before a tweet by President Trump about MSNBC’s Mika Brzezinski received significant media coverage Thursday morning.

Do voters consider the president’s online posts official statements? Close call: 51 percent say yes vs. 45 percent no.

Overall, only 13 percent approve of Trump’s tweeting. It was 16 percent in March. Forty-six percent disapprove, while 39 percent take the middle ground and “wish he’d be more cautious.”

Among Republicans, 21 percent approve, while 59 percent would like Trump to be more careful with his tweets and 18 percent disapprove.

[WHAT A DISGUSTING FACT ABOUT THE GOP -- THIS FOX POLL FINDS MORE GOPers APPROVE OF TRUMP'S TWEETS THAN DISAPPROVE.]

Majorities across the board say Trump’s tweets are hurting his agenda, although Democrats (87 percent) and independents (75 percent) are far more likely than Republicans (53 percent) to see it that way.

Over half of Democrats (59 percent) say the tweets are official presidential statements, while over half of Republicans say they aren’t (52 percent)..."

Related: 5 times Sean Spicer has said Trump's tweets speak for themselves

June 30, 2017 8:14 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"You're welcome for providing an alternate GOP voice to remind you not all GOPers march in lockstep"

this little word game, trying to imply a connection of the current elected party at every level of government with fascism, is a perfect example of how Dems have demolished public civility because they are frustrated that America doesn't support their agenda

of course, in the next breathe, you'll be hurling insults at the GOP for not being in lockstep on healthcare

as opposed to Dems who favor failing Obamacare...lockstep

it's not the only issue that Dems march in lockstep on

gay agenda, right-to-life, school choice, global warming, et al

liberals tolerate no deviation from the party position on any issue

ostracism and ridicule are hurled at any heretics

as opposed to the GOP, where free thought and the exchange of ideas actually thrives

"Few voters approve of President Trump’s tweeting, and most agree it’s making his job harder."

yeah, big news

Trump is a crass ass

if there is any acceptable alternative, I think most people will vote for someone else

for that, however, we need a new party

the Dems are history

June 30, 2017 9:55 AM  
Anonymous The story he has to tell said...

https://www.wsj.com/articles/gop-operative-sought-clinton-emails-from-hackers-implied-a-connection-to-flynn-1498770851

June 30, 2017 10:31 AM  
Anonymous Nasty Woman said...

"Trump is a crass ass

Trump is a misogynist and his policies harm women worldwide.

Trump has rated women’s looks on a numeric scale, cut down his female critics by calling them “pigs” and “dogs,” mocked Carly Fiorina’s face, called a former Miss Universe “disgusting” for gaining weight, reportedly casually harassed women on “The Apprentice” set, said Megyn Kelly had “blood coming out of her wherever,” and inappropriately commented on an Irish journalist’s smile just days ago.

This is also the man who while in office has supported a health care bill that is unquestionably cruel to women ― especially mothers and low-wage earners ― drastically expanded the global gag rule, threatening access to women’s health care around the world; rolled back protections for women workers; and proposed a budget that cut funding for teen pregnancy prevention. President Trump’s treatment of women isn’t just insulting ― it’s downright dangerous for the women who live in the country he governs, and the women around the world who are impacted by U.S. policies.

June 30, 2017 1:21 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"ATTENTION, TRUMP STAFFERS

Recollections from Alexander Butterfield, the Nixon aide whose admission brought down the presidency.
BY ALEX CARP

What did you learn about the Nixon White House by working so closely with the president?

Right away, I was surprised by the reverence that all the staff seemed to have for Nixon. I’ve always been aware that our presidents are just people who decided to run for the presidency, and they all have flaws. I thought Nixon had absolutely no leadership ability. I felt sorry for him, in a way, and I disliked him, because he was rude. I eventually realized he was a very conflicted man.

Well, that little aside alerted some of the sharper staff members of the committee. And when he said that, I too thought, Wow. So I said to my wife that I’ve got to be really careful, because if tapes come up, I’m going to measure every question carefully, and if there’s a clear and direct question, I will answer clearly and directly. If it’s the least bit oblique or fuzzy, I will feel justified in giving a fuzzy answer. I thought the American people should know, but I hated to be the one to tell it.

As Watergate got going, you made a set of internal rules for yourself about whether you would reveal the White House taping system. What were they?

After the break-in, when they first started investigating, we were all interviewed, and I just told them what I knew and just answered the questions. I didn’t tell them about the tapes. But just prior to my going before the Watergate Committee, John Dean testified that at one point he remembered that the president got up from his desk and walked him to the Oval Office door, which was very uncharacteristic of Nixon, with his arm around him, speaking to him in a lower tone. Which made Dean think, he said, that maybe Nixon had been taping him at his desk.

Well, [Senate attorney] Don Sanders got right to the point. He said, “Mr. Butterfield, was there ever any listening device in the Oval Office?” I had told him about a little thing on Nixon’s desk that was just for dictating mostly personal letters to his secretary. He asked me if there ever was any other listening device in the Oval Office? There was no ambiguity there!

Did you know that your answer would set the dominoes falling?

Oh yeah, of course I knew. I knew it would lead to everybody wanting the tapes, which they did. I even believed that it was very possible the president would be impeached.

Do you think if you hadn’t been asked that direct question, you would have revealed the taping system later on?

I might have come out. Because I had changed my mind quite a bit. I had gone almost 180 degrees during that year, summer of ’73 to summer of ’74.

What would you say to someone who knows one of Trump’s secrets and may feel conflicted about coming forward?

I felt I had a right to be quiet, so I understand if they don’t want to say anything. But I would say be truthful — to yourself, too."

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2017/06/frank-rich-nixon-trump-and-how-a-presidency-ends.html

http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/who-in-the-white-house-will-turn-against-donald-trump

June 30, 2017 1:21 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2017/06/what-happened-between-trump-morning-joe-and-the-enquirer.html

"...According to three sources familiar with the private conversations, what happened was this: After the inauguration, Morning Joe’s coverage of Trump turned sharply negative. “This presidency is fake and failed,” Brzezinski said on March 6, for example. Around this time, Scarborough and Brzezinski found out the Enquirer was preparing a story about their affair. While Scarborough and Brzezinski’s relationship had been gossiped about in media circles for some time, it was not yet public, and the tabloid was going to report that they had left their spouses to be together.

In mid-April, Scarborough texted with Trump son-in-law Jared Kushner about the pending Enquirer story. Kushner told Scarborough that he would need to personally apologize to Trump in exchange for getting Enquirer owner David Pecker to stop the story. (A spokesperson for Kushner declined to comment). Scarborough says he refused, and the Enquirer published the story in print on June 5, headlined “Morning Joe Sleazy Cheating Scandal!”

The Morning Joe co-hosts decided to talk about the episode a day after Trump inaccurately tweeted that Brzezinski attended a New Year’s Eve party at Mar-a-Lago “bleeding badly from a face-lift.” (A photo from that evening backs up Scarborough and Brzezinski’s denial of this.) While the Enquirer denies that Trump encouraged Pecker to investigate the MSNBC hosts, Trump himself has pushed the story publicly. Last August, he tweeted, “Some day, when things calm down, I’ll tell the real story of @JoeNBC and his very insecure long-time girlfriend, @morningmika. Two clowns!”..."

June 30, 2017 3:46 PM  
Anonymous Collusion said...

https://www.wsj.com/articles/gop-operative-sought-clinton-emails-from-hackers-implied-a-connection-to-flynn-1498770851

June 30, 2017 9:24 PM  
Anonymous Drip drip dripping along said...

Matt Tait provides "a fuller accounting" of The Time I Got Recruited to Collude with the Russians

"...My role in these events began last spring, when I spent a great deal of time studying the series of Freedom of Information disclosures by the State Department of Hillary Clinton’s emails, and posting the parts I found most interesting—especially those relevant to computer security—on my public Twitter account. I was doing this not because I am some particular foe of Clinton’s—I’m not—but because like everyone else, I assumed she was likely to become the next President of the United States, and I believed her emails might provide some insight into key cybersecurity and national security issues once she was elected in November.

A while later, on June 14, the Washington Post reported on a hack of the DNC ostensibly by Russian intelligence. When material from this hack began appearing online, courtesy of the “Guccifer 2” online persona, I turned my attention to looking at these stolen documents. This time, my purpose was to try and understand who broke into the DNC, and why.

A few weeks later, right around the time the DNC emails were dumped by Wikileaks—and curiously, around the same time Trump called for the Russians to get Hillary Clinton’s missing emails—I was contacted out the blue by a man named Peter Smith, who had seen my work going through these emails. Smith implied that he was a well-connected Republican political operative.

Initially, I assumed the query must have been about my work on the DNC hack; after all, few people followed my account prior to the DNC breach, whereas my analysis of the break-in at the DNC had received considerably more coverage. I assumed his query about the “Clinton emails” was therefore a mistake and that he meant instead to talk to me about the emails stolen from the DNC. So I agreed to talk to him, thinking that, whatever my views on then-candidate Trump, if a national campaign wanted an independent non-partisan view on the facts surrounding the case, I should provide it to the best of my ability.

Yet Smith had not contacted me about the DNC hack, but rather about his conviction that Clinton’s private email server had been hacked—in his view almost certainly both by the Russian government and likely by multiple other hackers too—and his desire to ensure that the fruits of those hacks were exposed prior to the election. Over the course of a long phone call, he mentioned that he had been contacted by someone on the “Dark Web” who claimed to have a copy of emails from Secretary Clinton’s private server, and this was why he had contacted me; he wanted me to help validate whether or not the emails were genuine..."

