Saturday, October 28, 2017

Deleting Trolls and Bots

This blog has always been known as a place for open discussion, allowing conservatives and liberals to exchange views since 2004. Some on our side think we have been too permissive, and there have been a couple of times over the years when I have had to block people who were slanderous or were just spamming inarticulately -- sometimes conservatives, sometimes liberals. Usually I warn them a few times then block the IP. After a few weeks I usually unblock it and give them a chance to behave themselves, and that has usually worked okay.

Lately there has been a new kind of problem. Trump supporters are putting all their eggs in the "lock her up" basket. Though it has been a full year since the election, they are still ratcheting up the hate for Hillary Clinton. Having started the campaign of personal annihilation in the 1990s the vast rightwing conspiracy has a good start; almost everyone has a "bad feeling" about the woman after decades of fruitless hearings and accusations, the feeling there must be "something wrong" or people wouldn't keep saying those things. Nobody really knows what exactly might be wrong, but there must be something, y'know?

Repetition does not make a statement true. People are focusing on Hillary because their life is a pitiful comic book and the nuances of reality are too much for them. They paint her as a serial murderer, child molestor, embezzler, traitor, criminal, liar, everyone associated with her gets their reputation slimed. It is bizarre to see that people are unable to manage their intellect in an educated country, but there you go, there are lots of dumb and unhappy people out there.

It is good for group cohesiveness to have a common enemy, and Hillary has been consigned to serve in that function. The whole thing is just weird to watch. It has nothing to do with her, herself, she is just a name for Republicans to direct their hate toward.

The Internet allows everyone to have a public voice, and there are two problems with that. One is that the anonymity of the net lets people express fantasies and opinions they would never say out loud if they were going to be held accountable. Hence: trolls. These thousands of losers live to undermine serious discussion and offend for the sake of offending. The second problem is bots. It turns out it is easier to program a troll-bot than a bot that will assemble valid facts and link them together to produce a valid argument. So bots turn out to be trolls, too, except they are not human, they are just programs that generate hateful text and post it in public forums.

This blog has been overrun lately by trolls and/or bots. Our comments section is overflowing with hundreds of posts that simply copy-and-paste rightwing propaganda or string together phrases like "Clinton crime syndicate" and "shocking new scandal" and try to link ridiculous accusations to the Democrat candidate from last year's election.

The Republican Party does not have an identity of its own now. They used to be clever at implying they had an economic theory, a diplomatic strategy, a moral compass, but the rise of Trump and the subservience of the GOP to his depravity has torn the cover off all that. Now all they have left is to rally behind their mob-mentality hatred for Hillary Clinton. It is sad to see American history come down to this, but times change and I suppose it was inevitable. The Democrats have challenges too but the Republicans have both houses of Congress and the Presidency and all they can do is investigate Hillary some more.

It turns out they have no plan for governing. Literally the only thing Trump has done is to reverse anything associated with Obama. But he has to do it with executive orders, because the Republicans in Congress are unable to pass any bills. And then half the time the courts throw out his executive orders because they are unconsitutional. The Republicans really don't have a vision, an agenda other than opposing the black guy and the shrill woman; they are living in a dream world -- today Corey Lewandowski said on Fox News, "What we should be focusing on is the continued lies of the Clinton administration." And that's the Republicans' plan. No really, that's what he said.

That does not mean that this blog has to be part of it. I am going to start deleting stuff. If you are conservative and want to make a point you are welcome to talk here. If you are just flame-throwing I am not going to tolerate it. As the indictments start to flow I expect the fake news will intensify, and we are going to brace ourselves and start blocking the nonsense. I don't want to spend every minute of my day deleting posts and if a troll or bot (it is hard to tell the difference) keeps being a problem I will block them altogether.

If you want to express a conversative viewpoint we don't mind that but please keep to something believable. I do not have any set of "rules," I am just going to delete what I don't like. It might not be fair but hee hee hoo haw hee hee ho ho... If that bothers you then go somewhere else. I will start with the previous post.

327 Comments:

Anonymous truth said...

"Literally the only thing Trump has done is to reverse anything associated with Obama."

Yes, including sluggish growth despite astronomical borrowing and Fed-produced zero interest rates that should have, under Keynesian theory, produced robust economic activity

Apparently, reversing what Obama did was all it took.

details:

"As the media have once again reported, the economy "surprisingly" grew at a 3% pace in the third quarter, despite the impact of three major hurricanes. Has the U.S. economy finally left its 2% growth rut?

While presidents aren't the sole determinants of economic growth, their policies do matter. As such, President Trump seems to be steering the economy onto a faster growth track than during the slow-growth Obama years.

GDP growth of 3.1% in the second quarter and 3% in the third quarter is the fastest since 2014's two-quarter spurt of 4.6% and 5.2%. But this year's third quarter was even better than it looked, since most economists had marked down their estimates to just above 1% or so due to the impact of Hurricanes Harvey and Irma on the economy.

Those who keep expecting a major slowdown should look at what's really going on in the economy.

The IBD/TIPP Economic Optimism Index, the Conference Board's Consumer Confidence Index, the National Association of Manufacturers survey and the Institute for Supply Management all report stronger optimism and rising factory output. Overall optimism hasn't been this high in over a decade.

The current unemployment rate at 4.2% is the lowest since before the financial crisis. Total employment has jumped more than 2.2 million since Trump entered office. Even the broadest U.S. unemployment measure, so-called U6, now stands at 8.3% — its lowest since June of 2007.

Meanwhile, all major stock market indexes are up strongly since Trump's unexpected win last November, with the Dow Jones industrial average breaching 23,000 for the first time this month. The stock market, as we've said before, is a reliable if imperfect predictor of future economic activity. Its message today is unequivocal: Expect more of the same.

So why is the economy suddenly growing briskly?"

Trump has embarked on one of the most sweeping deregulation campaigns in recent presidential history. He got rid of President Obama's disastrous "Clean Power Plan," and walked away from the growth-killing Paris Climate Accord. He's now removing restrictions on federal energy lands. Along with the fracking revolution, this will make the U.S. a global energy powerhouse once again.

The result of all this deregulation is that tens of billions of dollars of dead weight have been lifted from the economy's shoulders, virtually overnight. With one or two exceptions, Trump's nine months in office have been marked by pro-growth policies that will increase investment, boost jobs and lead to higher economic growth.

And it ain't over yet. Congress' new budget includes a tax reform package that will lower tax rates for corporations, entrepreneurs and the middle class, bringing an estimated $1.5 trillion in tax relief. That will encourage more companies to invest in plants, equipment and training, and to hire more workers. Get ready: A virtuous cycle of growth is about to begin.

Can anything stop it? Sure. If Congress fails to pass tax reform, or the Fed overshoots and raises rates too many times, the economy could hit the rocks. Still, back in July, we asked: "Is Trump's goal of 3% growth realistic?" Our answer hasn't changed: "You bet it is."

October 28, 2017 2:57 PM  
Anonymous truth said...

OK, guys, that last one was from Investors' Business Daily and it's the whole editorial. Generally, if I shorten something to only include the facts I consider relevant to my point, you say I'm lying. If I put in the whole thing, I'm a cut-and-paste bot trying to fill up the blog. If I don't put anything, I'm accused of not documenting my points with any substantiation.

You can see, there's no winning with you.

Let's face reality: "Teach the Fact" dot org doesn't really want to hear inconvenient facts.

October 28, 2017 2:57 PM  
Blogger JimK said...

Facts are fine. It's fine to brag if one thing is going right, and you can pretend Trump is responsible for it. But my finger is delete-happy and will stay that way.


October 28, 2017 5:37 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

See how simple that was? You can re-publish honesty if you try and your extra effort to be honest is appreciated.

However, your Business Insider opinion piece claimed:

"Congress' new budget includes a tax reform package that will lower tax rates for corporations, entrepreneurs and the middle class, bringing an estimated $1.5 trillion in tax relief. That will encourage more companies to invest in plants, equipment and training, and to hire more workers. Get ready: A virtuous cycle of growth is about to begin."

But that is simply an opinion of a prediction, not a fact.

There is factual evidence about tax cuts.

This belief that tax cuts bring about "a virtuous cycle of growth" has been proven wrong during the Bush Administration, which brought us all to the Great Recession and in the State of Kansas government's great tax cutting experiment, which has lead to the current dismal condition of Kansas' economy five years later.

Facts reported by Business Inside inr: The Truth About Who's Responsible For Our Massive Budget Deficit

Include: "...Republicans howl that President Obama has exploded the size of federal government spending in his short tenure as President, and it is true that he has increased it. But President Bush actually increased federal spending by more than 2X as much as Obama has. So it is unfair to lay the explosion in spending at the feet of President Obama: Both presidents are responsible.

The increase in government spending, meanwhile, is actually NOT the only factor that has caused the deficit. The other factor--equally if not more important--is the fall-off in government revenue (tax receipts).

This second and larger factor can be blamed on two things: First, the Bush tax cuts, which reduced revenue, and, second, the weak economy, which has reduced the incomes and capital gains upon which most federal taxes are based..."


Facts reported in a Washington Post editorial by Dinah Sykes, a Republican, a member of the Kansas State Senate.: A message to Congress: Don’t make the same mistake we did in Kansas

Include: "...In Kansas, we understand the allure of tax-cut promises. We want to believe promises of amazing growth or outcomes. In 2012, traditional budget forecast models accurately predicted the devastating effect the tax breaks would have on state revenue. Proponents of the plan used dynamic scoring predicting incredible economic growth and supporting their own preconceived ideas. Today, we know which forecasts were correct.

Across the state, citizens may have been paying less in income taxes, but those decreases were offset by increases in sales taxes, property taxes and fees. These changes alone were not enough to put the state on the right path. Education and infrastructure, key investments necessary for strong economic growth, were treated as the enemy. As we went through our 2017 legislative session, the “shot of economic adrenaline” still showed no signs of materializing. Our state functioned as though the Great Recession had never ended..."


The facts speak for themselves. No spin required.

October 29, 2017 9:28 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"See how simple that was? You can re-publish honesty if you try and your extra effort to be honest is appreciated."

actually, none of what I posted in the previous stream of comments was dishonest in any way

and there were several things in Jim's post above that were flat out wrong

I began a response to it yesterday but it was quite long and I was a little busy

perhaps I'll finish and post later on this drizzly autumnal Sunday

anyway, keep an eye out if you're interested in facts

you'll need to read fast before it's deleted

"But that is simply an opinion of a prediction, not a fact."

everything in economics is

There is factual evidence about tax cuts.

"This belief that tax cuts bring about "a virtuous cycle of growth" has been proven wrong during the Bush Administration,"

no, it wasn't

the Bush administration was subject to a number of outside forces that our economy was able to weather because he had the insight to undo the drag of huge governmental surpluses

most economists at the time agreed with this

it was a less partisan time, when academics had more integrity

JFK lowered taxes, capital gains as a matter of fact, and set off a boom

this has worked on a global basis

"which brought us all to the Great Recession"

there are many theories what caused that recession, but most point to the deregulation of banks that Bill Clinton signed

it's notable that our economy was a world wonder from the early days of the Reagan administration until a couple of years after Democrats took Congress in 2006

Facts reported by Business Inside inr: The Truth About Who's Responsible For Our Massive Budget Deficit

"Include: "...Republicans howl that President Obama has exploded the size of federal government spending in his short tenure as President, and it is true that he has increased it. But President Bush actually increased federal spending by more than 2X as much as Obama has. So it is unfair to lay the explosion in spending at the feet of President Obama: Both presidents are responsible."

I agree

I don't know why liberals think W Bush is a Republican icon

he turned out to be better than I thought and was a better role model for kids than either Obama or Trump but that's not saying much

especially in his second term, he was pretty ineffective

"The facts speak for themselves. No spin required."

here's one: the economy has taken off in the Trump administration because he has removed the burden of over-regulation and more is expected

economics and psychology are not the different disciplines many people assume they are

October 29, 2017 2:16 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Nice spin about Bush and sorry Charlie, but that's an EPIC FAIL on the topic of KANSAS.

You can pretend Kansas didn't try exactly what Trump wants to do nationally and show us what the outcome will be.

""The facts speak for themselves. No spin required."

here's one: the economy has taken off in the Trump administration because he has removed the burden of over-regulation and more is expected"


How soon they forget the stock market took off under President Obama after Bush & Co. bottomed it out.

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/obama-trumps-trump-in-stock-market-gains-through-july-2017-08-01



October 29, 2017 2:28 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Nice spin about Bush"

thanks, but no spin

even before 9/11 and Katrina, most economists who opposed Bush's tax cuts conceded they were fortuitously timed because the economy went into a downturn at the end of the Clinton presidency

the likely cause of that downturn was the government sucking more money from consumers than was needed to fund the government

that's about as common sense as you can get

if take money from consumers and don't spend it, that is a drag on the economy

"and sorry Charlie, but that's an EPIC FAIL on the topic of KANSAS."

I didn't address Kansas because I don't that much about it other than that liberals love to point to it

suffice it to say, there are 49 other states and a long history

one liberals keep jumping on one examples, you know that means there are no pther examples they can use

"You can pretend Kansas didn't try exactly what Trump wants to do nationally and show us what the outcome will be."

I'm not completely sold on Trump's plan but two things I consider non-negotiable: eliminate the estate tax, out of fairness, and reduce the corporate tax rate which will make us competitive globally

"How soon they forget the stock market took off under President Obama after Bush & Co. bottomed it out."

uh, we were talking about the economy, not the stock market

the second Obama became President, unemployment began to rise, as did under-utilization of labor, especially among youth, women, and minorities

October 29, 2017 3:25 PM  
Anonymous Sticking to facts said...

"I didn't address Kansas because I don't [sic] that much about it"

I presume you were trying to say you don't know that much about Kansas.

Which goes to show how disinterested you are in learning what the facts are.

From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sam_Brownback

"...In May 2012, Brownback signed into law one of the largest income tax cuts in Kansas' history -- the nation's largest state income tax cut (in percentage) since the 1990s. Brownback described the tax cuts as a live experiment, stating that "[on] taxes, you need to get your overall rates down, and you need to get your social manipulation out of it, in my estimation, to create growth. We'll see how it works. We'll have a real live experiment."

The legislation was crafted with help from his Budget Director (former Koch brothers political consultant Steven Anderson); the Koch-sponsored American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC);[ and Arthur Laffer, a popular supply-side economist and former economic adviser for President Ronald Reagan.

The law eliminated non-wage income taxes for the owners of 191,000 businesses, and cut individuals' income tax rates. The first phase of his cuts reduced the top Kansas income-tax rate from 6.45 percent down to 4.9 percent, and immediately eliminated income tax on business profits from partnerships and limited liability corporations passed through to individuals.The first phase reduced the top rate from 6.45 percent to 4.9 percent while immediately eliminating income tax on business profits from partnerships and limited liability corporations that are passed through to individuals The income tax cuts would provide US$231 million in tax relief in its first year, growing to US$934 million after six years. A forecast from the Legislature’s research staff indicated that a budget shortfall will emerge by 2014 and will grow to nearly US$2.5 billion by July 2018. The cuts were based on model legislation published by the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC).

In an op-ed dated May 2014 in The Wall Street Journal, titled "A Midwest Renaissance Rooted in the Reagan Formula", Brownback compared his tax cut policies with those of Ronald Reagan, and announced a "prosperous future" for Kansas, Oklahoma and Missouri, by having elected the economic principles that Reagan laid out in 1964.

The act has received criticism for shifting the tax burden from wealthy Kansans to low- and moderate-income workers, with the top income tax rate dropping by 25%. Under Brownback, Kansas also lowered the sales tax and eliminated a tax on small businesses. The tax cuts helped contribute to Moody's downgrading of the state's bond rating in 2014. They also contributed to the S&P Ratings' credit downgrade from AA+ to AA in August 2014 due to a budget that analysts described as structurally unbalanced..."


Then in 2016 S&P Downgrades Kansas' Credit Rating, Again

And in 2017 S&P revises Kansas' credit rating from stable to negative

And now the experiment is over and Brownback's veto of this year's income tax hike in Kansas was overridden by the Kansas state legislature because the experiment was an utter failure at creating growth.

"the second Obama became President, unemployment began to rise"

Bulloney.

See Bikini Graph showing job totals, AKA employment massively falling off in 2008, last year of Bush Administration.

October 30, 2017 8:50 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Paul Manafort, the Trump campaign manager during the June 2016 Trump Tower Russian meeting was indicted this morning.

October 30, 2017 9:00 AM  
Anonymous Never forget said...

Sean Hannity ✔ @seanhannity

.@newtgingrich: "Nobody should underestimate how much Paul Manafort did to really help get this [Trump] campaign to where it is right now."
10:08 PM - Aug 19, 2016

753 753 Replies 4,040 4,040 Retweets 4,459 4,459 likes

October 30, 2017 9:12 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Paul Manafort, the Trump campaign manager during the June 2016 Trump Tower Russian meeting was indicted this morning."

june 2016 - august 2016: the time Manafort served as Trump campaign manager

basically, his task was to work on obtaining commitments for Trump among unbound delegates

he did not serve during the general election, after the conventions

so, it seems unlikely he and the Russians conspired against poor, dear Hillary

October 30, 2017 9:36 AM  
Anonymous Pass the popcorn said...

"june 2016 - august 2016: the time Manafort served as Trump campaign manager"

July 22, 2016:
WikiLeaks releases thousands of documents about Clinton and internal deliberations


"he did not serve during the general election, after the conventions "

"Former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort and his longtime business partner Rick Gates have been charged in a 12-count indictment with conspiracy against the United States, conspiracy to launder money and making false statements...