July 01, 2017 9:30 AM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Happy First of July everyone!

July 01, 2017 12:20 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Trump dreamed of his name on towers across former Soviet Union

July 01, 2017 2:44 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Thanks Priya Lynn. Same to you!

Here are some interesting findings from Pew:

White Americans remain the only major demographic group in which the percentage of people who think Donald Trump is doing a good job outpaces the number who think he’s doing poorly.

That finding comes from Pew Research Center, which polled more than 2,500 adults around the U.S. between June 8-18. While African Americans and Latinos overwhelmingly gave the president’s performance a thumbs-down, 50 percent of white respondents report feeling good about Trump’s presidency. Just 44 percent think that Trump deserves a poor performance review.

Contrast that with people of color who responded to the survey. A staggering 88 percent of black Americans say they disapprove of the Trump administration, while 72 percent of Hispanics are similarly dismayed with the president. That means 12 percent of African Americans and 28 percent of Hispanics believe Trump’s pros outweigh his cons, figures that seem extraordinarily high considering the evidence.

The findings of the Pew survey reveal that Trump’s historically low approval numbers have reached their current depths — just 39 percent of Americans overall applaud the job he’s doing — because of voiced dissatisfaction from nonwhites. Despite signing no significant legislation since he took office, spending an extraordinary amount of time golfing, and mounting evidence that he and his team may have colluded with a hostile foreign power, white Americans haven’t yet hit a tipping point of majority outrage.

Trump ran on a campaign of racism and xenophobia. Hate crimes against racial and religious minorities, including bias-motivated murders, have increased precipitously under this administration. A recent data analysis by Buzzfeed News found over “50 incidents, across 26 states, in which a K-12 student invoked Trump’s name or message in an apparent effort to harass a classmate during the past school year.” The president has been eerily silent about nearly all of these violent incidents, though he has taken to Twitter to complain to his 32 million followers (nearly half of which are fake accounts) about factual media coverage of his policies, as well as to promote television appearances by his surrogates.

July 01, 2017 4:13 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Happy Canada Day -- July 1, 2017

July 01, 2017 4:17 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Happy First of July everyone!"

shut up, Priya

July 01, 2017 4:17 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Shut up Wyatt/bad anonymous.

Its no surprise I'm a lot happier than Wyatt/bad anonymous. Canada ranks as the third happiest country in the world, the United States is 19th.

July 02, 2017 9:12 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Good anonymous posted "Contrast that with people of color who responded to the survey. A staggering 88 percent of black Americans say they disapprove of the Trump administration, while 72 percent of Hispanics are similarly dismayed with the president. That means 12 percent of African Americans and 28 percent of Hispanics believe Trump’s pros outweigh his cons, figures that seem extraordinarily high considering the evidence."

The disapproval numbers don't mean that 12% of Blacks and 28% of Hispanics approve of Trump. In those percentages that didn't express disapproval there will be a percentage of people who "don't know" or are indifferent to the Trump administration.

July 02, 2017 9:28 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Its no surprise I'm a lot happier than..."

sure, that's why you surgically altered yourself in an attempt to create an alternate reality

bliss through self-mutilation

it's no surprise that lazy Priya would make an assertion without basis

it's part of a pattern observed here for years

it's called derangement

July 03, 2017 8:43 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

It's summer 2017 and the Arctic was supposed to be ice-free, hurricanes were going to be more frequent and more deadly, and sea levels should be rising alarmingly. Al Gore swore in his 2006 science fiction movie, "An Inconvenient Truth," that within a decade there would be a "true planetary emergency."

"Unless we act boldly and quickly to deal with the underlying causes of global warming, our world will undergo a string of terrible catastrophes," said Gore in the movie's introduction.

The grand storyteller also predicted in 2011 that "there will be no more snows" on Mt. Kilimanjaro "within the decade."

Four years earlier, the Guardian of Britain reported that the United Nations was warning that we had "as little as eight years left to avoid a dangerous global average rise of 2C or more." Three years and more than 1,000 days ago, then French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius — a socialist, of course — advised us that "we have 500 days to avoid climate chaos."

We could go on. But we have neither the space nor time to rack up all the missed global warming predictions. So we will merely point out that instead of these disasters, we have the climate alarmist community admitting that there has indeed been a pause in the warming and that its models failed to predict it.

Yes, that's right. The alarmists are acknowledging in the abstract of a research paper that was published this month in Nature Geoscience that there have been "differences in model and satellite tropospheric warming rates."

"In the early twenty-first century, satellite-derived tropospheric warming trends were generally smaller than trends estimated from a large multi-model ensemble," wrote the climate scientists led by "climatista" Benjamin Santer and including the litigious Michael Mann, purveyor of the hockey-stick graph that supposedly proves human-produced carbon dioxide is overheating the planet.

"It's more than a little shocking," say Michael Bastasch and Ryan Maue in their post in the Watts Up With That climate blog. They are calling this admission "the new 'consensus' on global warming."

What must be particularly galling is that this confession "settles" the claim made by Trump Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Scott Pruitt, who noted in written comments after his Senate confirmation that "over the past two decades satellite data indicates there has been a leveling off of warming."

Naturally, when Pruitt made his statements, condemnation "was swift," David Whitehouse, science editor of the Global Warming Policy Foundation, wrote in Canada's Financial Post, and "a study was quickly put together for the journal Nature Scientific Reports to disprove Pruitt's comments."

And, of course, the study "concluded that Pruitt was wrong and many media outlets reported that conclusion." Will they be just as aggressive in reporting that Pruitt was right?

Not a chance.

http://www.investors.com/politics/commentary/global-warming-the-imminent-crisis-that-never-arrives/

July 03, 2017 9:13 AM  
Anonymous Facepalm said...

First, comments on another commentor's plastic surgery are beyond the pale. You don't know that person and don't know anything about their personal life, never mind their medical history. I understand that you are just following the precedent set this week by the President on Twitter, but let's note that even he and his wife have had lots of plastic surgery done. It is a pathetic comment to make and it brings the discussion on this blog to a new low level.

Second, as far as fake news about climate change, I don't think this is going to stand up in this forum among objective skeptics like it does inside the Breitbart bubble. The fact is, climate scientists are alarmed, the climate is changing, and humans are responsible for it. If you think profit-driven business is more credible than science, then you can argue that case, but there is no debate within climate science about these results.

I cannot imagine why anyone would be pro-pollution, but that is how far we have come. That is how persuasive big business is, that people would actively argue it is better to have dirty air, chaotic weather, and rising oceans. And what do you get out of it? Do your dividends actually increase?

July 03, 2017 9:25 AM  
Anonymous Ethics Smethics said...

Justice Official Quits Over White House Conduct ‘I Would Not Tolerate Seeing In A Company’

"A top Justice Department corporate crime expert has quit, saying it’s impossible to hold suspected lawbreakers to standards that President Donald Trump is not meeting himself.

Hui Chen, who was the compliance counsel in the fraud unit of DOJ’s criminal division, discussed her reasons for quitting in a LinkedIn post published June 25. She wrote that it was impossible to sit across from corporate representatives and demand a basic standard of behavior that is not being enforced in the White House.

“Trying to hold companies to standards that our current administration is not living up to was creating a cognitive dissonance that I could not overcome,” Chen wrote in her post, which was first reported by the International Business Times.

“Even as I engaged in... questioning and evaluations, on my mind were the numerous lawsuits pending against the President of the United States for everything from violations of the Constitution to conflict of interest, the ongoing investigations of potentially treasonous conducts, and the investigators and prosecutors fired for their pursuits of principles and facts,” she wrote. “Those are conducts I would not tolerate seeing in a company, yet I worked under an administration that engaged in exactly those [conducts]. I wanted no more part in it.”...

In her LinkedIn post, Chen explained that she now believes she can effect more change from outside the government than from within it.

“Nothing matters to me more than working to restore the notions of integrity, decency, and intellect back into our government,” she concluded. “I want to help elect candidates who stand for those values, and I cannot do that while under contract with the Criminal Division due to Hatch Act restrictions.”

The Hatch Act forbids federal employees in the executive branch from using their positions to sway political elections.

Last week, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, a nonprofit watchdog organization, accused U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Nikki Haley of violating the Hatch Act by endorsing a GOP candidate in a South Carolina congressional election.

Chen said she will “also consider it my personal mission to participate in efforts to hold our elected representatives accountable and to protect our environment.”

The Justice Department touted Chen’s hiring in late 2015. The former New York federal prosecutor monitored programs bringing companies into legal compliance after suspected criminal activity.

July 03, 2017 11:25 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Do you know what else Al Gore was wrong about?

Airplanes being grounded because the temperature gets too high to allow them to get necessary lift.

Man, he really blew that huh?

What is it with you angry right winger males that makes you feel entitled to discuss a lady's private parts in public?

You are disgusting and should go fuck yourself just like your head pussy grabber suggests.

July 03, 2017 2:11 PM  
Anonymous How soon they forget said...

Apparently Gold Star Father, Khizr Khan never got a copy of the US Constitution to Donnie Boy as evidenced by the fact the dyed blond President is sending out videos created by racist Reddit trolls that fantasize about committing violence against the free press.

A free press is guaranteed by the First Amendment to the US Constitution, a document Trump swore to defend as of January 20, 2017.

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

Instead of defending the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, Donnie Blondie has chosen to distribute a staged fake video showing himself attacking a journalist.