...Manafort joined the Trump campaign in March 2016, and Trump tapped him to serve as campaign chairman in May of that year. He left in August 2016, but Gates, his business partner and protege, continued to play an important role with the campaign even after Manafort’s departure. After the election Gates directed the inauguration plans, including fundraising, under Tom Barrack, Trump’s close friend and adviser.

Any grand jury indictment would be shared with deputy attorney general Rod Rosenstein, who is acting as the attorney general because Jeff Sessions, having served as a surrogate for the Trump campaign, recused himself from the matter..."

October 30, 2017 10:02 AM  
Anonymous Good little foot soldier said...

"so, it seems unlikely he and the Russians conspired against poor, dear Hillary"

"The independent investigation into Trump-Russia collusion just made its most serious move since it began in May. The Washington Post reported Monday morning that Trump's former campaign chairman, Paul Manafort, and his former business partner, Rick Gates, have been ordered to surrender to federal authorities.

The Justice Department announced that both men are charged with 12 counts relating to financial crimes, including conspiracy against the United States, conspiracy to launder money and making false statements.

In other words, this Russia investigation is very real. Neither President Trump nor the White House has commented on the indictments yet. But given that Trump has consistently claimed that this investigation is fake and a hoax, it's possible — even likely — he'll try to rebut this escalation of the investigation in similarly absolute terms. Over the weekend, as news organizations reported charges were coming, Trump fired off nearly half a dozen tweets trying to pivot to Hillary Clinton..."


As is the TTF troll, "trying to pivot to Hillary Clinton."

Sorry Charlie, the real news is about Trump's campaign and its ties to Russian money laundering.

Russian elite invested nearly $100 million in Trump buildings

October 30, 2017 10:12 AM  
Anonymous charlie said...

"Sorry Charlie, the real news is about Trump's campaign and its ties to Russian money laundering."

thanks, Mack

give me some details

how did you find out that it was the Trump campaign and not just Manafort himself who was laundering money?

also, media reports this week are that Hillary laundered money through her lawyer to pay fees that went to a consulting company that paid a British spy who paid Russians with links to the Kremlin for disinformation with which to attack Trump

do you think she should be indicted, or should we overlook that because of her wonderful work on behalf of the village?

Susan Collins, the Senate RINO who blocks everything the Republicans try to in the Senate is calling this morning for the Senate to bring all officials of the Clinton campaign in for questioning

I know she's meant a lot to you guys in the past but you might want to start attacking her

October 30, 2017 10:45 AM  
Anonymous charlie said...

"the real news is about Trump's campaign and its ties to Russian money laundering"

OK, I just read the indictment and I'm shocked. It turns out that the TTFer quoted above lied. Manafort was indicted with charges connected to the consulting work he did for the Ukraine, prior to joining the Trump campaign. Basically, he hid the payments and failed to report them or his foreign bank accounts on IRS filings.

The indictment is justified but this had nothing to do with Trump's campaign or efforts by Russia to elect Trump.

It's just hard to believe that, with TTF's renown for honesty and objectivity, a TTFer would lie like that.

I guess there's a bad grape in every bunch, huh?

October 30, 2017 11:01 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"The indictment is justified but this had nothing to do with Trump's campaign or efforts by Russia to elect Trump."

Raise your hand if you think these are the only indictments the grand jury will bring.

Eric Trump: 'We have all the funding we need out of Russia' for Trump golf courses

Excerpt:

"...Eric said the company wasn't relying on American banks for the funding because American banks had been reluctant to put money into golf courses after the recession.

"We have all the funding we need out of Russia," Eric reportedly said.

"Really?" Dodson recalled answering.

"Oh, yeah," he said Eric Trump answered. "We've got some guys that really, really love golf, and they're really invested in our programs. We just go there all the time."..."

October 30, 2017 11:15 AM  
Anonymous Hands down, squeeze said...

Trump Campaign Foreign Policy Adviser Pleads Guilty In Russia Probe
George Papadopolos admitted lying to the FBI.


"WASHINGTON ― A foreign policy adviser to President Donald Trump’s presidential campaign has pleaded guilty to a charge of lying to FBI agents.

George Papadopoulos, 30, pleaded guilty on Oct. 5, but the case wasn’t unsealed until Monday, when two other Trump associates were indicted by a federal grand jury.

Papadopoulos reached a plea deal with prosecutors, and has since been cooperating with special counsel Robert Mueller’s probe into Russian interference in the 2016 election.

Prosecutors’ statement of the offense alleges Papadopoulos “made material false statements and material omissions” during a Jan. 27 interview with the FBI. He was arrested July 27. Prosecutors agreed to recommend between no prison time to six months under the plea agreement..."

October 30, 2017 11:28 AM  
Anonymous charlie said...

"Raise your hand if you think these are the only indictments the grand jury will bring."

anyone raising their hand is merely speculating

but when "Good little foot soldier" said "the real news is about Trump's campaign and its ties to Russian money laundering", that foot soldier was so loyal he lied

the news today is completely about Manafort's consulting for Ukraine, prior to being hired by Trump's campaign

I usually just accept what TTfers say at face value but I saw the indictment online and decided to read it

won't make the mistake of trusting a TTFer again

"Eric Trump: 'We have all the funding we need out of Russia' for Trump golf courses"

it's not illegal for Russians to invest in golf courses

no security risk

there may, however, be illegal aspects to when Hillary approved the sale of 20% of America's uranium supply to Russia after Bill was paid half a million by the Russians for a single speech and the Clinton Foundation received millions in donations from Russia

but, not to worry

the Senate is opening investigations and all Russian activity to influence American policymakers is within Mueller's purview

October 30, 2017 11:31 AM  
Anonymous Just the facts, ma'am said...

"there may, however, be illegal aspects to when Hillary approved the sale of 20% of America's uranium supply to Russia after Bill was paid half a million by the Russians for a single speech and the Clinton Foundation received millions in donations from Russia"

Still peddling the debunked Moonie Rag spin, I see.

"Joy Reid just reclaimed her time on national television.

The “AM Joy” host refused to allow the Washington Examiner’s Jen Kerns to perpetuate unfounded claims that Hillary Clinton helped to sell uranium to Russia. President Donald Trump pushed the story on Twitter that Clinton helped to seal the 2010 Uranium One deal that sold a portion of the Canadian company to a JSC ARMZ, the mining arm of a Russian nuclear energy agency...

...Uranium One was a Canadian company with mining operations in the United States, and the sale of those mines had to be approved by a nine-member committee in Congress. The Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States had to unanimously agree to the deal. If the sale was to be stopped, it would have to come from then-president Barack Obama.

Years later, a New York Times report revealed that the Clinton Foundation received donations from Uranium One investor during the proposed sale, sparking controversy.

When Kerns tried to blame Clinton on air Sunday morning, Reid refused to let the claim go unchallenged.

“We’re not going to get derailed, but I want to ask you a few fact-based questions,” Reid said on the show.

Take a look:

(Warning, video ahead)

Jay Rosen‏Verified account
@jayrosen_nyu

Have you ever seen Wolf Blitzer do this? Brian Williams?

1:41 PM - 29 Oct 2017


Reid continually peppers Kerns with questions about the deal, leading Kerns to admit that Clinton had no direct involvement in the approval, and that the foundation donor had sold his shares in the company prior to giving money to the Clinton organization.

″So what you’re talking about is a deal that nine members of CFIUS approved unanimously,” Reid said on the show. “None of them was Hillary Clinton. You have a donor who separately gave Hillary Clinton donations at a time when she was not secretary of state. The two things cross in the night, they have no relation to each other.”

October 30, 2017 11:53 AM  
Anonymous Coming into focus said...

Pro Tip: Lying to the FBI is never a good idea.

Pro Tip II: It would seem to be a very good bet that Papadopoulous already has flipped. (The plea deal’s sentence recommendation begins at “zero” months, which is a tell.)

Releasing the Papadopolous plea deal was a remarkably deft play by Mueller, whose political savvy is mysteriously under-discussed. The initial White House reaction to the news about Paul Manafort was that everything happened years ago, and what the hell is Mueller doing? Now, we have a completed legal proceeding containing the words “Trump campaign,” “Russia,” and "disparaging information on Hillary Clinton.” Alibis are dropping like the autumn leaves.

http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/politics/a13118817/papadopoulos-pled-guilty-lie-fbi-russia/

October 30, 2017 12:33 PM  
Anonymous charlie said...

"Just the facts" said:

"″So what you’re talking about is a deal that nine members of CFIUS approved unanimously,” Reid said on the show. “None of them was Hillary Clinton."

truth:

according to factcheck.org, Clinton is one of the nine members so if it was unanimous, she approved

further, she would be the highest ranking member, as Secretary of State, second only to the VP in the executive branch - so she would have considerable influence

"just the facts" again:

"you have a donor who separately gave Hillary Clinton donations at a time when she was not secretary of state."

factcheck.org again:

"The Clinton Foundation had received millions in donations from investors in Uranium One.
The donations from those with ties to Uranium One weren’t publicly disclosed by the Clinton Foundation, even though Hillary Clinton had an agreement with the White House that the foundation would disclose all contributors. Days after the Times story, the foundation acknowledged that it “made mistakes,” saying it had disclosed donations from a Canadian charity, for instance, but not the donors to that charity who were associated with the uranium company.

The Times also wrote that Bill Clinton spoke at a conference in Moscow on June 29, 2010 — which was after the Rosatom-Uranium One merger was announced in June 2010, but before it was approved by the CFIUS in October 2010. The Russian-based Renaissance Capital Group organized the conference and paid Clinton $500,000.

Renaissance Capital has “ties to the Kremlin” and its analysts “talked up Uranium One’s stock, assigning it a ‘buy’ rating and saying in a July 2010 research report that it was ‘the best play’ in the uranium markets,” the Times wrote."

so, Hillary was on the CFIUS when it approved this sale and between the date the deal was announced and the date CFIUS approved it, Bill received a half million dollar speaking fee from a company with ties to the Kremlin and the Clinton Foundation had received millions n donations from investors in the company

oh no, that's not suspicious at all

it was all just innocent ships passing in the night

again, this was a deal that gave Russia control over 20% of America's uranium

not according to a moonie rag but according to factcheck.org and the NY Times, not exactly Trumpsters

October 30, 2017 12:35 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"the news today is completely about Manafort's consulting for Ukraine, prior to being hired by Trump's campaign"

Apparently the Moonie Rag, FAUX News, and other right wing sites are not covering the Papadopoulos story and what he's singing to the feds about the Trump campaign, Russia, and disparaging information on Hillary Clinton.

October 30, 2017 12:43 PM  
Anonymous The guilty plea said...

Papadopoulos Statement Offense

October 30, 2017 1:10 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

October 30, 2017 1:41 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"he [sic] kind of information Hillary paid Russian sources for about Trump"

How soon they forget:

FBI in agreement with CIA that Russia aimed to help Trump win White House

Only fools believe Clinton was colluding with Russia to beat herself in the election.

"so, molesting underage kids is OK if you're gay?"

No, it's not, but apparently some think kissing women and grabbing their pussies without their consent -- even walking in on half dressed underage beauty contestants back stage -- is a right specially reserved for President Trump.

No one should ever feel entitled to sexually assault anyone, ever.

October 30, 2017 2:23 PM  
Blogger JimK said...

"about when some Russian offered to give him some negative information about Hillary

you know, he kind of information Hillary paid Russian sources for about Trump, with laundered money"


Nope, anon, troll or bot -- not going there. TTF is not providing a mouthpiece for fake news. Make a case -- base it on evidence and logic.

JimK

October 30, 2017 2:29 PM  
Anonymous awake, there's no fake said...

"Only fools believe Clinton was colluding with Russia to beat herself in the election"

Clinton gave money to her lawyer to hire a firm to find incriminating evidence about Trump

the firm hired the former head spy for Britain in Russia, who used sources with connection to the Kremlin to produce disinformation concerning Trump

can you really say she was ignorant of the source of the information?

1. she read the reports

2. she failed to disclose the payments on FEC filings

3. although the dossier had a high profile during the campaign, she lied about her role in creating it

4. the contents were used as an excuse by the Obama administration to wiretap its political opponents' campaign, the type of thing that happens in Moscow

5. the dossier created the mindset that made the media treat completely innocent encounters as suspect (e.g.Sessions runs into the Russian ambassador at a party, must be collusion)

and if she was not ignorant of the source of the information, how could that not be collusion?

no fake news here

October 30, 2017 3:17 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

VICE PRESIDENT MICHAEL R. PENCE


Friend,

I know I've written to you before about the race in Virginia, but things are rapidly changing and I wanted to update you.

The most recent polls out of Virginia are showing this race is in a dead heat. Ed Gillespie's campaign is picking up momentum at just the right time and he needs our immediate help to keep it going.

Friend, as we saw last year and in the Special Congressional Elections this year, the actions that we take in the final days leading up to Election Day are the most impactful and CAN change the outcome on Election Day.

Will you join me in standing with Ed Gillespie right now?

This election in Virginia is in a dead heat. And the Democrats are parading every big name possible through Virginia in these final days leading up to Election Day in an effort to defeat Ed.

Virginia needs Ed's voice and leadership. Ed CAN win on November 7th but only if he can count on the support of great conservatives like yourself RIGHT NOW.

Our nation will be better off with Ed as the Governor of Virginia. Let's make sure he gets there!

God Bless America,
Vice President Michael R. Pence

October 30, 2017 4:16 PM  
Blogger JimK said...

I'm leaving this up because you tried to justify your statements, even though you are only saying "it's true because it's true." You don't know if she read the reports, knew about it, or lied about her role in creating it. There is no eveidence beyond Fox ranting that the Obama administration wiretapped its political opponents, in fact they clearly did not except in the sense that Trump agents were on the phone with suspicious people being investigated by US intelligence. These statements are all baseless, and we are not playing host to a shitstorm of this kind of stuff. I'm in a deletin' mood so don't push it.

JimK

October 30, 2017 4:18 PM  
Anonymous Crystal Ball said...

"no fake news here"

The real news is Mueller has just begun.

Stay tuned for more indictments.

October 30, 2017 4:51 PM  
Anonymous Interesting development said...

http://www.nbc12.com/story/36717027/poll-northams-lead-grows-to-17-points-over-gillespie

October 30, 2017 6:01 PM  
Anonymous Don't Tread on Lefties said...

One year ago tomorrow, David Corn reported that the famous dossier was funded by a Republican, and then the funding switched to "a client allied with Democrats." This isn't news. Recently a name came out, Marc E. Elias, a lawyer for the Clinton campaign, who had been authorized to spend without oversight by campaign officials. "While the funding for the work came from the campaign and the Democratic National Committee, Elias kept the information about the investigation closely held as he advised the campaign on its strategy, according to the spokesperson..." It seems almost certain that neither Hillary nor her top staff knew about this project.

Also, the idea that Clinton was getting information from Russians is absurd. The PI was British. If you want to find out about Trump's ties with Russia you're going to talk to a Russian or two. The leap from there to "collusion" between Hillary and Russia is ridiculous.

If you start from the premise that Hillary Clinton is an evil criminal, child sex trafficking, traitor, then maybe you think she was able to take time out from her orgies and murders and, by the way, campaigning to oversee every campaign expense. If on the other hand you are a person who looks at the evidence, no, it doesn't come close.

October 30, 2017 6:02 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Wyatt/bad anonymous said "June 2016 - august 2016: the time Manafort served as Trump campaign manager he did not serve during the general election, after the conventions".

An incredibly stupid lie by Wyatt/bad anonymous. Manafort joined the Trump campaign in March 2016 and the Repyblican convention was held July 18-21.

"Corey Lewandowski said on Fox News, "What we should be focusing on is the continued lies of the Clinton administration." And that's the Republicans' plan. No really, that's what he said.".

That just shows you how absurd Republicans are about Hillary. She never had an administration and Bill's administration was over 16 years ago!

FFS, they had around eight investigations into Hillary and the last several just kept finding the same non-things - there's obviously nothing there and even if there were it would in no way exonerate Trump and his people and the ongoing threat Russia poses to American democracy. Its just an incredibly pathetic attempt to distract from the real threat - an unpunished Russia being emboldened to continue its successful usurping of the American democracy.

October 30, 2017 7:00 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Haggard's Law:

The likelihood of a person harbouring secret desires to engage in sexual and/or romantic activities with members of the same sex is directly proportional to the frequency and volume of said person's vocalized objections to gayness.

October 30, 2017 7:00 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

"[Religious belief] is a totalitarian belief. It is the wish to be a slave. It is the desire that there be an unalterable, unchallengeable, tyrannical authority who can convict you of a thought crime while you are asleep, who can subject you, indeed who must subject you, to a total surveillance around the clock, every waking and sleeping minute of your life - I say, of your life - before you're born and, even worse (and where the real fun begins), after you're dead. A celestial North Korea. Who wants this to be true? Who but a slave desires such a ghastly fate? I've been to North Korea...It is the most revolting and utter and absolute and heartless tyranny the human species has ever evolved. But at least you can fucking die and leave North Korea!" - Christopher Hitchens.

Wyatt/bad anonymous once posted something to the effect that the more people post in opposition to religion the more afraid of his god they are. He seemed to think he was scoring points with that when in reality it just shows that even he thinks his god is far more scary than loving and just.

October 30, 2017 7:01 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

the TTF-ignored gay story of the day is Kevin Spacey

having been accused of molesting a 14-year-old actor when Spacey was 26 and in a play on Broadway with the child, Spacey says he was probably just drunk and he apologizes for his actions

then, he adds: I'm gay, as if that pardons it all

Netflix has now cancelled the next season of House of Cards, and will likely do the same with a Spacey movie it is producing

and, no, contrary to the remark by a TTFer above, this is not the same as Trump kissing adult women without a signed and notarized permission form

hopefully, the NYC Police are considering prosecution

October 30, 2017 9:58 PM  
Anonymous weinstein's law said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

October 30, 2017 10:06 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

The owner of Facebook previously testified in front of congress that 10 million Americans had seen targeted content on Facebook produced by Putin's troll factory aimed at usurping American democracy. Facebook is now reporting that it vastly underestmated the influence of the Russians on the election and that 126 million of its users may have seen content produced and circulated by Russian operatives intended to hurt Hillary and help Trump

The popular vote losing pussy grabber would certainly have been defeated in the 2016 election if it hadn't been for the unprecidented interference by the Russians.

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

October 30, 2017 10:31 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

October 30, 2017 10:40 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

"WASHINGTON (AP) - Hillary Clinton received nearly 2.9 million more votes than the admitted sexual predator Trump, she won the popular vote by the largest margin of any "losing" presidential candidate.

October 30, 2017 10:41 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"October 30, 2017 7:00 PM
Blogger Priya Lynn said..."

yuck!
'
"Christopher Hitchens."

a sad guy who drunk and smoked himself to death

he actually lived not far from me

suffice to say treating any part of fallen humanity as a God would bring suffering

comparing God to some fat Korean kid is absurd, and blasphemous

God created and sustains the universe

kim whatever is a vicious twerp who hasn't created or sustained anything

surprised Priya likes Hitchens so much

Priya should read his book about the Clinton crime syndicate:

“No One Left to Lie To: The Triangulations of William Jefferson Clinton”

"brilliant anonymous once posted something to the effect that the more people post in opposition to religion are afraid of God"

oh, I was just throwing your assinine logic back at you

I have no idea what makes you think as you do

maybe your therapist can help

of course, the fact that you're still stewing about the statement weeks later, make me wonder if I was on to something

October 30, 2017 10:48 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

The ruling striking down Trump's trans ban wasn't 'judicial activism.' This was a judge telling the Executive branch it may not unilaterally and for no reason other than animus break the service contracts for thousands of loyal active-duty servicemen and women.

Religio-bigots claim its "religious freedom" to discriminate against gays when gays can't discriminate against them.

It is a very convenient kind of "religious freedom" that lets you pick and choose the laws you'd like to follow while simultaneously ensuring that you can still dictate how everyone else lives their lives.

The government is violating the first amendment by privileging the anti-gay religious viewpoint above all others - that's the government establishing a religion. The first amendment prohibits the government exempting religious haters from anti-discrimination laws.

"Our Nazi movement is Christian. We are doing God's work." Adolph Hitler 1934

October 30, 2017 11:20 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"The ruling striking down Trump's trans ban wasn't 'judicial activism.' This was a judge telling the Executive branch it may not unilaterally and for no reason other than animus break the service contracts for thousands of loyal active-duty servicemen and women."

the reason was that Trump felt that people with gender-confusion disability are not fit for service

military service should be a calling, not an entitlement

you have this calling if your service is in the best interest of the country

what kind of fool doesn't understand that?

"Religio-bigots claim its "religious freedom" to discriminate against gays when gays can't discriminate against them."

it doesn't have that much to do with religion

everyone has a right to discriminate based on behavior

life would be impossible without that

"It is a very convenient kind of "religious freedom" that lets you pick and choose the laws you'd like to follow while simultaneously ensuring that you can still dictate how everyone else lives their lives."

I, for one, feel God's laws supercede secular government

that's why God-given rights are upheld and laws struck down by the courts all the time

"The government is violating the first amendment by privileging the anti-gay religious viewpoint above all others - that's the government establishing a religion."

no, codes of behavior are different than religion

when Netflix cancels House of Cards, is that privileging anti-pedophile religious belief?

of course, not

just because a religion supports moral standards, that doesn't mean that moral standards are the same as religions

after all, all religions have historically thought homosexuality is immoral

it's not a concept of any particular religion

""Our Nazi movement is Christian. We are doing God's work." Adolph Hitler 1934"

of course hitler would say that

he was trying to manipulate a Christian country

"'if i molested any young boys, I apologize. it just made realize how gay I am" Kevin Spacey 2017

October 31, 2017 12:32 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"can you really say she was ignorant of the source of the information?'

The burden of proof is on those alleging guilt.

But I sure would enjoy watching Hillary hand the GOP its ass at another 11 hour Benghazi type face plant, wouldn't you?

"The Clinton Foundation had received millions in donations from investors in Uranium One...

...she failed to disclose the payments on FEC filings"


The Clinton Foundation is a non-profit organization under section 501(c)(3) of the U.S. tax code.

The Federal Election Commission reviews campaign finance, not charities.

Oh look:

https://www.aol.com/article/news/2017/10/30/poll-trumps-approval-rating-plummets-to-all-time-low/23261217/

No surprise there.

October 31, 2017 7:07 AM  
Anonymous Ailes and Orally have high frequency and volume of vocalized support for the liberal agenda! Who knew? said...

The likelihood of a person harassing and sexually assaulting members of the opposite sex is directly proportional to the frequency and volume of said person's vocalized support for the liberal agenda:

Ailes: Fox's bill for Roger Ailes settlements is now $45 million

Orally: Bill O'Reilly paid $32 million for sexual harassment settlement in January, one month before he resigned

October 31, 2017 7:19 AM  
Anonymous No bone spurs here said...

Stars and Stripes
Published on Oct. 31, 2017

Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., addressed a crowd of Midshipmen and distinguished guests at the United States Naval Academy, Monday, Oct. 30, 2017. The Arizona Senator talked about his service to country and leadership during a 17-minute lecture. McCain graduated from the Naval Academy in 1958. Watch this video for his entire speech.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E914Z2dAxqY

October 31, 2017 7:52 AM  
Anonymous oops! said...

"The burden of proof is on those alleging guilt"

oh, I agree

but no one seems to be capable of applying that principle in Trump's case

and I only suggest that these extremely suspicious facts about Clinton be investigated

that being the case, it also be notable that neither what Trump has been accused of nor Clinton's paying for the dossier are illegal

and, as to whether they're otherwise wrong or unwise, I'd say that if a foreign government has relevant information about someone seeking the Presidency, I want to know what it is

I can keep in mind that the foreigners may not have our best interest in mind, I actually have a tremendous capacity for skepticism (TTFers should try it)

we also have an open society with massive legal and journalistic resources for processing information to get to the truth

the Dem rhetoric since the election has approached John Birch Society status

neither Manafort nor Gates are being indicted for anything to do with Trump's campaign

the only really significant charge is tax evasion

Papadopolous was only charged with lying to the FBI

but the lying was very minor, concerning timing

the only reason the charge is being brought, and publicized, is to pressure other Trump staffers into telling what they know by letting it be known that any failuure to disclose will be aggressively pursued

it's an old prosecutor's trick

"But I sure would enjoy watching Hillary hand the GOP its ass at another 11 hour Benghazi type face plant, wouldn't you?"

I never understood the rationale for the Benghazi hearings

the actions of Clinton and Obama were despicable but they were well-known, nothing to investigate

"Oh look:

https://www.aol.com/article/news/2017/10/30/poll-trumps-approval-rating-plummets-to-all-time-low/23261217/

No surprise there."

and, yet, despite having the lowest approval rating in history as a candidate, he became President

must have something to do with the competence and qualifications of his opponent

looks like the indictments may all be thrown out:

Paul Manafort and Richard Gates have pleaded not guilty to all charges in Robert Mueller’s Russia probe, but legal scholars have suggested special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation may not be constitutional.

According to the reasoning, one of the key factors is how Mueller's role is structured. Jeff Sessions recused himself, and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein has said Mueller doesn’t report to him with day-to-day decisions.

Because of that, Mueller effectively does not have a supervisor — and without one, the Senate would have to confirm Mueller as an executive appointee. Otherwise, his appointment is unconstitutional.

Further, Comey’s alleged assumption that President Trump is a wrongdoer— and the special counsel process labelling him as such, means that “the investigation itself is arguably equivalent to an unconstitutional indictment.”

Finally, law establishing the independent counsel expired in 1999.

Kmiec suggests the new regulations are unconstitutional.

Looking at the old law, the attorney general would have to conduct an investigation based on “specific and credible” information before an independent counsel was appointed.

There are no signs that in the wake of Sessions’ recusal, a constitutionally sufficient process triggered the Mueller appointment

oops!

October 31, 2017 10:32 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

most people assume when they read coverage like that in the Post this morning that it is illegal to do consulting for a foreign government and that Manafort and Gates broke that law

that's not true - the consulting work is perfectly, if not wise

what they have been charged with are things that are generally not prosecuted

money laundering:

prosecutors must prove the money was the fruit of a crime AND that the intent of moving the money around was to conceal the crime

right now, the only crimes are failure to disclose

again, wouldn't usually be enforced except as a tool to pressure the indicted into testifying about another suspect

but, what if there's nothing to testify?

the use of these tactics by Mueller would seem to indicate that he doesn't have much on anyone else

this whole House of Cards will likely collapse soon

just like Kevin Spacey

some reading material:

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/453244/manafort-indictment-no-signs-trump-russia-collusion

October 31, 2017 11:45 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

""https://www.aol.com/article/news/2017/10/30/poll-trumps-approval-rating-plummets-to-all-time-low/23261217/

No surprise there."

and, yet, despite having the lowest approval rating in history as a candidate, he became President

must have something to do with the competence and qualifications of his opponent


It has more to do with the spread of fake news, which we are learning more about every day, including today's testimony:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/technology/2017/10/30/4509587e-bd84-11e7-97d9-bdab5a0ab381_story.html

"Paul Manafort and Richard Gates have pleaded not guilty to all charges in Robert Mueller’s Russia probe, but legal scholars have suggested special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation may not be constitutional."

LMAO, you wish!

So far Manafort and Gates don't seem to be talking.

Papadopoulos, however, has been singing for weeks thanks to his own guilt for reaching out to Russia while serving as an advisor to the 2016 Trump presidential campaign.

October 31, 2017 1:20 PM  
Blogger JimK said...

I do not owe an explanation, but here you go:

From ( OCTOBER 30, 2017 5:23 PM ):
"Company B" in the Manafort indictment is the Podesta Group. Bloomberg says, "...the Podesta Group and Mercury filed belated FARA disclosures with the Justice Department outlining their work with the European Centre for a Modern Ukraine. In those filings, Podesta and Mercury said that they were unaware their work was for the Ukrainian government." We'll see how it holds up in court -- this is nothing like the money laundering that Manafort was doing.

since the source of the false information in the dossier has been traced to Russia, we have to examine and consider if this was an example of an American "citizen" colluding with the Russia government to interfere in this election, as has been suggested by Trump's classy Press Secretary, Sarah Huckabee
The dossier was compiled by an Engllishman, who among other things interviewed some Russians. Paid for first by the Republicans when Trump was a primary opposition candidate, and then by the Democrats, once Trump was in the general election against them.

Deleting as fake news.

From another post ( OCTOBER 30, 2017 10:06 PM ):
Weinstein's Law:

The likelihood of a person harassing and sexually assaulting members of the opposite sex is directly proportional to the frequency and volume of said person's vocalized support for the liberal agenda:

Fake news: gone.

From another post ( OCTOBER 30, 2017 10:40 PM ):
this is a lie

Republicans didn't fund the dossier

an anti-Trump group hired the same firm to compile and organize information about Trump that was available from public sources

it was Clinton's campaign that, through a law firm and a consulting firm, hired a foreign spy to get misinformation from Kremlin-linked Russian sources about Trump

no Republican did this

From the NYT: The Washington Free Beacon, a conservative website funded by a major Republican donor, first hired the research firm that months later produced for Democrats the salacious dossier describing ties between Donald J. Trump and the Russian government, the website said on Friday.

you are a person who looks at the evidence, you realize by now that the idea of Trump collusion with Russia is ridiculous
Obviously, this comment was written before the first guilty plea was announced yesterday.

"exonerate Trump and his people and the ongoing threat Russia poses to American democracy."

no evidence of this, absolutely none

Actually, yes, there is a ton of evidence of this. From Jared's "I love it" to Papadopoulos's guilty plea, to Manafort's money-laundering with the Russian oligarchs, to the thousands of Russian social media accounts spewing propaganda across the USS, to evidence of Russian tampering with voting machines...

Congress has taken action against Russia to "punish" it for hacking Hillary's email, although they are hardly the only one to do so since her IT security is notoriously shoddy
There is absolutely no evidence that Hillary's IT security is shoddy at all. It seems to have held up better than the State Department's.

Fake news: deleted.

Vigilance is not a fake-news outlet and will not be. Give us facts to support your opinions and you're fine, we'll have a discussion.

JimK

October 31, 2017 1:46 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Saudi Arabia moves to a more liberal state

This is happening in some other muslim nations as well. Hopefully this a trend that will continue.

October 31, 2017 1:52 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Man Charged With Killing Friend After Argument Over Biblical Forgiveness

"Hey guys, I would have been there to settle the argument or change the bullet trajectories, but I was making sure all the right sports teams won their games. Oops." - God

October 31, 2017 2:24 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Live feed of Facebook, Twitter & Google testimony in Senate Russia hearing on disinformation right now

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oii8xkze7Bo

October 31, 2017 3:25 PM  
Anonymous Greatest hits said...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/whos-who-in-the-george-papadopoulos-court-documents/2017/10/30/e131158c-bdb3-11e7-97d9-bdab5a0ab381_story.html

Newly released court documents show that Trump foreign policy adviser George Papadopoulos communicated with several senior campaign officials about his outreach to the Russian government over a period of months. The recipients of Papadopoulos’s emails are not named in the filings, but The Washington Post has identified several individuals based on interviews and other documents.

“The Campaign Supervisor”: Trump campaign national co-chairman Sam Clovis

“High-Ranking Campaign Official”: Campaign manager Corey Lewandowski

“Another high-ranking campaign official”: Campaign chairman Paul Manafort

“Another campaign official”: Manafort deputy Rick Gates

“Senior Policy Advisor”: Unknown

“The Professor”: Joseph Mifsud, director of the London Academy of Diplomacy

“The Female Russian National”: Unknown

“A Russian National Connected to the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs”: Ivan Timofeev

October 31, 2017 4:08 PM  
Anonymous Sessions knew too said...

From Papadopoulos' plea deal

"...9. On or about March 31, 2016, defendant PAPADOPOULOS attended a "national security meeting" in Washington, D.C., with then-candidate Trump and other foreign policy advisors for the Campaign. When defendant PAPADOPOULOS introduced himself to the group, he stated, in sum and substance, that he had connections that could help arrange a meeting between then-candidate Trump and President Putin..."

https://www.justice.gov/file/1007346/download

Trump tweeted a picture of the meeting the day it occurred, March 31, 2016 and he, as well as Sessions, sat at opposite heads of the table. Papadopoulos is pictured to the left of Sessions in the middle of the table.

https://www.instagram.com/p/BDo-7SimhUn/

On June 13, 2017

"...Let me state this clearly, colleagues. I have never met with or had any conversation with any Russians or any foreign officials concerning any type of interference with any campaign or election in the United States. Further, I have no knowledge of any such conversations by anyone connected to the Trump campaign..."

https://www.politico.com/story/2017/06/13/full-text-jeff-session-trump-russia-testimony-239503

October 31, 2017 5:01 PM  
Anonymous the Russians have a hypnotic power: anything they say mesmerizes America into voting their way said...

deleting comments rather than countering them is a step toward a new dark age

appropriately enough, on Halloween, TTF is slipping into darkness

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dgEgC7vk13c

October 31, 2017 5:10 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

I'll call the Whaaaaa-mbulance for you Wyatt.

You have no valid complaints about the way you've been treated here, you have a long history of lying and re-writing news stories you cut and paste to say the opposite of what they originally did.

October 31, 2017 5:37 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

If Wyatt/bad anonymous can't lie he doesn't want to post at all - there's a big surprise (NOT).

October 31, 2017 5:50 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Typical Republican duplicity - Lewandowski Wildly Contradicts Himself On Manafort


Lewandowski is literally blaming the FBI for not warning Trump about Manafort. Check out the twisting.

Via Mediaite:

He came on to the campaign in a very limited capacity, to help us find delegates,” Lewandowski said of Manafort, who was hired by the Trump campaign as chairman.

But when Fox News’s Steve Doocy asked if federal authorities are supposed to alert presidential campaigns that their staffers are under investigation, Lewandowski changed his tune on Manafort’s prominence in the campaign.

He replied that Manafort “joined the campaign in a high-profile capacity,” and that “you would think, just from a security standpoint, [the FBI] would brief the campaign and say ‘look, we’ve got some concerns about this person.’”

October 31, 2017 5:50 PM  
Blogger JimK said...

Anon, I am giving you a fair opportunity to express yourself. You can use facts or speculation, reason or opinion, but I've decided I will not tolerate you or anyone else posting untruths on this blog and treating them as facts. If you have evidence or proof that Hillary lied about something, well that's good, that will support your point and we lefties will have to defend our position. Maybe we will try to justify lying in that case, or maybe there are some facts that make her statement not a lie, and maybe we will just have to swallow our pride and give you a point. But just to say "Hillary lied about that," with no evidence, no authoritative source, simply assuming that because she said something it was a lie -- no, we are not going to lower ourselves to that level.

For example, you said "No Republican did this," but the fact is, yes, Republicans did this. The Washington Free Beacon does not deny it. The Republicans funded the research in the dossier, which ended up finding more shocking information than anyone had anticipated, to the point where the FBI got called in. And when Trump got nominated the Democrats took it over. It's no secret. There's nothing wrong with the Republicans funding oppo research, but there is something wrong with saying they didn't when they did. You don't get to make up facts.