July 03, 2017 2:54 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Wyatt/bad anonymous said "It's summer 2017 and the Arctic was supposed to be ice-free".

That's a tired old right wing lie. Al Gore never said the arctic would literally be ice free by this point in time. He referred to a technical term used by the U.S. Navy - "ice-free" which did not mean that there would be no more ice in the Arctic but rather that enough ice would be gone that the Arctic would be navigable by ship. And of course that has happened just as Al Gore said it would.

Good anonymous said "Do you know what else Al Gore was wrong about?

Airplanes being grounded because the temperature gets too high to allow them to get necessary lift.

Man, he really blew that huh?".

LOL, I know, right?

July 03, 2017 8:00 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Its no surprise I'm a lot happier than Wyatt/bad anonymous. Canada ranks as the third happiest country in the world, the United States is 19th.

Clearly that's a sore point for Wyatt/bad anonymous.

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!

July 03, 2017 8:09 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

And here's more news that will contribute to Wyatt/bad anonymous's unhappiness:

Gay Marriage Is More Popular Than Ever — Even With Republicans

If you have any doubt that the progressive tides are changing in America, it helps to back up and look at the bigger picture. Sure, the next four years (will there be four years?) under the Trump administration are likely to yield some pretty serious regressions to women's rights, unrelenting attacks on health care, fewer protections for transgender children, and the possible endangerment of LGBTQ+ rights as we know them. Amid all the bleakness, though, a new study offers a silver lining of sorts. Our fellow Americans — yes, even the Republicans — are much more progressive than we think they are.

This week, the Pew Research Center released new data on how Americans view same-sex marriage. The results show a heartening uptick in support across the board . . . there's even a pretty surprising fact buried within. Unsurprisingly, general public support for same-sex marriage continues to rise; now, in a nearly two-to-one margin, 62 percent of Americans are in favor of same-sex marriage.

Perhaps the most surprising change comes from the Republican party itself. According to the data in the study, the party is almost exactly split on the issue of same-sex marriage: 48 percent are opposed, while 47 percent are not.

With numbers like this, it's a little easier to look to the future with hope. There will always be setbacks — sometimes dangerous, heart-wrenching setbacks — but the slow march toward progress and liberty continues in spite of opposition.


Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!

July 03, 2017 8:16 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

And of course just as Wyatt/bad anonymous repeated a false narrative about Al Gore saying the Arctic would be "ice free" (navigable by ship, not literally free from ice) everything else he posted was also bullshite.

July 03, 2017 8:18 PM  
Anonymous Happy Fourth of July said...

The name Benedict Arnold remains synonymous with the word “traitor” in America. I’m sure once they learn the story, kids still call friends by that name when they feel betrayed. Arnold is the most notorious turncoat in our history. If you discount the Civil War, in which dozens of U.S. Army generals took the other side, he’s the only general who ever defected. And his reasons were pretty parochial.

Arnold was a brave soldier who was gravely wounded in battle and was beloved by his troops. But he had a prickly personality and was a man his fellow officers found to be a pain in the neck. He was terrible at politics and got caught in a number of shadowy financial schemes trying to impress his 18-year-old loyalist fiancée. After that he survived a court martial but became so resentful and embittered about it that it drove him into the arms of the British.

Before he went over to the other side, Arnold wrote a series of hysterical letters to George Washington, in one of which he declared:

"Having made every sacrifice of fortune and blood, and become a cripple in the service of my country, I little expected to meet the ungrateful returns I have received of my countrymen, but as Congress have stamped ingratitude as a current coin I must take it!"

He needed money, and that was part of it. But Arnold also felt that his country had betrayed him, which he rationalized as a justification for betraying his country right back.

As I thought back to my school days and the stories I read about Arnold’s treachery, I couldn’t help but think of former Gen. Michael Flynn. By all accounts, Flynn was extremely resentful at being fired by President Barack Obama as head of the Defense Intelligence Agency, and nursed grudges against his rivals in the other intelligence agencies. He had been popular with his own troops but others in the military came to mistrust him and considered him a little unhinged.

After Flynn left the government, at first he simply parlayed his insider knowledge into big dollars as a foreign agent lobbying for Russia and Turkey. When he met up with Donald Trump, Flynn evidently found an outlet for his resentment against his former rivals. We don’t yet know whether this actually led him to work with a foreign government to subvert his own. There are certainly allegations that he may have tried. Today Flynn finds himself in the crosshairs of a government investigation into both his financial dealings and his political activities.

One can easily imagine him testifying before Congress and saying, “I little expected to meet the ungrateful returns I have received of my countrymen, but as Congress have stamped ingratitude as a current coin I must take it!”

Karl Marx’s old adage holds that history repeats itself, first as tragedy and then as farce. I’m not sure which one we’re witnessing at the moment. Let’s just say that there are echoes of another leader’s derangement and a different general’s obsessions in all this. America has been dealing with such human peculiarities from the beginning. The good news is that we seem to have a knack for surviving them.

Excerpt from http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2017/07/madmen-traitors-and-spies-from-very.html

July 04, 2017 5:15 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"After Flynn left the government, at first he simply parlayed his insider knowledge into big dollars as a foreign agent lobbying for Russia and Turkey."

during Arnold's time, we were engaged in war with Britain

we are at war with neither Russia nor Turkey

Russia is a G20 ally

Turkey is a NATO ally

both have engaged in dubious activities in recent years but we weren't the victims of the activity and consulting for foreign countries whom we are not at war with is common and a generally accepted practice

if we are going to start expanding the definition of "traitor", Obama and all the current liberal elites have more issues than Trump

July 05, 2017 8:58 AM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Being a member of the G20 doesn't make a country an ally.

Russia is an adversary of the U.S. Never before has Russia invested so much effort and money into interfering in a U.S. election - the scale of the interference is unprecedented.

Trump has done nothing to punish Russian attempts to subvert American democracy - this will only encourage further attempts in the future.

July 05, 2017 12:53 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Being a member of the G20 doesn't make a country an ally."

strange, they weren't a member until the cold war ended

"Russia is an adversary of the U.S."

oh, in some senses

but "rival" would be more accurate

in some senses, all countries are rivals

"Never before has Russia invested so much effort and money into interfering in a U.S. election - the scale of the interference is unprecedented."

if all allegations are true, they actually did no more than most media organizations, both domestic and foreign

"Trump has done nothing to punish Russian attempts to subvert American democracy -"

attempts to influence elections are not "subversion"

we do the same thing, as do all countries

Dems only think exposing secrets is subversive if it is done to them

the media constantly exposes any secret conversation or email it can get on non-Dems

no one calls that "subversion"

"this will only encourage further attempts in the future."

the Russians subtly supported Dems for years

interestingly, they never concerned themselves with deterrence

July 05, 2017 1:12 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Your ignorance of history is astounding.

""Being a member of the G20 doesn't make a country an ally."

strange, they weren't a member until the cold war ended"


The cold war ended in 1991, the same year the Soviet Union collapsed.

The G20 formed in September 1999.

No nation joined the G20 until after the cold war ended because the G20 was not formed until years after the Cold War had ended.

Your ignorance of vocabulary is astounding too.

"Russia is an adversary of the U.S."

oh, in some senses

but "rival" would be more accurate"


"Rival" and "Adversary" are synonyms of each other.

Your repetition of unsupported fake news is truly astounding:

"if all allegations are true, they actually did no more than most media organizations, both domestic and foreign"

"we do the same thing (attempt to subvert American Democracy), as do all countries"

"the Russians subtly supported Dems for years"


Let's see one bit of evidence supporting any one of these bullshit lies.

< crickets commence chirping >

You must be an idiotic Trump supporters like these:

Some Trump supporters thought NPR tweeted ‘propaganda.’ It was the Declaration of Independence.

July 05, 2017 3:49 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Your ignorance of history is astounding"

I bet a guy like you is astounded a lot

"The cold war ended in 1991, the same year the Soviet Union collapsed.

The G20 formed in September 1999.

No nation joined the G20 until after the cold war ended because the G20 was not formed until years after the Cold War had ended."

you sad fool

the G20 replaced the G8 which was the G7 until the cold war ended and Russia became our ally

"Your ignorance of vocabulary is astounding too"

it's what I said, folks

he spends his life astounded

""Rival" and "Adversary" are synonyms of each other"

they have completely different connotations

"Your repetition of unsupported fake news is truly astounding"

there you go again, jackass

"Let's see one bit of evidence supporting any one of these bullshit lies"

why, sure

but, first, provided evidence for these actual lies:

1. Russia gave hacked emails to wikileaks

2. Trump colluded with Russia

3. Guys who surgically alter themselves are in danger if they use the restroom of their gender

4. Al Gore knows what he is talking about

5. Hillary's loss was not her own fault

"< crickets commence chirping >"

they all died, worn out chirping by awaiting your response to the above

July 05, 2017 10:28 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The results of Mueller's investigation will provide evidence of Russian hacking, collusion with the Trump campaign, and how all that affected the election outcome.

Evidence of continuing climate change will prove Al Gore's point.