The idea that "Hillary colluded with the Russians," because her lawyer paid for an investigator who talked to some Russians who had stories about Trump, is ... it's a lie. It's what we call these days "fake news." This stuff sometimes comes from some Moldavian fake-news-factory, or from Russia, or sites with names like Patriot News Network, but it is not going to come from the Vigilance blog.

So yeah, deleting. Feels like the dark ages to you, huh? Sorry about that; try telling the truth and you might feel better about it. TTF has hosted your festering irrationality for a long time, but actually I think the country is in a dangerous situation right now because of you and other trolls undermining people's belief that truth even exists.

Yes, truth exists. As grown-ups we read the news with skepticism, we understand the fads and spin and biases, but professional journalists are paid to report what happens, and in this day of video we can see for ourselves. So -- you are welcome here if you stick to facts. These days I am doubting whether conservatives have any beliefs at all besides hating the black guy and the shrill woman. If you do, then please feel free to discuss here. Liberals will likely disagree with you and maybe we can all get something out of it. But just to make stuff up, no... not here. Not any more.

JimK

October 31, 2017 6:12 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"You have no valid complaints"

I didn't complain about a thing

I simply noted something that I've noted many times before, liberals want to shut down speech because open analysis tends to disprove their worldview.

I'm encouraged that Jim is participating in the conversation. He's invited me to dispute some of his assertions. I intend to.

October 31, 2017 6:29 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Sure Whiner.

Hahahahahahahahaahahahaaha!

October 31, 2017 6:47 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

October 31, 2017 6:58 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The kids coming by threatening violence has begun to slow so let’s start with Jim’s first example of fake news.

I had said this:

“Republicans didn't fund the dossier

an anti-Trump group hired the same firm to compile and organize information about Trump that was available from public sources

it was Clinton's campaign that, through a law firm and a consulting firm, hired a foreign spy to get misinformation from Kremlin-linked Russian sources about Trump

no Republican did this”

Jim said this was “fake news”, to be deleted, and pasted this:

“From the NYT: The Washington Free Beacon, a conservative website funded by a major Republican donor, first hired the research firm that months later produced for Democrats the salacious dossier describing ties between Donald J. Trump and the Russian government, the website said on Friday.”

a critical reader, and you have to be to get any information from the NY Times, would notice that the dossier was produced “months later for the Democrats”, not the WFB. this happened months after WFB had any reason to be involved, their candidates having lost the primary

I didn’t respond to this because it was part of a longer post that I didn’t have time for then

But today, this provided Jim’s first “example”:

“For example, you said "No Republican did this," but the fact is, yes, Republicans did this. The Washington Free Beacon does not deny it. The Republicans funded the research in the dossier, which ended up finding more shocking information than anyone had anticipated, to the point where the FBI got called in. And when Trump got nominated the Democrats took it over. It's no secret. There's nothing wrong with the Republicans funding oppo research, but there is something wrong with saying they didn't when they did. You don't get to make up facts.”

But I didn’t say they didn’t fund oppo research
I said they did, recopied from above:

“an anti-Trump group hired the same firm to compile and organize information about Trump that was available from public sources”

What I said was that they didn’t fund a dossier where a foreign spy got disinformation from Russians

One problem here is that TTFers assume, without questioning that the liberal media is not misleading, and that anyone who doesn’t support a liberal agenda is lying- by definition.

So the only proof they will accept is if a liberally biased mass media confirms something

Let’s try Wikipedia:

“From October 2015 to May 2016, the Washington Free Beacon hired Fusion GPS to conduct opposition research on "multiple candidates" during the 2016 presidential election, including Donald Trump. The Free Beacon stopped funding this research when Donald Trump had clinched the Republican nomination. Fusion GPS would later hire former British intelligence officer Christopher Steele and produce a dossier alleging links between the Trump campaign and the Kremlin. Paul Singer, a billionaire and hedge fund manager", who is a major donor to the Free Beacon, said he was unaware of this dossier until it was published by BuzzFeed in January 2017. On October 27, 2017, the Free Beacon publicly disclosed that it had hired Fusion GPS, and stated that it "had no knowledge of or connection to the Steele dossier, did not pay for the dossier, and never had contact with, knowledge of, or provided payment for any work performed by Christopher Steele."”

There you have it

Brilliant anon was right

No Republican paid Fusion to hire a British spy to get disinformation from Russian sources

That happened after the Republicans were no longer involved

WFB did deny paying for the dossier, contrary to what Jim asserted

Case closed

Let’s hope this doesn’t start Priya whining

October 31, 2017 7:59 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

I only glanced at a couple of Wyatt/bad anonymou's comments but saw something about him claiming hillary approved some thing I assume him claiming she approved the deal on a mining company which Republicans have been falsely claiming sends 20% of U.S. Uranium to Russia. The truth is that the Russian company only bought an interest in the U.S. mining company and none of the uranium it mines can leave the States by law. This was the sort of deal that has happened commonly throughout the history of the U.S. and normally is handled by people below Hillary and everything I've read said she had nothing to do with making the decision.

October 31, 2017 8:40 PM  
Anonymous all I am saaaAAaaying is give truth a chance said...

well, Priya, you only read that which reinforces your preconceived notions

this is the problem that is endemic among liberalism

refusal to consider any other point of view

anyway, Jim has already brought up what you said and we will get to it

I'm going to go with one claim that I lied a day

btw, a week or so ago, after you claimed that you never lie, I was citing one of your lies a day and you backed away pretty quickly

just be honest and that won't happen to you again

October 31, 2017 9:28 PM  
Blogger JimK said...

Anon, you never said "No Republican paid Fusion to hire a British spy to get disinformation from Russian sources."

Let's go to the big Vanity Fair article about this, from April 2017. It's written in long form, not inverted pyramid, so you have to read. A few morsels:

In 2011, Glenn Simpson, along with two other former Journal reporters, launched Fusion GPS, in Washington, D.C. The firm’s activities, according to the terse, purposefully oblique statement on its Web site, centered on “premium research, strategic intelligence, and due diligence.”

In September 2015, as the Republican primary campaign was heating up, he was hired to compile an opposition-research dossier on Donald Trump. Who wrote the check? Simpson, always secretive, won’t reveal his client’s identity. However, according to a friend who had spoken with Simpson at the time, the funding came from a “Never Trump” Republican and not directly from the campaign war chests of any of Trump’s primary opponents.

And yes, these Republicans hired Fusion GPS, the company that produced the dossier. These are not guys that compile news from public sources. These are private eyes -- “premium research, strategic intelligence, and due diligence” is a far cry from clipping articles out of the newspaper.

But by mid-June 2016, despite all the revelations Simpson was digging up about the billionaire’s roller-coaster career, two previously unimaginable events suddenly affected both the urgency and the focus of his research. First, Trump had apparently locked up the nomination, and his client, more pragmatic than combative, was done throwing good money after bad. And second, there was a new cycle of disturbing news stories wafting around Trump as the wordy headline splashed across the front page of The Washington Post on June 17 heralded, INSIDE TRUMP’S FINANCIAL TIES TO RUSSIA AND HIS UNUSUAL FLATTERY OF VLADIMIR PUTIN.

... after all he had discovered, he’d grown deeply concerned by the prospect of a Trump presidency. So he found Democratic donors whose checks would keep his oppo research going strong. And he made a call to London, to a partner at Orbis he had worked with in the past, an ex-spy who knew where all the bodies were buried in Russia, and who, as the wags liked to joke, had even buried some of them.

Are there business ties in Russia?” That, Steele would offer to Mother Jones, was the bland initial thrust of his investigation after he was subcontracted by Fusion for a fee estimated by a source in the trade to be within the profession’s going rate: $12,000 to $15,000 a month, plus expenses.

So anon, maybe you are saying that Hillary was colluding with Russians because Fuion GPS's focus turned to Russia after the Washington Post story about Trump's ties to Putin came out, coincidentally with the Democrats picking up the tab. That would be an absurd argument to make.

“Speaking in confidence to a compatriot,” the talkative Source E “admitted there was a well-developed conspiracy of cooperation between them [the Trump campaign] and the Russian leadership.” Then this: “The Russian regime had been behind the recent leak of embarrassing e-mail messages, emanating from the Democratic National Committee (DNC) to the WikiLeaks platform.” And finally: “In return the Trump team had agreed to sideline Russian intervention in Ukraine as a campaign issue and to raise US/NATO defense commitments in the Baltic and Eastern Europe to deflect attention away from Ukraine.”

And so on. The Republicans hired Fusion GPS and then the Democrats hired them. What they found was alarming.

The statement that got you deleted was, quote "Republicans didn't fund the dossier." This is not true. Your other statements would not be considered true in a normal conversation, either.

October 31, 2017 10:01 PM  
Blogger JimK said...

BTW anon, I'm pulling out of the discussion but will continue to monitor the blog comments.

I have tried to explain to you why a statement would be "true" or "false." If that is too complicated for you then I will just delete your comments if I don't like them. Trust me, nobody will object. XUX

October 31, 2017 10:16 PM  
Anonymous liberals lead astray said...

Jim, your Vanity Fair article from April 2017 is contradicted by the NY Times story last Saturday, which is what the wikipedia article referenced as its source. WBF told Fusion in May 2016 to stop doing research. Hillary had begun paying Fusion in April 2017.

WBF did not admit paying for a dossier from Russian sources, as you said. Here's what WBF said:

“All of the work that Fusion GPS provided to The Free Beacon was based on public sources, and none of the work product that The Free Beacon received appears in the Steele dossier,” they said. “The Free Beacon had no knowledge of or connection to the Steele dossier, did not pay for the dossier, and never had contact with, knowledge of, or provided payment for any work performed by Christopher Steele.”

I have found no one who says they are lying.

The NY Times said flatly:

"The Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee retained Fusion GPS to research any possible connections between Mr. Trump, his businesses, his campaign team and Russia, court filings revealed this week. Working for them, the firm retained Christopher Steele, a respected former British intelligence officer.

He went on to produce a series of memos that alleged a broad conspiracy between the Trump campaign and the Russian government to influence the 2016 presidential election on behalf of Mr. Trump. The memos, which became known as the “Steele dossier,” also contained unsubstantiated accounts of encounters between Mr. Trump and Russian prostitutes, as well as real estate deals that were intended as bribes."

So, Hillary hired the spy to get the information from Russian sources. And she has not denied it."

I will concede that getting information from the Russians is not the same as colluding. But that's the standard you've been applying to Trump.

Again, WBF said it paid Fusion to compile opposition research from public sources. Unless you can produce someone saying otherwise, your assertion is just speculation and not fact.

WBF has a reputation for integrity. Here's the Washingtonian magazine:

"the Free Beacon regularly pounds out scoops any political reporter would envy. And many of its stories are difficult for their targets simply to dismiss, because they provide that rarest of internet wares: actual news."

Hillary, according to the NY Times, and I quote "retained Fusion GPS to research any possible connections between Mr. Trump, his businesses, his campaign team and Russia, court filings revealed this week. Working for them, the firm retained Christopher Steele,"

it wasn't just picking up previous information, she specifically sought a Russian connection and the firm hired a foreign spy who knew sources in the Kremlin

November 01, 2017 12:07 AM  
Anonymous fake news example said...

"I have tried to explain to you why a statement would be "true" or "false.""

I'm really grateful to Jim for explaining the difference between "true" or "false" to me. Now I understand. True is something printing in Vanity Fair. False is something printed anywhere, even the NY Times, that suggests Hillary has done anything improper.

So, I'm afraid an article yesterday by K.S. Bruce, from the realclearlife.com is completely false because it makes Hillary look real bad. For example, it points out that John Podesta, Hillary's campaign manager, testified before Congress that he knew not who funded the Steele dossier, and that Marc Elias sat next to him at the Congressional hearing. You know, the Marc Elias through whom payments were funneled from Hillary to Fusion. Anyway, that makes Hillary look really bad, so it's false and fake news.

Other things in the article that are fake news because they make dear Hillary appear hypocritical, which can't be true:

"the Clinton-Kaine campaign and the Democratic National Committee paid over $12 million to the law firm Perkins Coie, in part to gather salacious rumors from many Russians in the so-called Steele Dossier. It appears that President Obama’s committee, Obama for America, contributed as well."

"Democrats in the House heard the testimony. And who is their lawyer? Marc Elias of Perkins Coie, who represents the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee.

Democrats in the Senate will review the matter, and who is their lawyer? Marc Elias of Perkins Coie, who represents the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee.

The use of Russian ads on Facebook will be part of the hearings. And who has been Facebook’s lawyer to prevent the disclosure of such ads? Marc Elias of Perkins Coie."

"Ever since Aaron Burr was found innocent by John Marshall’s Supreme Court in 1807, treason under the Constitution has been narrowly defined to require “levying war,” or acts intended to aid or comfort actual “Enemies” at war."

"Hillary Clinton was an awful candidate, who did not have the political skill to visit the State of Wisconsin.

Putin did not win the election. Hillary Clinton – and her advisors like John Podesta and Marc Elias – lost it.

As their hypocrisy and obfuscation drags into its second year, they make increasingly clear that they deserved to lose."

November 01, 2017 7:48 AM  
Anonymous fake news example said...

Here's the whole article, if you want to see some real fake news for yourself:

"A most amazing thing!

A few months ago, Donald Trump Jr. was found to have had one meeting with a Russian lawyer that might have led to negative news on Hillary Clinton. The Dems erupted with horror at the thought. Senator Tim Kaine, Clinton’s running mate, described it as “potentially treason.” Congressman Moulton tweeted, “If this isn’t treasonous, I’m not sure what is.” Hours of media time were filled on this topic.

Now we learn that the Clinton-Kaine campaign and the Democratic National Committee went far beyond allowing one random visit. They apparently paid over $12 million to the law firm Perkins Coie, in part to gather salacious rumors from many Russians in the so-called Steele Dossier. It appears that President Obama’s committee, Obama for America, contributed as well.

The payments for the dossier were made by Perkins Coie lawyer, Marc Elias, to Fusion GPS who hired Steele. Elias then sat before Congress alongside his client, Clinton campaign chief John Podesta, as Podesta claimed he knew nothing about such payments.

Democrats in the House heard the testimony. And who is their lawyer? Marc Elias of Perkins Coie, who represents the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee.

Democrats in the Senate will review the matter, and who is their lawyer? Marc Elias of Perkins Coie, who represents the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee.

The use of Russian ads on Facebook will be part of the hearings. And who has been Facebook’s lawyer to prevent the disclosure of such ads? Marc Elias of Perkins Coie.

The FBI may have acted improperly by relying on the dossier’s salacious rumors to launch secret FISA surveillance on Trump and his team, even as it overlooked the potentially improper transfer of 20 percent of all American uranium reserves into Russian hands under Obama-Clinton. And who will review if the FBI acted properly? Robert Mueller, who ran the FBI.

The attacks on Donald Trump Jr. for treason were nonsensical from the beginning. Ever since Aaron Burr was found innocent by John Marshall’s Supreme Court in 1807, treason under the Constitution has been narrowly defined to require “levying war,” or acts intended to aid or comfort actual “Enemies” at war."

November 01, 2017 7:50 AM  
Anonymous fake news example said...

"It will be fascinating, however, to watch the hypocrisy as those who made those overwrought attacks wriggle off the hook they themselves have set.

It will be fascinating to see the hypocrisy of Marc Elias’ clients as they either excuse their own lawyer or abandon him to take the fall alone.

And the most harmful hypocrisy is the one that began on Election Night 2016 and has never ended: the attempt to explain away Hillary Clinton’s loss by portraying Trump’s victory as the result of illegitimate collusion with Russia, rather than as an honest choice of the American electorate.

“Putin did not win the election. Hillary Clinton – and her advisors like John Podesta and Marc Elias – lost it.”
During the campaign, Trump was asked if he would accept the election returns if he lost. The idea that he might complain of a rigged election was described by Hillary Clinton as “horrifying.” “This poses a direct threat to our democracy,” she said. “It’s appalling that a presidential nominee of a major party is undermining the pillar of our democracy just because he hates losing.” Democratic Party grandees from Harry Reid to Nancy Pelosi to David Boies all repeated the same opinion.

But then Clinton lost and the Dems — in the most damaging form of political hypocrisy — have been seeking to delegitimize the election ever since, with half-baked McCarthy-style Russian collusion theories that they themselves cooked up through secret payments to Fusion GPS.

Was the Fusion GPS work just normal opposition research? If so, then why have Clinton, the Clinton campaign and the Dems been so embarrassed that they kept silent about their Fusion funding for a year until forced to admit it now? Why would Marc Elias not tell his own clients about the payments he made for them on their behalf, even as they were about to testify before Congress regarding these payments? The news all smacks of “modified limited hangout” from the days of Nixon. Or as a scene from an episode of Veep.

The process and the prosecutors will grind on. Now, to no one’s surprise, Paul Manafort and his business partner Richard Gates are facing accusations. Rumor has it that accusations against General Flynn may not be far behind. The accusations appear to be for private actions, outside of authorized campaign activities and unrelated to the Trump-Russia collusion theory itself.

Still, whatever happens to yesterday’s indictment of Manafort and Gates, let’s cut through the hypocrisy and say it plainly.

Hillary Clinton was an awful candidate, who did not have the political skill to visit the State of Wisconsin.

Putin did not win the election. Hillary Clinton – and her advisors like John Podesta and Marc Elias – lost it.

As their hypocrisy and obfuscation drags into its second year, they make increasingly clear that they deserved to lose."

November 01, 2017 7:50 AM  
Anonymous semi-fake news example said...

sometimes, for the sake of perspective, it's useful to hear the view from outside the states

here's a piece from the Toronto Star

it's not technically fake news because it doesn't directly make Hillary look bad, but it does make Trump look like he's doing well so it can't really be true:

"Donald Trump is not on the ropes. Politically and legally he is doing just fine.

The latest revelations from special prosecutor Robert Mueller have produced little new relevant information and nothing that implicates the U.S. president in criminal activities.

Overall, his approval ratings remain low. But among Republicans roughly 80 per cent think he is doing a good job.

Indeed, he has begun to redefine the Republican Party in his own image. Those who disapprove of him are being forced to either recant or drop out of politics.

Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham, for instance, used to be one of Trump’s harshest critics. Now he has become a golfing buddy.

As the senator explained to the New York Times: Trump is popular in Graham’s home state of South Carolina.

Arizona Sen. Jeff Flake, another Republican, is still an unsparing critic of Trump. But it seems that Arizona voters are not. A bitter Flake has announced that he won’t seek the Republican nomination for next year’s midterm election.

Left unsaid was the reason: He’d lose.

All of this is worth keeping in mind when trying to assess the significance of the three charges announced by Mueller on Monday.

All three men charged were involved in the Trump campaign. But the charges against two of them — former campaign chair Paul Manafort and his associate Rick Gates — have nothing to do with the campaign or alleged Russian efforts to influence the 2016 U.S. presidential race

The third man, George Papadopoulos, has pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI about his connections with Russia. But those connections apparently led to nothing.

The charges against Manafort and Gates are based on allegations that they laundered millions of dollars earned by working for pro-Moscow Ukrainian politicians between 2006 and 2015 — before they joined the Trump campaign.

In hindsight, Trump could be faulted for bringing alleged felons onto his team. But at the time, their allegedly criminal behaviour was not public knowledge. What’s more, Manafort had a solid reputation in the Republican Party as someone who had worked for former presidents Gerald Ford and Ronald Reagan.

It’s also worth noting that, for most of the period, it wasn’t considered illegitimate in Washington to work for Ukraine’s then pro-Russian regime. Democrats as well as Republicans did so.

When that changed and Manafort’s connection to Ukrainian oligarchs became a political liability, Trump did what most politicians do: He fired him."

November 01, 2017 8:15 AM  
Anonymous semi-fake news example said...

"The Papadopoulos charge hits closer to home. It directly links the Trump campaign to the Russians.

Papadopoulos told the FBI that he made contact with a mysterious professor in London and a woman who was identified — incorrectly as it turned out — as Russian President Vladimir Putin’s niece.

But 30-year-old Papadopoulos, described by the New York Times as so green that his resume included time spent on the model United Nations, was apparently wowed. He insisted to his superiors in the campaign team that he could arrange a meeting between Trump and Putin.

In April 2016, he reported that the mysterious professor had offered him a treasure trove of emails that would reflect badly on Hillary Clinton, the Democrats’ presidential nominee.

These may have been the -mails eventually released by WikiLeaks that outlined embarrassing conflicts within the Clinton campaign, as well as efforts by the Democrat establishment to sandbag maverick challenger Bernie Sanders.

But it’s not clear from the material released so far that the Trump campaign took up the professor’s offer. Certainly, nothing came of Papadopoulos’ efforts to arrange a Trump-Putin meeting.

By June, someone with connections to Russia was again offering damaging information about Clinton, this time to Donald Trump Jr. But according to Trump Jr. nothing came of that either.

We shall see where all of this goes. So far, it hasn’t gone far.

Monday’s revelations confirm what we already knew — that someone allegedly connected to Russia offered the Trump campaign emails critical of Clinton.

But there is no indication that Trump or his campaign took part in a criminal conspiracy to obtain those emails. More to the point, there is no evidence that Republican voters, who currently control both houses of Congress, care."

November 01, 2017 8:15 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"deleting comments rather than countering them is a step toward a new dark age"

I trust you will either call 202-564-4700 or put your comments in writing and send them to:

Scott Pruitt, Administrator
Environmental Protection Agency
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington DC 20460

November 01, 2017 8:17 AM  
Anonymous U Dont Get It Do U said...

Anon, Elias is Podesta's lawyer. First, attorneys always advise their clients to tell the truth on the stand. So Podesta almost certainly did not know about the FusionGPS contract. Second, when a witness is asked, "Did you know about X?" the role of the lawyer is not to raise his hand and say "I know about that!" None of this implicates Podesta, and if the knowledge didn't get to Podesta it certainly did not get to the candidate herself.

I see that you do not understand what collusion is; Trump at least tried to meet with Russian spies to get the fruits of their illegal computer hacking (never mind trying to set up a secret communication channel that the US govt couldn't monitor), while Hillary's team researched Trump's links to Russia. In your eagerness to justify your hatred for her you are being blind to the facts.

November 01, 2017 8:20 AM  
Anonymous The troll is digging deep now -- all the way to Canadian Opinion Columnist Spin said...

Anon's cut and paste URL:

https://www.thestar.com/opinion/star-columnists/2017/10/31/donald-trump-handily-survives-latest-russia-revelations-walkom.html

Now the troll is dumping Canadian right wingners' bullshit opinions.

Walkom is an economist who writes like he thinks he's a lawyer.

Thomas Walkom
@TomWalkom
twalkom@thestar.ca
RSS
Thomas Walkom writes on political economy. The winner of two national newspaper awards (foreign reporting and column writing), he was the Star’s Queen’s Park columnist for eight years. He has a PhD in economics from the University of Toronto and is author of "Rae Days: the rise and follies of the NDP, a book on Ontario’s first New Democratic Party government." Reach him at 416-869-4570.

"We shall see where all of this goes. So far, it hasn’t gone far."

The troll's favorite Cannuck should ask flight-risk Manafort -- he of 3 US Passports with 3 different Passport numbers -- how he likes his new ankle bracelet.

http://www.newsweek.com/paul-manafort-had-3-passports-considered-serious-flight-risk-698255

November 01, 2017 9:52 AM  
Anonymous Saturday night in Trumplandia said...

A Black Man And A White Woman Sat Down At A Pub. Then The White Supremacists Showed Up.

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/black-man-white-woman-supremacists-tennessee_us_59f8ef8ce4b00c6145e2627c

WLM member allegedly assaults woman at Brentwood restaurant

http://fox17.com/news/local/wlm-member-allegedly-assaults-woman-at-brentwood-restaurant

Detectives Investigating Saturday Night's Alleged Assault at Brentwood Restaurant

http://www.nashville.gov/News-Media/News-Article/ID/6942/Detectives-Investigating-Saturday-Nights-Alleged-Assault-at-Brentwood-Restaurant.aspx

October 29, 2017

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Midtown Hills Precinct detectives are investigating an assault that occurred Saturday at 7:45 p.m. at the Corner Pub, 710 Old Hickory Boulevard, when a group of people allegedly began an altercation involving a bi-racial couple.

The couple, a 30-year-old white woman and a 37-year-old African American man, was sitting at a table when a group of 20-30 white men and women entered the restaurant. They sat at a table behind the couple when, according to the woman, one of the individuals asked her to “guess”. She responded “white lives matter”. Another said “that’s right” and told her to join their table and leave her boyfriend. The argument inside apparently escalated even after the female victim had gone outside to deescalate the situation. After another woman in the group reportedly began to argue with the victim, a man allegedly struck her in the face with his fist, causing a cut above her eye. She refused medical treatment.

When officers arrived all involved parties were gone. The female victim did return to the scene to make a report. She said the suspects fled in multiple vehicles, including a white van with a Wisconsin license plate and a sedan with a New York license plate.

The suspect who struck the victim is described as a white man in his 30s. He was wearing a black jacket and black jeans. Anyone with information about the suspect or persons involved are asked to contact Crime Stoppers at 74-CRIME. Callers to Crime Stoppers can remain anonymous and qualify for a cash reward. Persons can also send an electronic tip by texting the word “CASH” along with the message to 274637 (CRIMES) or online at www.nashvillecrimestoppers.com.

###

November 01, 2017 10:53 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Anon's cut and paste URL:

https://www.thestar.com/opinion/star-columnists/2017/10/31/donald-trump-handily-survives-latest-russia-revelations-walkom.html"

since I pasted the entire article, why are you giving a link?

just to let us know you can use the internet?

very cool, I'm impressed

"Now the troll is dumping Canadian right wingners' bullshit opinions.

Walkom is an economist who writes like he thinks he's a lawyer."

and do you happen to disagree with anything he says, or your whole opinion based on a character attack?

btw, i don't think I've seen a lot of people discussing this matters by quoting lawyers

Walkon concluded:

"We shall see where all of this goes. So far, it hasn’t gone far."

the TTFer response:

"The troll's favorite Cannuck should ask flight-risk Manafort -- he of 3 US Passports with 3 different Passport numbers -- how he likes his new ankle bracelet."

The context when he said "So far, it hasn’t gone far." was that it hasn't gone far to establishing that the Trump-Russia story is anything but a hoax

he's right

btw, the only serious charge against Manafort is money laundering but that is only a crime if it's done with intent to conceal another crime

what crime would that be?

failing to file an FBAR?

Manafort's will successfully argue this is a minor offense, rarely enforced and never to the maximum extent, and that money movement wasn't intended to conceal this "crime"

"Elias is Podesta's lawyer. First, attorneys always advise their clients to tell the truth on the stand. So Podesta almost certainly did not know about the FusionGPS contract."

"always" or "always should"?

"Second, when a witness is asked, "Did you know about X?" the role of the lawyer is not to raise his hand and say "I know about that!" None of this implicates Podesta, and if the knowledge didn't get to Podesta it certainly did not get to the candidate herself."

Podesta was the head of the campaign and had no idea what it's lawyers, paid 12 million, were doing for him

that would criminally negligent, especially since he would be responsible for ensuring that FEC filings are accurate

and, on the remote chance you're right about that, the lawyer would certainly have told Podesta after the hearing: "you know when they asked who funded the dossier? you did and maybe should write to the committee and tell them that to avoid future complications

"I see that you do not understand what collusion is;"

oh, I understand what it is

the problem is that Dems, in an attempt to rationalize their stunning defeat last November, have completely redefined the word

here's the dictionary meaning:

"secret agreement or cooperation especially for an illegal or deceitful purpose"

Trump's campaign accepting offers of information from Russians, who may or may not have been acting on behalf of the Russian government is not collusion

closer would be Hillary's campaign who sought out and paid for such information

"Trump at least tried to meet with Russian spies to get the fruits of their illegal computer hacking"

I think this is a lie. If you have a source, go ahead and post it.

"Hillary's team researched Trump's links to Russia"

by paying for people to talk to Russian sources

"In your eagerness to justify your hatred for her you are being blind to the facts."

I think that applies to your hatred of Trump. Trump had no secret agreement with Russia and there's no reason to believe he did.

November 01, 2017 11:21 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"A Black Man And A White Woman Sat Down At A Pub. Then The White Supremacists Showed Up."

this whole Russia-Trump hoax is not going well

let's find some obscure instance of racism to divert attention

standard liberal MO

November 01, 2017 11:24 AM  
Anonymous Put a birdie on it said...

"this whole Russia-Trump hoax is not going well"

No it's not.

Poor Trumpeepoo.

Trump's never-ending attempts to pretend his campaign's collusion with Russia is a hoax is not going well at all.

Now everybody knows Papadopoulos has been singing since Oct. 5th when he pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI, maybe he's even wearing a wire as part of the deal, and a grand jury has indicted both Manafort and Gates, even placing them under house arrest for fear they'd flee the country.

That's a lot of reality for a hoax.




November 01, 2017 1:34 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The Papadopoulos plea surely leads to questions about who else was communicating/collaborating/colluding with Russians. However, and just as important, the knowledge that he was engaging in such activities — like the multiple meetings between Jared Kushner and Russians during the transition and the June 2016 meeting between Russians and Donald Trump Jr., Kushner and Manafort — in the aftermath of WikiLeaks and Russian meddling would understandably prove embarrassing and even incriminating. Kushner would be motivated to leave such contacts off disclosure forms. Jeff Sessions would have reason to forget such goings-on when testifying before Congress. The president would be nervous that former FBI director James B. Comey would uncover such evidence, thereby suggesting that his critics were right. (He won the race with the help of a hostile, foreign power.)

Now we know that Sam Clovis is assisting prosecutors. He might have further knowledge of possible collusion — but also might be able to say whether others who later wanted Comey fired knew about the Russian forays, and therefore, would have the intent to obstruct justice.

We know that Michael T. Flynn, who has gone silent but whose son is now the target of investigations (this would be in keeping with a common pressure-tactic of charging a suspect’s relatives in order to encourage the suspect to be more forthcoming), had contacts with the Russians (his paid speech in Moscow in December 2015; his appearances on the Russian propaganda TV network RT; his contacts during the transition, about which he lied). As Trump’s top foreign-policy adviser in the campaign and later national security adviser, Flynn would know what information Trump was privy to — and therefore provide an explanation as to why Trump reportedly reached out to Comey to lay off prosecution of Flynn.

November 01, 2017 2:33 PM  
Anonymous expanded English said...

"Trump's never-ending attempts to pretend his campaign's collusion with Russia is a hoax is not going well at all."

there's no pretense

neither Trump nor anyone else on his campaign staff had a secret agreement or cooperated with Russia for an illegal or deceitful purpose

everyone on both sides agree there's no evidence that they did

if you have any evidence or know of any, let us know

otherwise, this is just another of what we've seen so much of lately: a TTF lie

"Now everybody knows Papadopoulos has been singing since Oct. 5th when he pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI, maybe he's even wearing a wire as part of the deal,"

his offense was slight but he is a low-level employee so Mueller thought he'd be easy to intimidate - it's an old prosecutors' trick: bully some inexperienced person into making stupid statements and keep climbing the ladder

doesn't mean there's anything there, just means Mueller is trying to find out

the front page of the Post this morning has a great article on the guy

read it, and you'll be a little less ignorant

"and a grand jury has indicted both Manafort and Gates, even placing them under house arrest for fear they'd flee the country."

yes, they did

but, as you hopefully are aware, their alleged had nothing to do with the Trump campaign or domestic American politics

I think you aware of this and I think your attempt to associate it with the Russia-Trump hoax is a lie

"That's a lot of reality for a hoax."

I guess so

if talking to someone is now "colluding" in the liberal encyclopedia of expanded English

then, I guess that next to nothin' could be "a lot"

November 01, 2017 2:42 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

apparently, special prosecutors can grope all they want:

"Just how rough Special Counsel Robert Mueller is playing with Paul Manafort goes back before this week’s indictment — to the FBI’s no-knock raid in July.

It has been reported that the agents checked Mr. Manafort and wife Kathleen for guns as they broke into the Alexandria condo pre-dawn by picking the lock. An agent patted down Mrs. Manafort before she was allowed to get out of bed.

“Agents felt up Mrs. Manafort lying in bed to see if she had guns,” the source said of the intimidation.

In all, 12 FBI agents entered the home, guns drawn, and stayed for hours.

The aggressive search of a prone sleepy woman is, the source said, a hallmark of Mr. Mueller’s top prosecutor, Andrew Weissmann. A former mob prosecutor in New York, he specializes in turning witnesses against bigger prey and is not afraid to make things rough for spouses, too.

“Weissmann will want to maximize the trauma to his family,” said Sidney Powell, a Dallas appeals attorney critical of his tactics.

A spokesman for the special counsel’s office declined to comment.

Mrs. Manafort is an attorney who participates in her husband’s varied million-dollar real estate acquisitions.

Mr. Manafort was briefly President Donald Trump’s campaign manager for several months before being fired based on reports he received illicit payments from a pro-Russia Ukraine political party.

Such payments are at the heart of the grand jury indictment. It alleges Mr. Manafort laundered the Ukraine money via bank wires into his U.S. holdings, then bought real estate and borrowed against those properties.

The source said the indictment’s narrative has the touch of Mr. Weissmann. The document repeatedly refers to an inflammatory contention that Mr. Manafort did not report income on his tax returns.

It says, “Manafort used his hidden overseas wealth to enjoy a lavish lifestyle in the United States, without paying taxes on that income.”

But the indictment does not accuse him of income tax evasion.

“Because there is no case,” the source said."

November 01, 2017 4:23 PM  
Anonymous Dick Tracy said...

I'm glad to know we ain't got no criminal-coddling liberal sissies running this investigation.

November 01, 2017 5:05 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

sounds like a special prosecutor with no accountability or supervision

special prosecutor dictator

one of the reasons this investigation will get thrown out of court

at least we know who's the dick here

November 01, 2017 5:23 PM  
Anonymous the non-crime indictments said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

November 01, 2017 5:40 PM  
Anonymous Hillary said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

November 01, 2017 5:41 PM  
Anonymous Robert "Uncle Drossmeyer" Mueller said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

November 01, 2017 5:43 PM  
Anonymous To the Moonie Rag Crap troll said...

"the source said of the intimidation."

Who is this source and how do they know anything?

Oh, no way of knowing per this reporting.

"said Sidney Powell, a Dallas appeals attorney critical of his tactics."

Was Sidney Powell having a sleepover with the Manaforts that night?

No.

Thanks for the spin, know-nothing Sid.

You call that reporting, troll?

I don't.

It's nothing more than more of your Moonie rag bullshit and this one quotes a nameless "source" and an attorney who has nothing to do with this case.

Reading it was a complete waste of time.

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/nov/1/fbi-agents-manhandled-manafort-and-his-wife-during/

November 01, 2017 5:44 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

“You Can’t Go Any Lower”: Inside the West Wing, Trump Is Apoplectic as Allies Fear Impeachment

After Monday’s indictments, the president blamed Jared Kushner in a call to Steve Bannon, while others are urging him to take off the gloves with Robert Mueller.