July 06, 2017 8:34 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"The results of Mueller's investigation will provide evidence of Russian hacking, collusion with the Trump campaign, and how all that affected the election outcome"

how would you know what the results of an investigation will be?

your answer confirms there is no evidence

"Evidence of continuing climate change will prove Al Gore's point"

will?

speculation is not evidence

I went to see the sequel to "Inconvenient Truth" that was screened recently at the AFI Docs

it reminded me of a Mad Magazine satire

it will be released to the public later this summer

Nature Geoscience, a peer-reviewed magazine, this month has an abstract of a research paper where some of the leading alarmists admit that there are "differences in model and satellite tropospheric warming rates."

their models didn't work out

meanwhile, Volvo announced yesterday they will soon do away with combustible engines and produce only electric cars

according to today's WSJ, most car companies are moving in the same direction

the alarmists will be out of business soon

July 06, 2017 9:22 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"speculation is not evidence"

Still click phobic I see.

That graph is not speculation, it's 400,000 years of levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide levels ending with "current level."

"Volvo announced yesterday they will soon do away with combustible engines and produce only electric cars"

Then it sure is a good thing before leaving office, Obama Administration Announces New Actions To Accelerate The Deployment of Electrical Vehicles and Charging Infrastructure

"according to today's WSJ, most car companies are moving in the same direction

the alarmists will be out of business soon"


Amen!

Moving away from non-renewable polluting sources of energy is a great way to reduce climate change.

July 06, 2017 12:12 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Still click phobic I see.

That graph is not speculation, it's 400,000 years of levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide levels ending with "current level.""

you're the one who used "will"

global warming has ended and the leading alarmists have conceded so

you were given a source that wasn't speculative, but a study based on actual data

"Moving away from non-renewable polluting sources of energy is a great way to reduce climate change"

what's renewable got to do with anything?

reducing pollution is great but the evidence that it is causing climate change is non-existent

July 06, 2017 2:12 PM  
Anonymous all you need to know about the current scientific establishment said...

"Way, way back in April 2017, scientists around the world participated in the ‘March for Science’ as a show of force and unity against an allegedly anti-science Trump administration. Their motto was “science not silence”: many wrote that mantra on pieces of duct tape and stuck it across their mouths.

March for Science organizers claimed that “the best way to ensure science will influence policy is to encourage people to appreciate and engage with science. That can only happen through education, communication, and ties of mutual respect between scientists and their communities — the paths of communication must go both ways.”

But that was so three months ago.

Many scientists are now rejecting an open debate on anthropogenic global warming. EPA administrator Scott Pruitt appears ready to move forward with a “red-team, blue-team” exercise, where two groups of scientists publicly challenge each other’s evidence on manmade climate change. The idea was floated during a Congressional hearing last spring and outlined in a Wall Street Journal op-ed by Steve Koonin, former undersecretary of energy in the Obama administration. Koonin said the public is unaware of the intense debate in climate science and how “consensus statements necessarily conceal judgment calls and debates and so feed the “settled,” “hoax” and “don’t know” memes that plague the political dialogue around climate change.”

It would work this way: A red team of scientists critiques a key climate assessment. The blue team responds. The back-and-forth continues until all the evidence is aired and refuted, followed by public hearings and an action plan based on the findings. It happens entirely out in the open. Koonin said this approach is used in high-consequence situations and “very different and more rigorous than traditional peer review, which is usually confidential and always adjudicated, rather than public and moderated.”

July 06, 2017 3:25 PM  
Anonymous all you need to know about the current scientific establishment said...

Now you would think the scientific establishment would embrace an opportunity to present their case to a wary, if disinterested, public. You would think the 97 percent of scientists who supposedly all agree human activity is causing climate change would eagerly line up to vanquish climate deniers, especially those in the Trump administration. You would think the same folks who fear a science-averse President Trump would be relieved his administration is encouraging a rigorous, forensic inquiry into the most consequential scientific issue of our time that has wide-ranging economic, social, and political ramifications around the world.

You would think.

But instead, many scientists and activists are expressing outrage at this logical suggestion, even advising colleagues not to participate. In a June 21 Washington Post op-ed, three top climate scientists repudiated the red-team concept, offended by the slightest suggestion that climate science needs fixing. Naomi Oreskes, Benjamin Salter, and Kerry Emanuel wrote that “calls for special teams of investigators are not about honest scientific debate. They are dangerous attempts to elevate the status of minority opinions, and to undercut the legitimacy, objectivity and transparency of existing climate science.”"

In a July 1 post full of irony, leading climate scientist Ken Caldeira blasts the climate contest: “We don’t want red team/blue team because science doesn’t line up monolithically for or against scientific positions.” What? Never mind the 97 percent consensus claim that’s been shoved down our throats for the past decade. (Caldeira also wrote just a few months ago that “the evidence for human-induced global warming is now so strong that no sensible person can deny a human role in these temperature increases. We can argue about what we should or should not do … but the argument is over.”)

Caldeira then smugly questions why “politicians who have never engaged in any scientific inquiry in their lives believe themselves to be the experts who should tell scientists how to conduct their business?” (Shall we then ask why scientists who have never engaged in any legislative or political endeavor in their lives believe themselves to be the experts who should tell lawmakers how to conduct their business?)"

http://thefederalist.com/2017/07/06/leading-climate-scientist-science-debate-un-american/

July 06, 2017 3:25 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

some inconvenient truth for the "teach the facts" crowd to read at their leisure:

https://amgreatness.com/2017/07/06/collusion-farce-hunt-hillarys-hackers/

July 07, 2017 12:24 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"you're the one who used "will""

So what are you saying? Do you think that straight up vertical line from the 1950s to the present is suddenly going to bend or make a U-turn because Volvo is going all electric?

"global warming has ended and the leading alarmists have conceded so

you were given a source that wasn't speculative, but a study based on actual data"


What source? "The abstract pf a research paper where some of the leading alarmists admit the there are "differences in model...rates?"

That's not a source.

There's no author, no title of the article, no link, no URL.

Going from "some leading alarmists find difference in climate models" to "global warming has ended" is one way fake news is made

Thanks ever so much for bringing to Vigilance one right wing opinion writer's opinion of another right wing opinion writer's opinion, AKA bullshit.

Oh goodie, and even more bullshit from a new website even harder right than FOX.

Sieg Heil!

July 07, 2017 4:55 PM  
Anonymous when will Dems ever learn? said...

"So what are you saying? Do you think that straight up vertical line from the 1950s to the present is suddenly going to bend or make a U-turn because Volvo is going all electric?"

me? I just say the facts

which is that it has been flat since before the turn of the millennial

which, just in case you're dense, means no vertical line to the present

"What source? "The abstract pf a research paper where some of the leading alarmists admit the there are "differences in model...rates?"

That's not a source.

There's no author, no title of the article, no link, no URL.

Going from "some leading alarmists find difference in climate models" to "global warming has ended" is one way fake news is made"

global warming has ended

not a disputable assertion, it's a fact

"Thanks ever so much for bringing to Vigilance one right wing opinion writer's opinion of another right wing opinion writer's opinion, AKA bullshit.

Oh goodie, and even more bullshit from a new website even harder right than FOX.

Sieg Heil!"

is this your argument?

no wonder your side is losing badly

July 08, 2017 12:15 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"no wonder your side is losing badly"

Which side?

Fox News: G-20 summit: Trump blocked out on Paris climate accord as 19 members reaffirm

Washington Post: Republicans thought they could force 2018 Democrats to cut deals, but Trump keeps sliding in polls

July 09, 2017 6:55 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Which side?"

ever hear of elections?

I don't know about your country, comrade, but we have them here.

July 10, 2017 7:58 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Did you ever hear of what 17 US intelligence agencies found?

CIA director: FBI and CIA find 'strong consensus' that Russian hacks were intended to help [Comrade] Trump win election

July 10, 2017 2:24 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

let me get this straight, if I can stop laughing for a minute

you think Hillary would have won if Russia had not(allegedly) given her emails to Julian Assange

btw, our intelligence communities, until last week, thought North Korea was a ways from launching an ICBM to America

July 10, 2017 2:58 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Did you ever hear of what 17 US intelligence agencies found?"

did you ever why we have SEVENTEEN different intelligence agencies?

is it because they're so incompetent that they keep starting over, trying to get it right?

the deep state is nothing if not big and byzantine

anywho, I think we could cut that down to two or three and use the savings to cut the taxes of billionaires, who already pay way too much of their well-deserved earnings to support crap like TTF

July 10, 2017 8:24 PM  
Anonymous PT Barnum and Charlie Chan said...

Anon, I think I'm understanding your belief system. You have determined that the US constitutional republic does not work. The people who get elected and appointed to public positions aren't any good, our spies don't know how to spy and our diplomats don't know how to conduct diplomacy, our judges don't know how to judge, at least the Mexican ones, and the million federal employees who dedicate themselves to making the government work for people like you are fools.

There are seventeen intelligence agencies because there are many kinds of things to defend against. There are criminal and political and ideological domestic threats, criminal and political and ideological foreign threats -- and there you've got six groups already! Never mind corporate espionage, trade in nuclear secrets, international shipping cartels and management of political worries in foreign countries that could turn against us... it's a big job.

You believe they're incompetent but our US intelligence agencies have determined that the Russians influenced our presidential election, trying to get Trump elected. There are some obvious reasons for it -- Putin hated Hillary, and further by putting an incompetent leader in place Russia can increase its power in the world. You are not literally duty-bound to defend our democratic way of life but there is not a nice word for a person who roots for his own country's enemy.

July 10, 2017 9:02 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"did you ever [sic] why we have SEVENTEEN different intelligence agencies?

is it because they're so incompetent that they keep starting over, trying to get it right?"


No. It seems to be because almost every time there's another sort of attack on the United States, Congress and/or other US leaders feel the need to create another intelligence agency.