Until now, Robert Mueller has haunted Donald Trump’s White House as a hovering, mostly unseen menace. But by securing indictments of Paul Manafort and Rick Gates, and a surprise guilty plea from foreign policy adviser George Papadopoulos, Mueller announced loudly that the Russia investigation poses an existential threat to the president. “Here’s what Manafort’s indictment tells me: Mueller is going to go over every financial dealing of Jared Kushner and the Trump Organization,” said former Trump campaign aide Sam Nunberg. “Trump is at 33 percent in Gallup. You can’t go any lower. He’s f'd.”

The first charges in the Mueller probe have kindled talk of what the endgame for Trump looks like, according to conversations with a half-dozen advisers and friends of the president. For the first time since the investigation began, the prospect of impeachment is being considered as a realistic outcome and not just a liberal fever dream. According to a source, advisers in the West Wing are on edge and doing whatever they can not to be ensnared. One person close to Dina Powell and Gary Cohn said they’re making sure to leave rooms if the subject of Russia comes up.

The consensus among the advisers I spoke to is that Trump faces few good options to thwart Mueller. For one, firing Mueller would cross a red line, analogous to Nixon’s firing of Archibald Cox during Watergate, pushing establishment Republicans to entertain the possibility of impeachment. “His options are limited, and his instinct is to come out swinging, which won’t help things,” said a prominent Republican close to the White House.

Trump, meanwhile, has reacted to the deteriorating situation by lashing out on Twitter and venting in private to friends. He’s frustrated that the investigation seems to have no end in sight. According to two sources, Trump has complained to advisers about his legal team for letting the Mueller probe progress this far. Speaking to Steve Bannon on Tuesday, Trump blamed Jared Kushner for his role in decisions, specifically the firings of Mike Flynn and James Comey, that led to Mueller’s appointment, according to a source briefed on the call. When Roger Stone recently told Trump that Kushner was giving him bad political advice, Trump agreed, according to someone familiar with the conversation.

November 01, 2017 5:49 PM  
Anonymous Federal Election Campaign Act (52 USC 30101) prohibits foreign nationals and governments from receiving money from U.S. political campaigns - which Hillary's campaign did said...

the previous is completely fake news

no substantiation is provided at all

even if everything that been alleged was done by the Trump campaign is true (which it isn't), and even if Trump himself masterminded the whole thing personally (which he didn't), no crime has been committed

it's not illegal to talk to or work with or benefit from Russians

Mueller has been charged with investigating something that is not a crime at all

if you think it is, explain under what law

Manafort and Gates consulted the pro-Kremlin Ukraine government long before they worked for Trump's campaign

but that wasn't a crime and so they weren't charged with it

they were charged with not reporting it

hardly a threat to Trump

Papalap-whatever was a guy with a light resume hired for a job he was under-qualified for and tried to impress everyone

that wasn't against the law

The Federal Election Commission has made it clear that it is perfectly lawful for foreign nationals to be involved in campaigns, as long as they are not paid and do not donate money.

again, he lied to the FBI about the timing of some contact with someone who claimed to have information from the Kremlin

however, the person that did break the law was Hillary

Hillary paid millions of dollars to a British spy and Russian sources, funneled through her lawyer

The Federal Election Campaign Act (52 USC 30101) prohibits foreign nationals and governments from receiving money from U.S. political campaigns

It also prohibits the filing of false or misleading campaign reports to hide the true purpose of the money (52 USC 30121). This is what Hillary appears to have done.

these are generally considered minor crimes but, based on throwing the book at poor, clueless Papadap-whatever, and considering the damage this misleading dossier has cause our nation, Hillary needs prosecuting

liberals can pretend this will go away and try their best to plug their ears and tell "FAKE NEWS" but Hillary is being found out daily

she has broken and specific law, forbidding funneling campaign funds to foreign nationals, (52 USC 30101)




November 01, 2017 9:36 PM  
Anonymous oh yeah, also said...

in addition to violating the Federal Election Campaign Act (52 USC 30101) by using campaign funds to pay foreign nationals, Hillary could also be charged with money laundering if it is determined she paid the lawyer who paid Fusion who paid Steele who paid Russian sources to make a confusing money trail to conceal this criminal act

after all, it worked for over a year

November 01, 2017 10:15 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Who is this source and how do they know anything?

Oh, no way of knowing per this reporting."

you think reporters should have to disclose their sources?

November 01, 2017 10:19 PM  
Anonymous Don't Tread on Lefties said...

This is pure bullshit, anon. Hillary isn't going to be charged with anything. She hasn't broken any laws. And of course reporters should not have to disclose their sources, unless we were Nazi Germany or something. Stalin's Russia maybe, if you prefer.

There is a problem with, uh, treason in the White House, which we will be hearing more and more about. Sorry man, your fake news and screaming "lock her up" will not cover the stink of your corrupt president and his criminal gang. You are not distracting anybody who matters, just maybe some of those dumb shits who still think Trump will MAGA.

November 01, 2017 10:24 PM  
Anonymous Just Askin' said...

Anon, not sure if you got that stuff about the Election Act from Fox News or talk radio or what, but I was looking at Federal Election Campaign Act (52 USC 30101), and I don't see the word "foreign" in there anywhere. Can you help us out with that?

November 01, 2017 10:34 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Trump not worried about being indicted since he has air tight insanity defence

November 01, 2017 10:37 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Scott Pruitt blocks scientists with EPA funding from serving as agency advisers but not scientists funded by the fossil fuel or chemical industry

The head of the Environmental Protection Agency upended the agency’s key advisory groups on Tuesday, announcing plans to jettison scientists who have received EPA grants.

The move sets in motion a fundamental shift, one that could change the scientific and technical advice that historically has guided the agency as it crafts environmental regulations. The decision to bar any researcher who receives EPA grant money from serving as an adviser appears to be unprecedented.

EPA will not impose a similar litmus test on scientific advisers who receive grants from outside sources such as the fossil fuel industry. But Pruitt said they will undergo the same sort of ethics review that is already in place “to ensure that there aren’t issues of potential conflict with areas that they’re working upon.”

Terry F. Yosie, who was the advisory board’s director during the Reagan administration, said the changes “represent a major purge of independent scientists and a decision to sideline the SAB from major EPA decision-making in the future.”

Environmental and scientific groups were quick to condemn the changes and question Pruitt’s motives on Tuesday.

“Pruitt is turning the idea of ‘conflict of interest’ on its head — he claims federal research grants should exclude a scientist from an EPA advisory board but industry funding shouldn’t,” Andrew Rosenberg, director of the Center for Science and Democracy at the Union for Concerned Scientists, said in a statement. “The consequences of these decisions aren’t just bad for a few scientists. This could mean that there’s no independent voice ensuring that EPA follows the science on everything from drinking water pollution to atmospheric chemical exposure.”

November 01, 2017 10:39 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

But industry groups and conservative lawmakers, including longtime EPA critic Sen. James M. Inhofe (R-Okla.), who attended the announcement, applauded the action.

“The changes announced today will help ensure EPA’s scientific review panels are well balanced with perspectives from qualified scientists of diverse backgrounds and board members are free of any disqualifying conflicts of interest,” American Chemistry Council president Cal Dooley said in a statement.

Pruitt had foreshadowed the sweeping changes in a speech this month at the Heritage Foundation that he planned to rid the agency’s scientific advisory boards of researchers with EPA funding. He argued that the current structure raises questions about their independence, though he did not voice similar objections to industry-funded scientists.

Among the expected appointees are sharp proponents of deregulation who have argued both in academic circles and while serving in government that federal regulators need to raise the bar before imposing new burdens on the private sector.

Anne Smith, who serves as managing director of NERA Economic Consulting and co-heads its environmental practice, belongs to a firm that has done extensive work for groups that fought the Obama administration’s regulatory agenda. In June, President Trump cited a report NERA produced for the American Council for Capital Formation and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce when announcing his decision to exit the international Paris climate agreement. The report projected that meeting America’s commitment under the accord would mean “as much as 2.7 million lost jobs by 2025.”

That study was funded by the fossil fuel industry and based on several assumptions, including the idea that the United States would meet its emissions targets not by maximizing energy efficiency or other low-cost approaches but by forcing the industrial sector to cut emissions by 40 percent between 2005 and 2025. The report did not take into account potential benefits from lowered greenhouse gas emissions or technological advances that could make cutting carbon emissions cheaper. The study has been debunked by independent scientists.

November 01, 2017 10:40 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

At least three potential appointees have backgrounds working for large corporations with activities now or potentially regulated by the EPA, including the French oil giant Total, Phillips 66 and Southern Co., one the largest U.S. utilities.

The move to prohibit anyone receiving EPA grant money from serving on the board has prompted questions and criticism from independent researchers and from some of the agency’s current advisers, who noted that they follow strict ethics procedures to avoid conflicts of interest.

Robyn Wilson, an Ohio State University professor and an advisory board member who specializes in risk analysis, said in an interview “You want people there with expertise, who have experience with the issues EPA is dealing with,” Wilson said, adding that with each assignment board members must “go through a pretty elaborate conflict of interest process” to make clear that they don’t have a stake in the outcome.

Angela Nugent, who previously worked for the EPA as the designated federal officer for the board, said that the determination regarding EPA grants would differ from how the agency used to determine when a conflict of interest had occurred.

“It would be a major departure from current policy” to assume that board members have a conflict of interest merely based on their grants, she said.

In the past, Nugent said, the board has required financial disclosures from members in relation to each particular study or project on which they were advising. Determinations of conflict of interest were then made relating to the specifics of the subject matter conflicts, rather than a blanket bar because an individual had an EPA grant.

Current advisory members reached out to Pruitt on Sept. 13, formally asking him to meet with them so they could discuss his agenda and their role in advising the agency.

“Such a meeting would afford you the opportunity to highlight EPA activities and priorities and would allow for a dialogue on how best the SAB can work to ensure the highest quality science supports Agency’s policies and decisions,” wrote board chair Peter Thorne, a professor of occupational and environmental health at the University of Iowa. “The SAB stands ready to serve and encourages you to take full advantage of the vital resource we can provide.”

Pruitt never met with the group.

November 01, 2017 10:41 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

the FEC cites it right here:

https://www.fec.gov/updates/foreign-nationals/

is the FEC wewbsite fake news in TTFland?

November 01, 2017 10:49 PM  
Anonymous Just Askin' said...

OK thanks anon, though I had already read the part of the law explaining that. If you would read it you will see that the Clinton campaign did not violate any of those regs. So thanks again, man you really had scared the pants off me! I was terrified that Hillary was going to go to jail! Terrified, I tell you.

Let's see, just for fun, look up "treason." No, start with "nepotism." Or "emolument," that might be a good start. Is there a law about that?

November 01, 2017 11:01 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"This is pure bullshit, anon. Hillary isn't going to be charged with anything. She hasn't broken any laws."

didn't she funnel campaign money to foreign nationals?

isn't that illegal?

didn't she fail to report it?

isn't that illegal?

"And of course reporters should not have to disclose their sources, unless we were Nazi Germany or something. Stalin's Russia maybe, if you prefer."

I was only asking because some stupid TTFer was asking for the identity of a source in an article

I completely agree that reporters shouldn't have to reveal sources

"There is a problem with, uh, treason in the White House, which we will be hearing more and more about."

Article III, Section 3, of the Constitution:

“Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort."

who did that?

"Sorry man, your fake news and screaming "lock her up" will not cover the stink of your corrupt president and his criminal gang."

she'll probably just get a fine or something

the President and his "gang" haven't broken any laws

Mueller's been at this a while and has yet to find a thing

I know that's hard for you to live with

after all the lies you've swallowed

"You are not distracting anybody who matters, just maybe some of those dumb shits who still think Trump will MAGA."

is that anger I detect?


November 01, 2017 11:04 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"I was terrified that Hillary was going to go to jail! Terrified, I tell you."

why? are you on the Foundation payroll?

"Let's see, just for fun, look up "treason.""

yes, explain how Trump can commit treason when we're not at war

I know you guys don't support much of the Constitution but it's still the law unless you find a way to amend it

November 01, 2017 11:09 PM  
Anonymous Don't Tread on Lefties said...

You gotta admit it is funny, if you google that election law all you find is a bunch of rightwingers yelling that Hillary was violating it by subcontracting a British investigator. Anon even posted a summary of the law, apparently without reading it. Ain't in there.

I haven't checked yet this morning, have they unsealed any more indictments today?

November 02, 2017 7:37 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Not yet, but the canaries are singing to Mueller!

November 02, 2017 7:40 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"is that anger I detect?"

troll (/ˈtroʊl/, /ˈtrɒl/) is a person who sows discord on the Internet by starting quarrels or upsetting people

November 02, 2017 7:42 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

did you guys figure out yet how trump could have committed treason when we're not at war with anyone?

well, technically. we're still at war with North Korea, just having a year truce

you think maybe the whole nuclear think is a ruse and he's really plotting with Kim Jum-dum whatever?

November 02, 2017 8:40 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"There is a problem with, uh, treason in the White House, which we will be hearing more and more about."

still waiting for TTF to explain this

Article III, Section 3, of the Constitution, affirmed by Justice Marshall two hundred years ago when Aaron Burr was on trial for treason because his political enemies thought his dealings with Britain and Spain were suspicious, says:

“Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort."

Marshall ruled that because Burr had not committed an act of war, he could not be found guilty; the First Amendment guaranteed Burr the right to voice opposition to the government. To merely suggest war or to engage in a conspiracy was not enough. To be convicted of treason, Marshall ruled, an overt act of participation must be proven with evidence. Intention to divide the union was not an overt act: "There must be an actual assembling of men for the treasonable purpose, to constitute a levying of war." Marshall narrowly construed the definition of treason provided in Article III of the Constitution; he noted that the prosecution had failed to prove that Burr had committed an "overt act," as the Constitution required.

so, let is know how Trump committed treason

I know you guys aren't the brightest bulbs in cyberspace so I'll wait for you to come up with something. The crickets are getting mighty tired, though, with this chirping they got to do

November 02, 2017 1:06 PM  
Anonymous ha-ha said...

mighty tired

November 02, 2017 1:08 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Scott Pruitt’s Professor Regrets ‘Unleashing’ EPA Chief On 'Unsuspecting Public’

Scott Pruitt, the head of the Environmental Protection Agency, is nothing if not lawyerly. As Oklahoma’s attorney general, he waged war against Obama-era environmental rules by arguing on technicalities. He billed himself as a “leading advocate against the EPA’s activist agenda.”

Since taking over the agency he sued more than a dozen times, he has defended the Trump administration’s deregulatory campaign in complex legalese, arguing that the issue is not how best to protect the environment and public health, but how to adhere to his narrow interpretation of the EPA’s mandate under the law. He even thanked a Time Magazine reporter for calling him “lawyerly” in an interview last month.

For that, Rex J. Zedalis, who taught Pruitt at the University of Tulsa’s law school in the early 1990s, said he has “tossed and turned” for “countless nights.”

“I confess regret for whatever small role I played in unleashing Administrator Pruitt on the unsuspecting public,” Zedalis wrote in an Op-Ed published Monday in The Santa Fe New Mexican. “Surely I’m at least partially to blame for failing to nurture in him a deep regard for seeing law as an instrument for addressing real facts on the ground, not simply implementing a political ideology, regardless the facts.”

He pointed to Pruitt’s proposal to repeal the Clean Power Plan, the sweeping set of Obama-era regulations meant to curb planet-warming emissions from the utility sector. While still at his Oklahoma post, Pruitt persuaded the Supreme Court to issue a stay on the plan last year, so it never went into effect. Since becoming EPA’s chief under President Donald Trump, Pruitt submitted a policy to eliminate the Clean Power Plan without replacing it, a move critics said demonstrated his intention to cripple efforts to curb climate change rather than refine the legal framework through which that action is taken.

“I understand why Obama’s environmental measures seem objectionable to Administrator Pruitt,” Zedalis wrote. “What I fail to comprehend, though, is his utter disregard for tailoring EPA regulatory actions so they address the environment as facts demonstrate we find it, not as we imagine it.”

He said Pruitt’s attempts to unravel climate regulations are rooted in a refusal to acknowledge the overwhelming evidence that climate change is dangerous, human-caused and addressable. Ninety-seven percent of peer-reviewed research agrees with the conclusion that factors including the burning fossil fuels are warming the planet with greenhouse gases. And a research review published last November found significant flaws in the methodologies, assumptions or analyses used by the 3 percent of scientists who found otherwise.

“What affords all of us, including Administrator Pruitt, the chance to blithely live regret-free is the fact we never live long enough to witness the full effect of many of our decisions,” Zedalis wrote. “As discomforting as it might be to accept consensus decisions of the scientific community on particular matters, the alternative raises the specter of regression to the Dark Ages’ reliance on the shaman and the soothsayer.”

The EPA did not immediately respond to a request for comment from Pruitt.

November 02, 2017 1:25 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

got a nice chuckle this morning reading the paper

the State of Maryland has closed a bike trail here in Montgomery Co to build a monorail from Bethesda to PG County

a group of citizens is trying to stop this waste of money, and I'm on their side

they had their day in court yesterday and this is where the humor begins

the judge in the case is MERRICK GARLAND

if Hillary has won, he'd be part of history, sitting on the SCOTUS

now, he just listens to arguments about a neighborhood bike path

man, he must detest her for screwing up his life

if only she had gotten off her petard and campaigned in Wisconsin and Michigan on the final weekend, he'd be one of the most powerful guys in the country

meanwhile, much like OJ Simpson, she's written a book about WHAT HAPPENED and goes on the talk show circuit, livin' it up

oh well, Merrick's just another victim of the Clintons

all liberals can sympathize!!

Back in his original 9PM ET timeslot, Sean Hannity’s Fox News Channel program was the most-watched cable news program for the month of October, delivering 3.2 million total viewers and 686K in the 25-54 news demographic. In total viewers, that’s Hannity’s second largest haul ever, and up 15% compared to same month last year. In the demo, Hannity jumped 27% in its first full month back at 9 PM

Hannity was sent back to 9 PM to battle MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow Show, which had risen to the top of the cable news ratings ladder. Maddow’s October’s stats – 2.5M viewers and 558K news-demo viewers – put her in third place, also behind FNC’s 8 PM ET Bill O’Reilly replacement Tucker Carlson Tonight (2.82M viewers, 581K news demo viewers).

third place, you say?

ha-ha

November 02, 2017 2:01 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

November 02, 2017 2:04 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

the way I look at it, the election was basically Garland v Goresuch, and so the Constitution won

even if Hillary had gotten off her petard, instead of having a pajama party with Huma, where they prank called Anthony and Bill while eating carryout and watching romcoms, people in the Midwest weren't going to vote for that crap

of course, some of us are mighty glad Hillary met Huma

mighty glad!

November 02, 2017 2:14 PM  
Anonymous ol' glory said...

looks like the NFL will pay for insulting America:

NFL league owners who have been enjoying taxpayer help in building stadiums over the years would take a serious hit from House Republicans’ new tax overhaul.

The GOP plan would prohibit professional sports stadiums from taking advantage of tax-exempt bonds, which state and local governments often float for important public works projects.

Generally used for roads, hospitals and the like, a number of communities have extended them to help out sports teams, usually as a way of enticing a team to stay in a community.

Axing the break would save $200 million over the next decade, according to early estimates.

Teams across the pro sports spectrum have taken advantage of the credit, but NFL owners have come under intense scrutiny for their use of the credit this year as players have protested during the national anthem.

November 02, 2017 2:18 PM  
Anonymous big and tasty said...

over in virginia, the Dems are gettin' scared

mighty scared!!

"We're less than a week from Election Day in Virginia. Everything we do in these next five days will determine if Ralph Northam, Justin Fairfax, Mark Herring, and Democrats running for Virginia's House of Delegates win or lose.

That's why we need every Democrat who can spare a couple of hours to volunteer, so we can get out the vote in Virginia -- including you.

Sign up to canvass with us this weekend:"

November 02, 2017 2:31 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Only a racist would oppose the symbolic protests by NFL players about the disproportionate police shooting of unarmed black people compared to unarmed white people.

Trump is opposed to these peaceful protests not only because he's a racist, but also because the NFL turned him down when he was seeking to buy an NFL team. He's attacking the NFL because he's a racist and he's got a grudge against them.

November 02, 2017 2:34 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Trump's pick for NASA chief has an appalling record on LGBTQ rights, and that matters for the space agency

Virtually ever person Trump has appointed to a government position has promoted hatred and oppression against LGBT people. Its clear that being an anti-gay extremist is a job qualification Trump insists on.

But hey, he's "the most gay friendly presidential candidate ever", amirite?

Hey Wyatt, you said Trump is "gay friendly" despite opposing marriage by gays, increasing the ability to discriminate against gays, banning transgender military service, preventing transgender students from using the bathroom they want, etc. because he "treats gays like real people unlike Democrats".

I'm having a hard time envisioning that, can you give us some examples of Trump "treating gays like real people" that make up for all the anti-gay things he's doing?

November 02, 2017 2:42 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Only a racist would oppose the symbolic protests by NFL players"

or maybe someone who a mind and figured out that the national anthem had nothing to do with some redneck local cops

"about the disproportionate police shooting of unarmed black people compared to unarmed white people."

uh, duuh...

most crime happens in predominantly black areas

the number of blacks killed by cops has been falling for years, however

while the number of blacks that kill other blacks is exploding

why?

kills have pulled back on enforcement of laws in those areas because of media and fringe groups attacking them

maybe someone should protest all those blacks killing other blacks, and demand an end to the violence

"Trump is opposed to these peaceful protests not only because he's a racist, but also because the NFL turned him down when he was seeking to buy an NFL team."

this is lie

let's make it Priya's lie of the day

"He's attacking the NFL because he's a racist and he's got a grudge against them."

whatever the reason, the NFL is in big trouble now

there ratings are already falling fast

and now they won't get rich on taxpayers' money

great, a place where blacks can become millionaires and Colin Capnik has messed it up

and he wonders why no one will hire him

"If the Democrats’ strategy for winning the governor’s race in Virginia is to convince people that Ralph Northam can lose, they are doing a really good job.

I am worried they are right. My inbox has been flooded with increasingly hysterical messages warning that the race is tight — messages that were meant as a hedge against complacency when it wasn’t.

This race was supposed to be a relatively easy win for Northam.

Remember that Virginia is an increasingly blue state; Northam is cut from the same moderate Democratic cloth that Virginians have favored recently; lobbyist Ed Gillespie faced a fractured Republican Party to mend and the plunging fortunes of President Trump to defend.

Let’s try to understand why Gillespie now seems to be closing the gap,.."

read more about the latest humiliation coming for Dems:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/wp/2017/11/01/can-ralph-northam-hold-off-ed-gillespies-surge-in-virginia/?utm_term=.feeb5402f30b

November 02, 2017 3:09 PM  
Anonymous Dear America: Hillary is unethical. Sincerely, Dem Party Chair said...

hey, look:

Donna Brazille, former chair of the Dem party say Hillary is unethical

she must be fake news:

"Hillary Clinton’s campaign took over the Democratic National Committee's funding and day-to-day operations early in the primary season and may have used that power to undermine her rival Senator Bernie Sanders, according to the party's one-time chairwoman.

The DNC official, Donna Brazile, wrote in Politico Magazine on Thursday that she discovered an August 2015 agreement between the national committee and Clinton’s campaign and fundraising arm that gave Clinton “control (of) the party’s finances, strategy, and all the money raised” in exchange for taking care of the massive debt leftover from President Barack Obama’s 2012 campaign.

It wasn't illegal, Brazile said, "but it sure looked unethical."

"If the fight had been fair, one campaign would not have control of the party before the voters had decided which one they wanted to lead," Brazile wrote. "This was not a criminal act, but as I saw it, it compromised the party’s integrity."

Brazile wrote that she had “promised” Sanders to find out if the DNC had intentionally “rigged” the primary system in order to prop up Clinton and assure she became the nominee. That assertion first popped up after the DNC’s emails had been published online and showed former DNC Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz and others may have tipped the scales for the Democrat Clinton versus Sanders, an independent seeking the Democratic Party nod.

Brazile, a former CNN contributor who was later dismissed after it was discovered she had forked over debate questions to Clinton’s campaign, claimed when she took over as party chairwoman, the DNC was $24 million in debt. Clinton’s campaign, according to Brazile, assumed that debt with its own fundraising.

Normally, candidates take over their respective party’s operations after securing the nomination, but Brazile wrote Clinton had done so almost 15 months before last year’s election.

November 02, 2017 3:19 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

I said "Trump is opposed to these peaceful protests not only because he's a racist, but also because the NFL turned him down when he was seeking to buy an NFL team."

In a frequent case of psychological projection Wyatt/bad anonymous said "this is lie"

Of course as regular readers of Teach The Facts know I have a long history of honesty while Wyatt/bad anonymous's motto is "there are many situations where its appropriate to lie". So, no surprise here, its me telling the truth yet again and Wyatt/bad anonymous lying

November 02, 2017 3:25 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Robert Reich: Hello Trump Tax Cuts For The Rich, Goodbye Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security. . . .

The goal of Trump and the Republican leaders is to pull off a giant redistribution of over $1 trillion from the middle class, working class, and poor to the rich, who are already richer than ever.

They’re selling this to the public with a false claim that the middle class will benefit from their tax cut plan. It’s a gigantic Trojan horse.


For most Americans, the proposed tax cuts are tiny and temporary. That’s right – temporary. They will shrink in just a few years. And some middle class Americans will actually get a tax increase.

Meanwhile, the top 1 percent will get a gigantic tax cut. The Tax Policy Center estimates that the current plan will save the bottom 80 percent between $50 and $450 in taxes per year, but that it saves each person in the top 1 percent an average of $129,000 a year. For people at the very top, like Trump himself, the tax cuts are humongous. And the corporations they own will also get a massive tax cut.

Republicans say economic “growth” will pay for the tax cuts, so there’s no need to cut social programs like Medicare and Medicaid.

But Republicans have just passed a budget that would cut nearly $1.5 trillion from Medicare and Medicaid to pay for these tax cuts. Pell Grants, housing assistance, and even cancer research are also on the chopping block.

Now, they say we shouldn’t take their budget resolution seriously. It was just a device to get the tax bill through the Senate with 51 votes.

But once these tax cuts are passed, the budget deficit will explode. The Tax Policy Center predicts that it will cut federal revenue by $2.4 trillion over the next 10 years.

When that happens, the only way out of the crisis will be something dramatic – exactly the cuts in Medicare and Medicaid, and maybe even Social Security – that Republicans have wanted for years.

By this time, any talk of raising taxes on the rich will be dismissed.

Using the promise of middle-class tax cuts as a Trojan horse for a tax windfall for the rich and deep spending cuts is a tactic dating back to the Reagan administration.

But the version they’re aiming for now is “YUGE.”

We must see the strategy for what it is. And it must be stopped."

Edit: [The extra money going to corporations and the very rich effectively get's removed from the economy as the wealthy already have far more than they spend. Extra money for corporations won't be given to the workers, it'll be used to line the pockets of the owners and executives and/or be used to eliminate jobs through automation further increasing the income of the wealthy. Low income people spend all their money, if the tax cuts went to them it would stimulate the economy and create jobs instead of eliminating them.]

November 02, 2017 3:27 PM  
Anonymous Don't Tread on Lefties said...

Anon, it is fascinating to observe your fascination with President Clinton's (mostly imaginary) flaws and weaknesses.

Did you realize a different guy actually won the election, and that the people surrounding him are being picked off by a special prosecutor, one by one, and served federal criminal indictments? "Conspiracy against the United States," some of them are charged with -- former staff and advisers to the freakin' president of the United States! And you want to argue about something President Clinton did that somebody said "looked unethical"? Hmm, a saying comes to mind, something about a timber in your own eye...

November 02, 2017 3:47 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

I said "the NFL protests are about the disproportionate police shooting of unarmed black people compared to unarmed white people."

Wyatt/bad anonymous said "uh, duuh...most crime happens in predominantly black areas".

The truth is that even taking into account the higher crime rates in black communities and adjusting for it blacks are 2.5 times more likely to be shot by police than whites.

Wyaatt/bad anonymous said "the number of blacks killed by cops has been falling for years however
while the number of blacks that kill other blacks is exploding".

As I've previously pointed out, you can never take Wyatt/bad aonymou's word for it, you need a link to a reputable source before you can know for sure - Wyatt often makes up stuff like this on the fly.

I couldn't find a long term analaysis but as of 2016 the rate of police shootings of blacks was on the rise so that contradicts Wyatt/bad anonymous's unsupported claim.

As to his claim that "the number of blacks killing other blacks is exploding", that claim is also unsupported and given his history there is no reason we should believe it.

I did some searching and the most recent I could find that was the rate of murder for blacks had the rate of murder amongst blacks declining by two thirds between 2005 and 2012

So, never believe anything Wyatt/bad anonymous posts without a link to an independent source.

November 02, 2017 4:08 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

So, yeah, once again, only a racist would oppose the NFL players protesting the disproportionate shootings of blacks by police compared to whites.

Wyatt is constantly trying to minimize and excuse the racism black people experience in the United States. Wyatt/bad anonymous is a racist.

November 02, 2017 4:10 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

The White House on Wednesday flatly denied that President Donald Trump had ever called the American criminal justice system "a joke and a laughingstock," just hours after Trump said precisely that during a televised Cabinet meeting

November 02, 2017 4:21 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Donna Brazille, former chair of the Dem party say [sic]"

Bernie "knew and I knew that the alternative [to Hilary] was a person who would put the very future of the country in peril. I knew he heard me. I knew he agreed with me..."

We all knew Trump would put the future of the country in peril.

And most of us still do: Most Americans approve of Trump-Russia probe, and nearly half think Trump committed a crime

November 02, 2017 4:27 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Firing Comey to try to stop the Russia investigation is the very definition of obstruction of justice.

November 02, 2017 5:50 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

"Firing Comey to try to stop the Russia investigation is the very definition of obstruction of justice.".

Trump said himself that's what he was doing- twice. Once in the interview with Lester Holt and once when he invited the Russians into the White house.

November 02, 2017 6:02 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

That's the one good thing about Trump - he's often too stupid to avoid admitting to his crimes.

He bragged about sexually touching women without their permission and over a dozen women came forward and said he sexually assaulted them just like that. Although most Republicans lied and claimed to believe Trump's denials even they knew he was an admitted sexual predator.

November 02, 2017 6:20 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

November 02, 2017 7:38 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"The goal of Trump and the Republican leaders is to pull off a giant redistribution of over $1 trillion from the middle class, working class, and poor to the rich, who are already richer than ever."

this is an evil statement that presumes all material wealth earned by others is the property of someone else

that's called slavery and theft

those who are capable, are expected to work and then the government extorts over more than half their earnings, and acts like it belonged to the government all along and then redistributes it to the non-working

and, then, for the ultimate in chutzpah, if the capable people suggest that they should have to give up slightly less, the thieves act like the victims are trying to "redistribute" income

the Trump tax cuts actually reverse part of a giant redistribution that is already taking place

the lowering of the corporate rate will make us competitive with the rest of the world, who all have lower tax rates than us

that will increase growth by attracting corporations to HQ here

this is so obvious, you don't need a leftist "economist" to argue you out of it
the estate tax is simple justice

you work hard all your life and should be able to direct what happens to your money when you die

it's not a freebie for the government

"For most Americans, the proposed tax cuts are tiny and temporary."
oh, I agree

but it's still less tax than we're paying now, even if the decrease is tiny

"And some middle class Americans will actually get a tax increase."

the genius of this plan is that, by limiting the state tax deduction, it will actually increase taxes on people who live in states that vote Dem

they love taxes so much, they can pay more

beautiful!

let's see if they complain

"Meanwhile, the top 1 percent will get a gigantic tax cut."

and will still pay for most of our government and private charities

why isn't that the right thing to do?

meanwhile, the lower 51% of Americans will get no tax cuts at all

thanks to George W Bush, they don't pay Federal income taxes at all

you can't cut zero

"The extra money going to corporations and the very rich effectively get's removed from the economy"

no, it doesn't

it gets invested, producing more wealth than a trip to 7-11 for fritos and chocolate milk

the only time money is removed from the economy is when the government starts lowering the deficit

November 02, 2017 7:43 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

I said "Of course as regular readers of Teach The Facts know I have a long history of honesty while Wyatt/bad anonymous's motto is "there are many situations where its appropriate to lie". So, no surprise here, its me telling the truth yet again and Wyatt/bad anonymous lying

Wyatt/bad anonymous said "that's funny, Priya, because I've noted several instances of you lying recently, including this one".

Wow, you really don't care how dishonest you look, do you? You haven't noted any instances of me lying either recently or long ago.

The link I posted shows I was telling the truth when I said Trump wanted to buy an NFL team and was rejected and he's holding a grudge about that.

And in this thread at September 12, 2016 11:06 PM Wyatt/bad anonymous said "there are many situations where lying is appropriate".

So, once again Wyatt/bad anonymous falsely accuses me of lying and I prove I'm telling the truth.

November 02, 2017 8:31 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Jeff Sessions holds investments in the privatized prison system. He is reinstituting maximum penalties for low level drug offenses. He will be personally profitting by incarcerating more individuals for longer periods of time.

Jeff Sessions - Trump appointed Swamp Monster

November 02, 2017 8:32 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Trump is Leading the Most Corrupt Administration in U.S. History, One of First-Class Kleptocrats
[Newsweek] (Click on the link to see the long but partial list of speciific examples of corruption)

He’d promised to build the wall. To make America great again. To lock her up. Now, in the last weeks of his campaign for president, Donald J. Trump needed one more stirring slogan. And since he was badly trailing Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton, it would have to be a marketing marvel worthy of Mad Men’s Don Draper, one that encapsulated the vague yet compelling promise of his candidacy—its worship of American ideals and its total break from them.

On October 17, 2016, the Trump-Pence campaign released a five-point plan for ethics reform that featured lobbying restrictions that would insulate Trump and his administration from corporate and interests. The plan was called “drain the swamp.”

Trump tried out the phrase that day at a rally in Green Bay, Wisconsin. He used it the next day at a rally in Colorado Springs, Colorado. “We’re going to end the government corruption,” Trump vowed, “and we’re going to drain the swamp in Washington, D.C.” He then recited a litany of accusations regarding Clinton and her use of a private email server, calling her “the most corrupt person to ever run for the presidency.”

“Build the wall” had been the raw opening cry of the Trump campaign. “Make America great again” was its chorus. “Drain the swamp” was its closing number. But while talk of a border wall plainly thrilled Trump, he was apparently never too worked up about the festering bog that was the nation’s capital. He said as much in an October 26 rally in Charlotte, North Carolina, in one of his unsettling bouts of honesty: “I said that about a week ago, and I didn’t like it that much, didn’t sound that great. And the whole world picked it up.… Funny how things like that happen.… So ‘drain the swamp,’ I didn’t like it. Now, I love it, right?”