The Central Intelligence Agency and National Security Council were created by Congress in 1947 after the unforeseen attack on Pearl Harbor.

The Office of the Director of National Intelligence was created by Congress in response to the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

The origins of National Security Agency was in 1917, after Congress declared war on Germany.

Federal Bureau of Investigation was created by Attorney General Bonaparte in July 1908. The Departments of Justice and Labor had been keeping records on anarchists for years, but President Theodore Roosevelt wanted more power to monitor them.

Department of Homeland Security Office of Intelligence and Analysis was formed in 2007 under the George W. Bush administration after the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001.

The Drug Enforcement Administration was established in 1973 by Nixon and Congress. DEAs Office of National Security Intelligence became a member of the Intelligence Community in 2006, under the George W. Bush administration.

Instead of spewing your ignorance, I suggest you learn something about the 17 intelligence agencies, including the fact that the last four of them were established during the George W. Bush administration along with the infamous Bush Tax Cuts, starting here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Intelligence_Community#Members

July 11, 2017 10:31 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Anon, I think I'm understanding your belief system. You have determined that the US constitutional republic does not work."

oh, I think it does work

my criticizing is part of the system which makes for continual checks and improvements and accountability

it's how it works

saw a sign at a "Fourth of July" parade last week: "Dissent is the highest form of patriotism"

you seem to not think that's true

"The people who get elected and appointed to public positions aren't any good,"

don't you think that about Trump and just about everyone he appoints?

hate to accuse you of hypocrisy, but, c'mon

"our spies don't know how to spy"

you think they're above criticism?

"and our diplomats don't know how to conduct diplomacy,"

I don't remember saying that

although, diplomats aren't interchangeable automatons

there are different styles of diplomacy

there are also differences in goals

Obama, for instance, believed America was in decline and thought he was there to manage that decline

hence, he made several unilateral concessions to the Russians

Trump, on the other hand, seeks to make America great

"our judges don't know how to judge,"

there are two types of judges out there

one type believes they are to interpret the intent of the writers of the Constitution

the other thinks we should play word games and fit the Constitution to contemporary whims

I side with the former, and there are plenty of them

there will be many more before the Trump and Pence administrations are done in 16 years

"and the million federal employees who dedicate themselves to making the government work for people like you are fools."

most career government workers think Americans work for them, rather than the other way around

it's the problem with relying on government to solve all life's problems

"government isn't the answer to our problems, government is the problem"

July 11, 2017 12:50 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"There are seventeen intelligence agencies because there are many kinds of things to defend against. There are criminal and political and ideological domestic threats,"

political and ideological threats?

this is a constitutional democracy, not a totalitarian state

political and ideological threats against the government are constitutionally protected

"criminal and political and ideological foreign threats -- and there you've got six groups already! Never mind corporate espionage, trade in nuclear secrets, international shipping cartels and management of political worries in foreign countries that could turn against us... it's a big job."

most of which wouldn't have Russian influence in the election under their purview

how, for example, would it be relevant that an agency devoted to espionage against shipping cartels thinks Russia wanted Trump to win the election?

"You believe they're incompetent but our US intelligence agencies have determined that the Russians influenced our presidential election,"

no, they didn't conclude that

they concluded they tried to

it doesn't take a trained professional to realize that

there are millions of others, perhaps billions, who also tried to influence our election

which would make sense since we are the most powerful country in the world

there is nothing wrong, per se, with trying to influence our election

"trying to get Trump elected. There are some obvious reasons for it -- Putin hated Hillary, and further by putting an incompetent leader in place Russia can increase its power in the world. You are not literally duty-bound to defend our democratic way of life but there is not a nice word for a person who roots for his own country's enemy."

oh well, Trump was elected democratically so defending our democratic way of life is not what the Dems and liberal resistance is doing

the blue collar worker in the Midwest and the evangelical voter, the two groups that put Trump over the top, couldn't care less what was in John Podesta's emails

they were concerned with the decline in the American industrial base resulting from internationalism and the threat posed to the Constitution from activist liberal judges, respectively

"Instead of spewing your ignorance, I suggest you learn something about the 17 intelligence agencies, including the fact that the last four of them were established during the George W. Bush administration along with the infamous Bush Tax Cuts, starting here"

no big fan of W and we have too many intelligence agencies

consolidation would save money and probably be more effective

July 11, 2017 1:26 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

the august George Mason University, with its Nobel winning economists, has conducted a study and found the best run states in America are GOP low-tax states:

http://www.investors.com/politics/commentary/best-run-states-are-all-solidly-republican-worst-run-mostly-democratic-study-finds/

July 11, 2017 1:53 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Russia Scandal: No wonder former FBI Director James Comey refused to press charges last summer against Hillary Clinton for her egregious security breaches: It turns out, he may have been guilty of the same thing.

As the inside-the-beltway political publication The Hill reported, more than half of the memos FBI Director James Comey wrote after having spoken to President Trump about the Russia investigation contained classified information. The Hill cites as its sources "officials familiar with the documents."

Not surprisingly, perhaps, Trump on Monday morning tweeted out an angry response: "James Comey leaked CLASSIFIED INFORMATION to the media. That is so illegal!"

He may be onto something there.

All told, Comey wrote seven memos based on nine meetings with Trump. In testimony to Congress, he asserted that he had made sure the memos in question didn't have classified material. But a subsequent investigation found markings on four of the memos indicating secret information, the kind that is not allowed to be routinely released to the public.

Comey has long maintained that the memos were his personal property, but virtually no legal authority agrees with that. Nor does the FBI, for that matter. The memos were created on government time and related directly to his work, so they were the property of government.

In short, it sounds like a game of cover-your-hindquarters he's been playing. Because Comey later let outsiders see those memos, and made sure they were leaked to the Trump-hating press, in this case the New York Times, so any protestations of innocence on his part sound more than a little weak.

Let's be very clear here: What Comey did is against FBI rules, and it's a violation of federal secrecy laws, on a par with the violation that Hillary Clinton committed when she decided to run the Secretary of State's office from a private, home-brew email server that was clearly illegal.

The agreement signed by all FBI employees says that "all information acquired by me in connection with my official duties with the FBI and all official material to which I have access remain the property of the United States of America."

It goes on to add that agents "will not reveal, by any means, any information or material from or related to FBI files or any other information acquired by virtue of my official employment to any unauthorized recipient without prior official written authorization by the FBI."

Hillary signed a similar agreement at the State Department. Yet, she routinely put classified information onto public servers, where it could be grabbed by unscrupulous actors, such as the Chinese and the Russians.

How does that compare to Comey, who asked a lawyer-friend at Columbia University, Prof. Daniel Richman, to leak his memos containing classified information to the news media?

The goal of the handoff was to generate stories so that a special prosecutor would be named to investigate Russian meddling in the U.S. election and, more to the point, Democratic rumors that Trump had colluded with the Russians to beat Hillary.

In short, Comey appears to have delivered classified information to the New York Times and other media for the sole political purpose of bringing down President Trump.

July 11, 2017 2:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Comey's actions help explain a lot of things that people have puzzled over since last year. During last summer's campaign and the growing scandal over Hillary's cavalier treatment of U.S. secrets on her email server, Comey came to her rescue.

Yes, he said in July, Clinton's actions were "extremely careless." But stung by the criticism he received from the left, he later in the month said that Clinton's violations didn't rise to the level of a prosecutable crime.

On Oct. 28, he revealed that more emails had been found on an unsecured laptop belonging to former Rep. Anthony Wiener, estranged husband of top Clinton aide Huma Abedin. On Nov. 6, just two days before the election, Comey announced Clinton wouldn't be prosecuted. Case closed.

Comey's later actions suggest, if anything, he learned from Hillary's chutzpah. You can flout U.S. law, and as long as you have friends and political clout, get away with it — even use your illegality as a bludgeon against your political foes.

Moreover, a June piece by Fox News noted at least 14 stories written by the New York Times going back to Jan. 10 containing "confidential information related to Trump and the FBI, mostly sourced anonymously from senior officials in the FBI and DOJ." Comey, it seems, has been working overtime to sabotage Trump.

This calls into serious question the appointment of Robert Mueller as special counsel to look into the rumors of election meddling by Russia. Comey and Mueller are close friends.

At minimum, Mueller must recuse himself on the Trump matters now before him. His friendship with Comey makes impartiality impossible, and it's a clear conflict.

More importantly, Comey got Hillary off the hook last year from what appeared to be a slam-dunk prosecution. And please remember, no one thought at the time that Trump had any chance at all of beating Hillary.

Now, we find out Comey played a double game with the public and the newly elected president. A case of a deep-state operative, Comey, trying to sabotage Washington-outsider Trump? Or just someone with a fast-and-loose idea about following the law?

July 11, 2017 2:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

WATCH: Fox & Friends Makes Trump Look Like A Fool, Admits They Lied About Comey Leaking 'Top Secret' Info

July 11, 2017 4:46 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

this what the last misleading post is referring to:

"half of the memos contain information classified at the secret or confidential level, not top-secret"

OK, so Comey only leaked "secret or confidential" not "top-secret"

when will he be indicted?

he's already committed perjury twice before Congressional committees

and now this

July 12, 2017 9:29 AM  
Anonymous There's nothing there said...

"this [sic] what the last misleading post is referring to:

"half of the memos contain information classified at the secret or confidential level, not top-secret""


Look at what you did. You skipped over that critical part in your quote of Doocey's retraction, which was:

"Yesterday on this program we aired and tweeted this story saying former FBI Director James Comey leaked memos containing top secret information. We were mistaken in that. According to a report [that would be The Hill's Sunday report about which The Hill now reports Fox Friend Doocey had "incorrectly characteriz[ed] some aspects of a Sunday report from The Hill regarding Comey's memos"], half of the memos contained information classified at the 'secret' or 'confidential' level not 'top secret.' And the markings of the government documents in which Mr. Comey leaked are at this point unclear. Just wanted to straighten that out."

Doocey said FOX & Friends were wrong about classifications and you omitted that part of what he said.

Just wanted to straighten that omission out for you.

"...while there were reportedly seven total Comey memos, just four apparently contained information that was considered "secret" or "confidential"—not "top secret"—and there is no evidence the memo the former FBI director sent to a friend contained classified information. Comey indicated under oath the memo he shared did not have classified information, and his friend told CNN Monday that "no memo was given to me that was marked 'classified.'"

Fox & Friends acknowledged the mistake on Tuesday in a very brief segment; it did not apologize..."


From the transcript:

"COMEY: Well, I remember thinking, this is a very disturbing development, really important to our work. I need to document it and preserve it in a way — and — and this committee gets this, but sometimes when things are classified, it tangles them up. It’s hard...

WARNER: Amen.

COMEY: ... to share it within an investigative team. It’s — you have to be very careful about how you handle it, for good reason.

So my thinking was, if I write it in such a way that I don’t include anything that would trigger a classification, that’ll make it easier for us to discuss, within the FBI and the government, and to — to hold on to it in a way that makes it accessible to us."

July 12, 2017 11:09 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"We were mistaken in that."

this refers to the "top secret" classification

they didn't say that the information wasn't secret or classified

and it still remains that he released property of the government in an effort to undermine the President

and the perjury to Congressional committees has been attested to by the FBI

July 12, 2017 11:15 AM  
Anonymous There's still nothing there said...

Personal notes, particularly those carefully written to not contain "anything that would trigger a classification" are not property of the government.

In which court was Comey proven to have perjured himself as "attested to by the FBI?"

< crickets >

July 12, 2017 11:42 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Personal notes, particularly those carefully written to not contain "anything that would trigger a classification" are not property of the government"

you are really hopeless

"In which court was Comey proven to have perjured himself as "attested to by the FBI?""

on at least two occasions when he testified before Congress, the FBI later sent a memo to Congress that his testimony was untrue

are you saying they lied?

"< crickets >"

sounds like not many people talk to you

July 12, 2017 1:42 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Trump’s Pick For FBI Director Affirms Russia Probes Are Not ‘A Witch Hunt’

"WASHINGTON ― President Donald Trump’s nominee to replace fired FBI Director James Comey has rebuked Trump’s repeated claim that investigations into whether his campaign colluded with Russia in the 2016 election are “the greatest Witch Hunt in political history.”

Christopher Wray, Trump’s pick to replace Comey, also suggested that the president’s eldest son acted improperly last year when he met with a Russian government-linked lawyer after being promised damaging information about Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton. That meeting is likely the clearest indication so far that the Trump campaign may have colluded with Russia.

In tweets defending his son on Wednesday, Trump said his son was “innocent” and called news about the meeting, which Trump Jr. confirmed by releasing emails documenting it, a “witch hunt.”

“I do not consider Director Mueller to be on a witch hunt,” Wray said Wednesday, when asked during his Senate confirmation hearing about the independent probe led by special counsel Robert Mueller.

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), reading directly from Donald Trump Jr.’s emails documenting the existence of the meeting, asked Wray if Trump Jr. should have agreed to the meeting.

Wray demurred, saying that he had not been focused on the story. But after Graham pressed him, he affirmed that “the FBI would want to know” of such interactions.

“Any threat or effort to interfere with our election by any nation state or any non-state actor is the kind of thing the FBI would want to know,” he said.

Mueller’s investigation is also reportedly focused on whether Trump obstructed justice. Trump abruptly fired Comey in May, amid the FBI’s investigation into Trump’s campaign.

Last month, Comey testified before the Senate that he believes he was fired because of the Russia investigation. He also testified that Trump asked him for loyalty and to end his investigation into former national security adviser Mike Flynn, who resigned after lying to Trump administration officials about his interactions with Russian officials."

July 12, 2017 1:49 PM  
Anonymous apparatchik said...

""WASHINGTON ― President Donald Trump’s nominee to replace fired FBI Director James Comey has rebuked Trump’s repeated claim that investigations into whether his campaign colluded with Russia in the 2016 election are “the greatest Witch Hunt in political history.”"

how about a direct quote?

not that the liberal Dem-supporting media would twist anyone's words

oh no, that wouldn't do that

"Christopher Wray, Trump’s pick to replace Comey, also suggested that the president’s eldest son acted improperly last year when he met with a Russian government-linked lawyer after being promised damaging information about Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton."

does anyone doubt that if someone had information that Trump got illegal contributions from Russia, and had offered proof to the Clinton political machine, that HRC's campaign wouldn't talk to them, regardless of who they were?

if so, do let us know the color of the sky in your world

indeed, the source had promised proof from the "Crown Prosecutor of Russia" (the proletariat actually executed the royal family in 1917 so this must have been the government-in-exile, Anastasia's daughter, no doubt) that Hillary had received illegal support from Putin

the story kinda fails apart when you consider no such proof was ever publicized and that Dems obtained information from all kinds of sources that they have misconstrued to accuse Trump of the same

"That meeting is likely the clearest indication so far that the Trump campaign may have colluded with Russia."

only if you redefine "collusion" to mean receiving unsolicited incorrect information from a nutcase

did you ever look at Bernie Sanders' photo album from his honeymoon?

you know, when he took his new bride to Moscow to show her how a legit government operates

July 12, 2017 4:48 PM  
Anonymous apparatchik said...

"In tweets defending his son on Wednesday, Trump said his son was “innocent” and called news about the meeting, which Trump Jr. confirmed by releasing emails documenting it, a “witch hunt.”"

sounds accurate

"“I do not consider Director Mueller to be on a witch hunt,” Wray said Wednesday, when asked during his Senate confirmation hearing about the independent probe led by special counsel Robert Mueller."

what do you expect him to do, insult a colleague and insure he doesn't get confirmed?

"Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), reading directly from Donald Trump Jr.’s emails documenting the existence of the meeting, asked Wray if Trump Jr. should have agreed to the meeting.

Wray demurred, saying that he had not been focused on the story. But after Graham pressed him, he affirmed that “the FBI would want to know” of such interactions."

wow, that's harsh

actually, I doubt the FBI was unaware of the meeting

if so, they are incompetent since the people meeting with Trump Jr checked in on facebook at Trump Tower

"“Any threat or effort to interfere with our election by any nation state or any non-state actor is the kind of thing the FBI would want to know,” he said."

to characterizing exchanging information as "interference" that deserves FBI scrutiny is actually totalitarian

"Mueller’s investigation is also reportedly focused on whether Trump obstructed justice. Trump abruptly fired Comey in May, amid the FBI’s investigation into Trump’s campaign."

so far, no one has been accused of any crime so how could there be "obstruction of justice"

"Last month, Comey testified before the Senate that he believes he was fired because of the Russia investigation. He also testified that Trump asked him for loyalty and to end his investigation into former national security adviser Mike Flynn, who resigned after lying to Trump administration officials about his interactions with Russian officials."

I don't know if any of you TTFers have employees, but if you did: what if one of them accused you, without evidence, of committing a crime, and told they were going to keep investigating you until they found proof?

would you be obstructing justice if you fired them?

July 12, 2017 4:48 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

""WASHINGTON ― President Donald Trump’s nominee to replace fired FBI Director James Comey has rebuked Trump’s repeated claim that investigations into whether his campaign colluded with Russia in the 2016 election are “the greatest Witch Hunt in political history.”"

how about a direct quote?

not that the liberal Dem-supporting media would twist anyone's words

oh no, that wouldn't do that"


Is insider.foxnews.com right wing enough for you?

If so, you can check out that direct quote here:

FBI Director Nominee: Mueller Is Not on a 'Witch Hunt' in Russia Probe

"does anyone doubt that if someone had information that Trump got illegal contributions from Russia, and had offered proof to the Clinton political machine, that HRC's campaign wouldn't talk to them, regardless of who they were?"

How soon they forget: HRC's campaign would have turned the information over to the FBI just like Al Gore's campaign advisor did when someone sent him Dumbya's debate preparation materials during the 2000 campaign.

That's what Don Jr. should have done, call the FBI and tell them about the election cheating attempt like Gore's team did, and in fact, foxnews.com reports: Donald Trump Jr. tells Sean Hannity: 'In retrospect I probably would have done things a little differently'

"..."I think in the grand scheme of the hysteria that’s been talked about over the last eight, nine, ten months with Russia, things are probably different than they were 13 months ago," Trump Jr. concluded. "In retrospect, I know more now, but hindsight’s always 20-20.""

Yet it appears hindsight was not necessary for Gore's campaign people to do the right thing instead of going for a cheat.

The sky is blue on a beautiful day. What color is it inside that bubble of yours?

What lovely pirouetting from Trump Jr's attempted Russian collusion to Anastasia to Bernie's honeymoon in Moscow, you do it so well.

"“I do not consider Director Mueller to be on a witch hunt,” Wray said Wednesday, when asked during his Senate confirmation hearing about the independent probe led by special counsel Robert Mueller."

what do you expect him to do, insult a colleague and insure he doesn't get confirmed?"


If you think Wray is worried about what a colleague like Mueller, you must also think he's worried about disagreeing with Trump since Tiny Hands is the one who selects who goes through the confirmation process in the first place. Mueller does not get to vote to confirm Wray or not nor does he get to decide if Wray remains Trump's nomination for FBI Director or not.

And disagreeing with a colleague is not the same as insulting a colleague. It is possible to disagree with colleagues without insulting them.

Of course Vigilance readers can understand why a bully troll type would not comprehend the difference between disagreeing and insulting.

"actually, I doubt the FBI was unaware of the meeting"

Actually, what didn't happen is Don Jr. didn't do his civic duty and tell the FBI he'd been approached with promises of oppo-research by an adversary of the United States who was attempting to interfere with our national election Junior wanted his Daddy to win.

"to characterizing exchanging information as "interference" that deserves FBI scrutiny is actually totalitarian"

All 17 US intelligence agencies agree Russia tried to effect the outcome of our election.

July 13, 2017 7:41 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Is insider.foxnews.com right wing enough for you?

If so, you can check out that direct quote here:

FBI Director Nominee: Mueller Is Not on a 'Witch Hunt' in Russia Probe"

if there's such a quote, go ahead and paste

I'm not clicking on any link from someone here, considering the types that post here

"How soon they forget: HRC's campaign would have turned the information over to the FBI just like Al Gore's campaign advisor did when someone sent him Dumbya's debate preparation materials during the 2000 campaign."

please. Hillary's campaign received advance notice from the media of which questions would be asked at the debate

and, Gore? this Nobel prize winner had no reason to do that

unless, Bush's debate prep materials were obtained illegally, sending them to him wasn't a crime

"That's what Don Jr. should have done, call the FBI and tell them about the election cheating attempt like Gore's team did,"

election "cheating" is not in the FBI's purview unless it involves some illegal aspect

if someone calls a campaign and tells them they have evidence that their opponent committed a crime, it is not "cheating" to meet with them to see what they have

and if the evidence had actually been produced, obviously the Trump would have made sure that law enforcement as well as the media found out about it

"and in fact, foxnews.com reports: Donald Trump Jr. tells Sean Hannity: 'In retrospect I probably would have done things a little differently'"

a little vague, didn't say how

"What lovely pirouetting from Trump Jr's attempted Russian collusion"

actually, meeting with someone who has promised to provide some information is not "collusion"

"collusion" is technically when two parties coordinate their efforts

under your definition, Obama colluded with Castro when he met him in Havana and lifted US sanctions

collusion is only illegal if the effort is to do something illegal

like when Bill Clinton met with the attorney general to coordinate how to stop the prosecution of Hillary for her violation of laws about securing confidential information

that was obstruction of justice

"to Anastasia"

you the one taking seriously someone who said he has a message from the "Crown prosecutor" of Russia

I can only imagine if said he been with the dauphin of France

"to Bernie's honeymoon in Moscow,"

since you bring it up, isn't it great chutzpah for Dems to act like any conversation with a Russian official by a Trump associate is nefarious?

Bernie Sanders so admired the Soviet Union that he honeymooned there

you remember Bernie, a guy who would have won the Dem nomination had Hillary and the DNC Chair not colluded against him

July 13, 2017 9:13 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"If you think Wray is worried about what a colleague like Mueller, you must also think he's worried about disagreeing with Trump since Tiny Hands is the one who selects who goes through the confirmation process in the first place. Mueller does not get to vote to confirm Wray or not nor does he get to decide if Wray remains Trump's nomination for FBI Director or not."

given the political climate created by a biased press, Wray has to say he's independent and also not insult Mueller

also, it's just plain civility and diplomacy, not "worry", as you characterize it

truth is, the FBI shouldn't investigate Presidents

it's just a conflict of interest

if there's some credible reason to suspect a President has committed a crime, it should be investigated by Congress

there is no such reason now, btw

someone with the kind of independence being suggested should be directly elected, not indirectly nominated and approved

that's just common sense

"And disagreeing with a colleague is not the same as insulting a colleague. It is possible to disagree with colleagues without insulting them."

to say their entire job is a "witch hunt" is a little more than a disagreement

you are extrapolating too much out of someone simply being diplomatic

"Actually, what didn't happen is Don Jr. didn't do his civic duty and tell the FBI he'd been approached with promises of oppo-research by an adversary of the United States who was attempting to interfere with our national election Junior wanted his Daddy to win."

again, "interfere" is a vague term

technically, everyone has a right to "interfere" in an election

if we get to the point where we think we must ignore evidence because that interferes with an election, we are destined to be under a government elected by fantasy

if some evidence had actually been provided, we have ample resources available to digest and evaluate it

that's how elections are supposed to work

"All 17 US intelligence agencies agree Russia tried to effect the outcome of our election"

again, there is nothing wrong with anyone in the world trying to "effect the outcome of our election"

and the list of players beside Russia is voluminous

nothing Russia did, even if every allegation is true, had any more effect than what all the other players did

history is watching and the current antics of the Dems and their media supporters won't be judged kindly

let's hope the damage to our democracy is not irreversible

July 13, 2017 9:13 AM  
Anonymous Russia scandal goes well beyond Trump: GOP leaders definitely knew about hacking — did they benefit too? said...

"Leading Republicans knew about Russian hacking long before Trump's nomination. They said nothing and did nothing

Despite Europe’s clear disdain for President Trump it seems as though he’s over there every other week. In fact he’s arriving in France on Thursday at the invitation of President Emmanuel Macron to help celebrate Bastille Day and have dinner at the Eiffel Tower. Considering that Trump has implied repeatedly that Paris is nothing but a hellhole these days, it’s a testament to just how desperate he is to get out of Washington. The heat is on and he wants out of the kitchen.

You have certainly heard that Donald Trump Jr., Jared Kushner and Paul Manafort met with a Russian lawyer to get some promised dirt on Hillary Clinton that was represented as being part of a Russian government program to help Trump get elected. Now we know their breathless protestations that they didn’t know nothin’ about no Russians were lies, and we also know that this particular tawdry scheme reached into the highest levels of the campaign. We’ll have to wait for the next shoe to drop. There is always another shoe.

There was one new story on Wednesday that added an interesting detail to the saga and points to a possible larger conspiracy. McClatchy reported (URL for the click phobic: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/nation-world/national/article160803619.html) that House and Senate investigators as well as the Justice Department are looking at the Trump campaign’s digital operation, one of Jared Kushner’s pet projects (financed by big-daddy benefactor Robert Mercer), to determine if it may have worked with Russia’s sophisticated micro-targeting and propaganda program during the 2016 campaign.

McClatchy also reported that the Justice Department is looking into “whether Trump’s campaign pointed Russian cyber operatives to certain voting jurisdictions in key states – areas where Trump’s digital team and Republican operatives were spotting unexpected weakness in voter support for Hillary Clinton.” That’s an issue I’ve written about previously here on Salon, based on some post-election investigative reporting (URL for the click phobic http://www.salon.com/2017/03/03/how-much-did-russian-hacking-affect-congressional-races-and-how-deeply-was-the-gop-involved/) by the New York Times.

This raises once again the question of just what was going on in the Republican Party during this period. After all, it wasn’t just Donald Trump who benefited from Russian hacking. The GOP-dominated House majority was a major beneficiary as well.

Remember, the congressional leadership knew in 2015 that it was happening. Reuters has reported that the so-called Gang of Eight (Republican leaders in Congress) was told that Russian hackers were attacking the Democratic Party but that the information was so top secret they could not share it. As we know, hackers attacked the Democratic National Committee and the personal email of Clinton campaign chair John Podesta. But they also hacked the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, and information gleaned from that hack was put to use in some 2016 campaigns for Congress.

Also recall that one month before Donald Trump Jr. took that meeting with the Russian lawyer, House Majority Leader Kevin “loose lips” McCarthy was talking about Trump’s connections to Vladimir Putin (URL for the click phobic http://www.salon.com/2017/05/18/kevin-mccarthys-explosive-joke-points-toward-a-darker-questions-how-long-have-leading-republicans-known-about-donald-trumps-russia-problem/) in a room full of Republicans:"...

July 13, 2017 11:29 AM  
Anonymous Russia scandal goes well beyond Trump: GOP leaders definitely knew about hacking — did they benefit too? said...

..."A month before Donald Trump clinched the Republican nomination, one of his closest allies in Congress — House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy — made a politically explosive assertion in a private conversation on Capitol Hill with his fellow GOP leaders: that Trump could be the beneficiary of payments from Russian President Vladimir Putin.

“There’s two people I think Putin pays: Rohrabacher and Trump,” McCarthy (R-Calif.) said, according to a recording of the June 15, 2016 exchange, which was listened to and verified by The Washington Post. […]

House Speaker Paul D. Ryan (R-Wis.) immediately interjected, stopping the conversation from further exploring McCarthy’s assertion, and swore the Republicans present to secrecy."


This was the day after news had broken (URL for the click phobic https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/russian-government-hackers-penetrated-dnc-stole-opposition-research-on-trump/2016/06/14/cf006cb4-316e-11e6-8ff7-7b6c1998b7a0_story.html) that the Russians had hacked the DNC and Ryan and McCarthy had just come from a meeting with the Ukrainian prime minister, who “had described a Kremlin tactic of financing populist politicians to undercut Eastern European democratic institutions.”

Republican leaders kept this from the public for a year, then lied repeatedly about it when confronted until someone produced an audiotape, at which point McCarthy, Ryan, et al., said it was just a joke. Maybe it was. But we know for sure that this idea about Trump being under Putin’s thumb was in the ether in GOP circles even as the party was getting ready to nominate him as its presidential candidate.

Fast forward to late August when the intelligence community was becoming frantic over the evidence of Russian interference and Director of National Intelligence John Brennan (URL for the click phobic https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/04/06/us/trump-russia-cia-john-brennan.html) held private classified briefings with eight top congressional leaders, telling then that there was evidence the Russians were helping Donald Trump and that unnamed advisers to the Republican nominee might be working with them. In September, intelligence officials convened a big meeting with the Gang of 12 (URL for the click phobic https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/obama-orders-review-of-russian-hacking-during-presidential-campaign/2016/12/09/31d6b300-be2a-11e6-94ac-3d324840106c_story.html), meaning the House and Senate leadership along with chairmen and ranking members of committees on intelligence and homeland security. It was assumed this would result in a “show of solidarity and bipartisan unity” to protest this threat to the integrity of the American democratic process.

That was an erroneous assumption. The Republicans refused to sign anything that implicated the Russian government, only agreeing to tell state elections officials to beware of “malefactors” attempting to hack election software. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell reportedly said he would consider any effort by the White House to challenge the Russians publicly “an act of partisan politics.” That was that..."

July 13, 2017 11:30 AM  
Anonymous Russia scandal goes well beyond Trump: GOP leaders definitely knew about hacking — did they benefit too? said...

"...Since the election, when Republican officials aren’t actively helping the White House cover up and misdirect, as House Intelligence Committee chair Devin Nunes did, with a few exceptions they still dismiss the scandal (URL for the click phobic https://www.washingtonpost.com/powerpost/tested-by-the-many-chapters-of-the-russia-story-republicans-stand-by-trump/2017/07/11/3bc1983c-665c-11e7-9928-22d00a47778f_story.html), even in the face of documentary evidence like the Donald Trump Jr. emails.

There’s a lot of punditry every day bemoaning the fact that President Trump refuses to admit that the Russian interference in the campaign happened, seeing it as a stubborn (and insulting) rejection of the U.S. intelligence community and a dangerous unwillingness to take needed action to prevent it happening again. But really, why is Trump the only one on the hook? The Republican leadership has turned a blind eye to what was happening since 2015. They knew. They may have even known more about it than Trump did, at least in the beginning. They did nothing about it then and have shown no signs that they plan to do anything in the future.

It’s not all on Donald Trump. He may been the principal beneficiary but the leaders of his party aided and abetted the crime. We may just learn that they benefited from it too.

July 13, 2017 11:30 AM  
Anonymous Yesterday's URLs for the click phobic said...

http://thehill.com/policy/national-security/341225-comeys-private-memos-on-trump-conversations-contained-classified

http://thehill.com/homenews/media/341431-fox-friends-corrects-its-coverage-of-the-hills-comey-report-we-were-mistaken

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/08/us/politics/senate-hearing-transcript.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/christopher-wray-trump-fbi-director_us_59663e6ce4b005b0fdca4d97

http://insider.foxnews.com/2017/07/12/christopher-wray-fbi-director-nominee-mueller-not-witch-hunt-russia-probe

http://www.nytimes.com/2000/09/14/us/the-2000-campaign-the-debate-gore-aide-receives-then-lets-go-of-hot-potato.html

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/07/12/donald-trump-jr-tells-sean-hannity-in-retrospect-probably-would-have-done-things-little-differently.html

July 13, 2017 11:30 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

again, all you're getting all worked up about is that someone told the truth about Hillary

it would have come out eventually

she and the DNC colluded to interfere with the election to prevent Bernie from being the nominee

she and Bill colluded with the Attorney General to obstruct justice in the FBI investigation of her

she and Obama also colluded to interfere with the election by the spread of a dossier they knew to be false about Trump connections to Russia

btw, you seem to be raising alarms about what GOP lawmakers knew

but Obama, and Hillary, knew the same

face it, you're real grievance is that Hillary lost

she did so, not because of any interference but because Trump exploited fears among union workers about trade deals done by Bill and because she was promising to do away with the Constitution as we know it by the use of the SCOTUS

the actual turning point came when Comey announced he had reopened the email investigation because of material found on the hard drive of a perverted sexual predator connected to her campaign

prior to that, the Billy Bush tapes had Trump declining

it's all a tale they will someday write an opera about

the fault, dear TTFers. was not in her czars

it was in herself

July 13, 2017 11:52 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"collusion is not a crime, it's not even a misdemeanor...":

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/wp/2017/07/12/sorry-democrats-the-holy-grail-of-a-trump-crime-is-still-missing/?utm_term=.a78664f513c8

July 13, 2017 2:12 PM  
Anonymous Brünnhilde said...

Pirouetting to operas now.

Everybody knows it's not over until the fat lady sings.

July 13, 2017 5:00 PM  
Anonymous Putinesque said...

https://www.aol.com/article/news/2017/07/14/republican-donor-kills-himself-after-talking-about-working-with/23029625/

July 14, 2017 7:14 AM  
Anonymous https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-latest-evidence-of-trumps-unfitness-may-be-the-most-revolting/2017/07/14/f8ce9a50-68c4-11e7-8eb5-cbccc2e7bfbf_story.html said...

Every week — nearly every day — brings fresh, stomach-churning evidence of President Trump’s unfitness for office. The latest may be the most revolting.

Confronted with incontrovertible proof that his son leapt at the prospect of meeting with a “Russian government attorney” offering to dish dirt on Hillary Clinton as “part of Russia and its government’s support” for his candidacy, the president took the position that this was political business as usual.

His first public reaction, in an interview with Reuters, was that “many people would have held that meeting.” The next day, Trump ratcheted up that astonishing assertion, from “many” to “most,” asserting, “I think from a practical standpoint, most people would have taken that meeting. . . . Politics isn’t the nicest business in the world, but it’s very standard.”

No. It. Isn’t.

Donald Trump Jr. at least had the decency to admit, in his interview with Fox News’s Sean Hannity, that, “in retrospect, I probably would’ve done things a little differently.” Not his father. I know being Trump means never having to say you’re sorry. I understand the fierce parental instinct to defend your erring child, even if that child is a 39-year-old father of five.

But this meeting was unacceptable. It was not even in the exurbs of appropriate. Hard to believe this really requires spelling out, but apparently it does, so here goes: A candidate for president of the United States and his campaign have no business, none, trucking with an emissary of a foreign government peddling incriminating information about their opponent.

That this meeting was explicitly described as an element of a Russian plot to influence the U.S. election is icing on an already repulsive cake. That the target of this feeler — the candidate’s son — embraced such meddling rather than recoiling from it only adds to the sordidness of the episode.

And that the intended beneficiary, now the sitting president of the United States, is unable and unwilling to accept that fact should be chilling to every patriotic American. Perhaps he is incapable of ever acknowledging wrongdoing. That only adds to the chill.

As does Trump’s staggering refusal to recognize the reality of Russian attempts to interfere in the election. What was Trump doing, at this late stage, asking Russian President Vladimir Putin if he meddled?...

July 15, 2017 10:48 AM  
Anonymous https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-latest-evidence-of-trumps-unfitness-may-be-the-most-revolting/2017/07/14/f8ce9a50-68c4-11e7-8eb5-cbccc2e7bfbf_story.html said...

...
“I said, ‘Did you do it?’ And he said, ‘No, I did not. Absolutely not,’ Trump told Reuters. “I then asked him a second time in a totally different way. He said absolutely not.”

That isn’t the point. The intelligence community has told Trump that Russia interfered. The president shouldn’t be inquiring — he should be informing Putin about the consequences of this unacceptable behavior. But Trump continues to dispute reality. “Somebody did say if [Putin] did do it, you wouldn’t have found out about it,” Trump added.

We are at risk of suffering outrage overload here. So many troubling things have happened, and Trump continues to make so many beyond-the-pale statements, that we are losing our capacity to respond to all of it with appropriate concern.

Meanwhile, the alarm bells clang. Trump, we are told, didn’t know about the meeting with Russian lawyer Natalia Veselnitskaya until a few days before it became public. Except, maybe, he did. “In fact, maybe it was mentioned at some point,” Trump acknowledged in a conversation with pool reporters — part of an off-the-record, then on-the-record encounter not included in the official White House transcript.

Was he talking about Russian adoption or the meeting itself? Unclear — but at this point, the White House deserves little presumption of honesty or full disclosure. The latest evidence: NBC News’s report that the Trump Tower meeting was also attended by a former Soviet counterintelligence officer. So much for Trumpian back-patting about transparency.

I hear the what-aboutists stirring. But what about Democrats and Ukraine? According to a January report in Politico, a Ukrainian American consultant to the Democratic National Committee “met with top officials in the Ukrainian Embassy in Washington in an effort to expose ties between Trump, top campaign aide Paul Manafort and Russia.” Problematic? Perhaps. But Ukraine is not a U.S. adversary. The scope of its reported involvement is far different from a Putin-directed effort to illegally hack emails to help elect Trump.

If there is one silver lining to this staggering news, it is that it serves to strengthen special counsel Robert S. Mueller III. Trump continues to cry “witch hunt.” Yet there can no longer be any doubt that there is something for Mueller to investigate. And even this supine Republican Congress would not tolerate his summary firing. Would it?

July 15, 2017 10:49 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home