November 02, 2017 8:32 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

“Drain the swamp” fit perfectly with Trump’s constant complaints about the “rigged system,” thereby excusing what some said was going to be a historic defeat. As the campaign concluded, Trump turned himself into a martyr for the cause of American democracy, waging a principled but doomed campaign.

But a funny thing happened on the way to a third Obama term. Winning endowed the things Trump said during the campaign with an import they’d previously lacked. He was, back then, a hopeless renegade, troubling but not threatening. Then, the returns from Florida and Wisconsin came in on the evening of November 8. And while many understood that his “rigged system” was just an excuse, “drain the swamp” sure sounded like a promise.

So as the presidential inauguration approached, anticipation bubbled through the sulfurous nexus of Capitol Hill politicians, special interest groups and their K Street lobbyists, the media, the establishment and just about everyone else who had dismissed Trump and his slogans as a publicity stunt. There was now a question, rather urgently in need of an answer: Was he serious about all that “swamp” stuff?

Not really, revealed former House Speaker and loyal Trump supporter Newt Gingrich, admitting to NPR on December 21 that “drain the swamp” was never a genuine promise. “I'm told he now just disclaims that,” Gingrich said a month before Trump was to assume the Oval Office. “He now says it was cute, but he doesn't want to use it anymore.”

Someone from Trump Tower must have placed an angry call, because the former speaker soon tweeted that he’d overstated the case. But that didn’t kill the story. That same day, Politico wondered if “drain the swamp” would be Trump’s “first broken promise.” It cited the access-peddling lobbying firm of Trump’s first campaign manager, Corey R. Lewandowski, as well as the consulting firm with troubling foreign ties run by his incoming national security adviser, Michael T. Flynn. “Trump and his allies have engaged in some of the same practices they accused Hillary Clinton of exploiting and vowed to change,” Politico wrote.

November 02, 2017 8:33 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Now, a year after the election—and more than a year after Trump first made that pledge to the American people—many observers believe the swamp has grown into a sinkhole that threatens to swallow the entire Trump administration. The number of White House officials currently facing questions, lawsuits or investigation is astonishing: Trump, being sued for violating the “emoluments clause” of the U.S. Constitution by running his Trump International Hotel in Washington, D.C.; Paul J. Manafort, the second Trump campaign manager, indicted on money laundering charges in late October; Flynn, for undisclosed lobbying work done on behalf of the Turkish government; son-in-law and consigliere Jared Kushner, for failing to disclose $1 billion in loans tied to his real-estate company; and at least six Cabinet heads being investigated for or asked about exorbitant travel expenses, security details or business dealings.

Trump friend Christopher Ruddy, the publisher of conservative outlet Newsmax, laughed off the suggestion that Trump would enter public service to enrich himself, as critics have suggested. At the same time, he added, "I don't think it's like they wake up in the morning and say, 'How can we drain the swamp today?'"

Ruddy thinks Trump can only do so much to fulfill his promise on ethics. "At the end of the day, the swamp rules," he told me, referencing the enormous class of unelected technocrats that will outlast Trump's presidency, as well as all the ones that come after.

But according to the presidential historian Robert Dallek, no American leader has acted with more unadulterated self-interest as Trump. Dallek says that in terms of outright corruption, Trump is worse than both Ulysses S. Grant and Warren G. Harding, presidents who oversaw the most flagrant instances of graft in American political history. Grant’s stellar reputation as a Civil War general is tarnished in part by the Whiskey Ring scandal, in which Treasury Department officials stole taxes from alcohol distillers; members of Harding’s administration plundered oil reserves in Teapot Dome, a rock outcropping in Wyoming that has lent its name to the most notorious example of government corruption in American political history. In both cases, the fault of the president was in his lack of oversight. As far as Dallek is concerned, something more nefarious is at work in the White House of Donald Trump.

“What makes this different,” Dallek says, “is that the president can’t seem to speak the truth about a host of things.” Trump isn’t just allowing corruption, in Dallek’s view, but encouraging it. "The fish rots from the head," he reminds.

November 02, 2017 8:33 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Here's the link I missed including above.

Click on it to see the long and partial list of individual cases of corruption in the Trump administration.

November 02, 2017 8:36 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

And if you want to know who the honest one is and who the liar is, note it was Wyatt/bad anonymous who had so many lying posts recently deleted Jim had to start a whole new thread to address his dishonesty.

November 02, 2017 8:41 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"The link I posted shows I was telling the truth when I said Trump wanted to buy an NFL team and was rejected and he's holding a grudge about that."

that's not all you said

is it, liar?

November 02, 2017 8:46 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

November 02, 2017 8:58 PM  
Anonymous hillary's number has come up said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

November 02, 2017 9:02 PM  
Anonymous hillary's number has come up said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

November 02, 2017 9:05 PM  
Anonymous hillary's number has come up said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

November 02, 2017 9:07 PM  
Blogger JimK said...

[JimK] did also say that any facts about Hillary's lack of integrity are, by definition, fake news

Fake news. Boom. Gone.

JimK

November 02, 2017 9:11 PM  
Blogger JimK said...

Insulting transgender person about their gender identity.

Boom. Gone.

JimK

November 02, 2017 9:13 PM  
Blogger JimK said...

Screen after screen of opinion copied and pasted from some righwing source.

Boom. Gone.

JimK

November 02, 2017 9:24 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

gee, what a wiolent blog

good news, the Washington Post poll out tonight says only 19% of Americans think there is solid evidence that Trump committed criminal activity in connection with Russian attempts to influence the election

you can only imagine who this lonely 19% are

certainly it includes TTFers, any survivors of the Manson family, Harvey Weinstein, Bill Clinton and Anthony Weiner, the Unabomber, Barbra Streisand, Tim Kaine, Colin Kapernik...

but that's not 19%

who else do you think believes this?

November 02, 2017 9:28 PM  
Anonymous Don't Tread on Lefties said...

Oh you must mean this story in the Post: Post-ABC poll: Most Americans approve of Trump-Russia probe, and nearly half think Trump committed a crime

November 02, 2017 9:35 PM  
Anonymous what is the definition of is? said...

unfortunately, all we have left in this country is either left-wing or right-wing sources

if you don't consider both, and consider the angle of both, you'll never know truth

as the actions of Tony Podesta this week demonstrate, Mueller is also looking the activities of Dems

this will be fun

and, remember, if it wasn't for a right-wing blog, no one would today know who Monica Lewinsky is

November 02, 2017 9:36 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Oh you must mean this story in the Post: Post-ABC poll: Most Americans approve of Trump-Russia probe, and nearly half think Trump committed a crime"

that's the one I mean

did you read that only 19% thinks there's solid evidence?

the rest only suspect

of course, they suspect a lot about Hillary too but, as Jim said the other day, it's just a vast right-wing conspiracy that keeps saying this so after a while everyone believes it's true

come to think of it, doesn't the same apply to Trump?

btw, treadster, out of curiousity, are you new here or are you just using a consistent handle now?

November 02, 2017 9:41 PM  
Anonymous Captain Obvious said...

People who have been around since the Reagan years know that cutting taxes has never produced the dramatic growth and reinvestment that Republicans always claim it will.

It looked like it might in the 90's, but now we know that was just an over-inflated bubble, not real investment that would secure our future.

Republicans like to tout how Ronnie turned around our economy, but that was actually thanks to classic Kensian policies out forth by Paul Volker - raising interest rates to stop stagflation, and massive government spending (on the military) to goose the economic engine.

But Keynes would have argued to pay down the debt after Reagan had tripled it, and the economy got going again. Instead, the lesson that Republicans took from that is "Reagan proved deficits don't matter." At least when a Republican gets in the white house. When a Democrat gets in the same office though, all if the sudden "Spending is out of control! We have to slash spending (except for the military of course) or the Democrats will destroy our economy!"

Kansas has learned the hard way that the Republican religion of cutting taxes and services leaves you with nothing but deficits and a bunch of under-educated people who can't find jobs.

Cutting corporate taxes has only led companies here to invest in new jobs in China.

California has some of the highest taxes in the country, yet it still manages to stay in the top 10 GDPs on the planet. Kansas has 7.5% of the population of California, but only 6.5% of its GDP, despite significantly lower corporate tax rates.

So how does this seeming defiance of Republican "logic" happen?

Simple.

Companies don't want to pay any taxes, period. In places where there are higher taxes, they avoid them by investing more in their companies and paying their employees more, bringing their "net" profit as close to zero as possible to avoid paying those taxes. When taxes are low, the CEOs take the profits out as cash and put it in their pockets.

Google "productivity vs wages" to see how much the American worker has lost in the past 40 years. Where did all that money go?

Google "CEO compensation yearly" or "CEO pay comparison" to get an idea of where all that money went.

It was the middle class that made America great, when they had wages to build new homes, buy new cars every few years, go on vacations, and build pension and retirement funds.

Giving corporations and their CEOs more tax breaks will only exacerbate the income inequality, and lead us to a feudal system where there are rich CEOs doling out a handful of jobs to poor, desperate workers.

This is the system they prefer. That's why they moved jobs to China. Now that China's workers have gotten more expensive, they have moved some of their production facilities to even poorer countries.

November 02, 2017 9:48 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Great post good anonymous!

That's the problem with lowering taxes for the rich, it either goes straight into the pockets of the wealthy or is used to eliminate higher paying American jobs. The wealthy don't spend anywhere near the total amount of money they have, it essentially gets taken out of the economy. Lower income Americans spend all they get so giving them the tax cuts results in all that money being spent and improving the economy.

November 03, 2017 12:23 AM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

I see Wyatt/bad anonymous is still lying about Hillary and pretending she's done something wrong. Republicans have spent decades and millions upon millions of dollars in dozens of investigations trying to find something, anything, on Hillary and have failed at every turn. There just isn't anything she's done wrong. If there was they would have found it by now - they've got nothing but allegations and that's all they'll ever have, she's obviously squeaky clean unlike the popular vote losing admitted sexual predator who wouldn't release his tax returns because of all the corruption it would expose.

November 03, 2017 12:28 AM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

JimK said...

Insulting transgender person about their gender identity.

Boom. Gone.

JimK

Thanks Jim :)

November 03, 2017 12:29 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Since her defeat in the 2016 election, Hillary Clinton is no longer the world’s second most powerful woman.

In fact, the former presidential candidate fell down 63 spots all the way to number 65 on the Forbes Magazine list.

British Prime Minister Theresa May has taken over the number 2 spot. Maintaining the number one spot for another year is German Chancellor, Angela Merkel.

New to the world’s most powerful women’s list is Ivanka Trump at number 19. That would be 44 slots ahead of Hillary.

Somewhere Merrick Garland is saying "Yay!!"

November 03, 2017 9:44 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Blogger Priya Lynn said...
JimK said...

Insulting transgender person about their gender identity.

Boom. Gone.

JimK

Thanks Jim :)"

So touching.

Even if you live in a world of science-based inconvenient truth, and reality relentlessly closes in on you, day after day, TTF will provide a war and welcoming home for your fantasies.

Thanks, Jim.

November 03, 2017 9:48 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"People who have been around since the Reagan years know that cutting taxes has never produced the dramatic growth and reinvestment that Republicans always claim it will."

growth was much higher in the quarter century preceding Obama than it wab=s during his lame term

and, now, it's returned to above 3%

numbers speak for themselves

"Republicans like to tout how Ronnie turned around our economy, but that was actually thanks to classic Kensian policies out forth by Paul Volker - raising interest rates to stop stagflation, and massive government spending (on the military) to goose the economic engine."

During Obama's term, inflation and interest rates were non-existent and government spending doubled the debt, making Reagan's budgets looked balanced by comparison. No KEYNESIAN effect occurred and growth averaged 2%, compared to over 3% averaging all the times he was out of office, including now.

"Kansas has learned the hard way that the Republican religion of cutting taxes and services leaves you with nothing but deficits and a bunch of under-educated people who can't find jobs."

You keep pointing to one lone example. Try Maryland. Here, O'Malley came in promising to raise only millionaires' taxes. But, as Margaret Thatcher famously said, "the problem with socialism is that you soon run out of other people's money. Soon, O'Malley was raising evry tax in sight. We had to get rid of him before he basically taxed away the whole GDP. Now, Maryland has a sane GOP governor and is back.

"California has some of the highest taxes in the country, yet it still manages to stay in the top 10 GDPs on the planet."

Of course it does. It's the most populous state in the most wealthy country in the world.

"Kansas has 7.5% of the population of California, but only 6.5% of its GDP, despite significantly lower corporate tax rates."

California has many natural advantages that make it much different than Kansas. They also have a very sharp governor. I told you guys to nominate him rather than Hillary but you wouldn't listen.

"Companies don't want to pay any taxes, period. In places where there are higher taxes, they avoid them by investing more in their companies and paying their employees more, bringing their "net" profit as close to zero as possible to avoid paying those taxes. When taxes are low, the CEOs take the profits out as cash and put it in their pockets."

CEOs have enormous portfolios invested in companies. None keep their assets in their pockets. And most investments aren't tax deductible.

"It was the middle class that made America great, when they had wages to build new homes, buy new cars every few years, go on vacations, and build pension and retirement funds."

the new bill lowers their taxes a bit

to be clear, are you advocating a big middle class tax cut, bigger than Trump's?

"Giving corporations and their CEOs more tax breaks will only exacerbate the income inequality, and lead us to a feudal system where there are rich CEOs doling out a handful of jobs to poor, desperate workers."

This is the system they prefer. That's why they moved jobs to China. Now that China's workers have gotten more expensive, they have moved some of their production facilities to even poorer countries."

they have moved out of the US because we have the highest corporate tax rate in the world

November 03, 2017 10:12 AM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Wyatt/bad anonymous said "They have moved out of the US because we have the highest corporate tax rate in the world".

Like most of what Wyatt/bad anonymous posted, that is not true. Chad has a corporate tax rate of 40% and the United Arab Emirates has a 55% corporate tax rate compared to the U.S. statutory rate 0f 35% with other taxes bringing it to 39.1% which would be one of the highest rates in the world if that's what corporations actually paid

The 39.1% figure is what Republicans like to assert is the highest tax rate in the world but that is highly deceptive. Various loopholes and deductions bring the effective U.S. tax rate down to 25.5% which is about average for the world

This is standard operating procedure for Republicans and Fox news. They regularly make statements that are highly deceptive at best and outright lies at worst and repetitively flood the airwaves with these false and deceptive claims.

In this rare instance I don't even think Wyatt/bad anonymous is being intentionally deceptive, he's just sorely mistaken due to the constant repetition of this highly deceptive claim just like so many other Americans.

November 03, 2017 1:59 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Trump talked about sending the NYC terrorist to Guantanimo Bay which would be a bad idea. The military courts have a terrible record of getting convictions on Guantanimo Bay inmates while the civilian courts in the States are batting near 100% in getting terrorism convictions. Trumps reckless tweeting calling for the death penalty for the accused and so on makes the prosecution harder as it allows the defense to argue that high level government officials using powerful platform to influence the public makes it impossible for the accused to get a fair trial - Trump needs to shut the hell up.

November 03, 2017 1:59 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Trump The Hypocrite Already Urging Policy Changes After NYC Terrorist Attack -- Without Waiting For 'The Facts'

WASHINGTON ― President Donald Trump on Wednesday morning was quick to call for policy changes in response to Tuesday’s deadly terrorist attack in New York City ― blaming one of his frequent critics, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), and urging more stringent immigration measures.

Trump’s tweets ― which appeared to reference a segment on “Fox & Friends” that aired just 20 minutes before, featuring his former adviser Sebastian Gorka ― follow a pattern of him calling for political solutions in response to terrorist attacks, particularly those committed by Muslims.

Yet following the mass shooting in Las Vegas last month, White House officials insisted it was “premature” to discuss politics and dismissed calls to re-evaluate gun legislation.

Press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders claimed it was necessary to “know all of the facts” before bringing up policy — despite all the times the president has hastily proposed policy changes in the wake of attacks, sometimes without waiting for details.

Schumer alluded to that hypocrisy in his response to Trump’s tweets Wednesday morning.
"I guess its not too soon to politicize a tragedy".

Hours after the attack, Trump on Tuesday evening called on his administration “to step up our already Extreme Vetting Program,” referring to the travel ban targeting a number of Muslim-majority countries. However, that ban does not apply to Uzbekistan, the country from which the suspect emigrated.

Following several attacks in London earlier this year, Trump immediately promoted the travel ban and launched into a feud with the city’s mayor, Sadiq Khan, who is Muslim.

He has responded in a similar fashion to a litany of other attacks, quickly declaring a link to “radical Islamic terrorism,” sometimes before it was clear whether the assailant actually had ties to extremist groups.

But after this summer’s violence in Charlottesville, Virginia ― where 32-year-old Heather Heyer was killed in a vehicular attack while protesting white supremacism ― Trump was reluctant to condemn the white nationalists and neo-Nazi groups who’d gathered in the city with torches, instead blaming “both sides.”

When asked why he took days to issue a firm denunciation (which he later walked back), Trump said: “I don’t want to go quickly and just make a statement for the sake of making a political statement. I want to know the facts.”


So, yeah, when its a white supremacist killing people or a mass shooting Trump wants to wait carefully and get the facts so he doesn't make a hasty statement but when its a Muslim killing people immediate statements and policy change are called for.

Over 500 people were shot in Las Vegas. Republicans and Trump as usual said at the time it was too soon to talk about gun control and policy change but now a month later they still have nothing to say.

Hypocrites in the extreme!

November 03, 2017 2:06 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

November 03, 2017 2:08 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Yeah, they got something on Al Capone and sent him to jail, they've got nothing on Hillary because she's obviously squeaky clean.

November 03, 2017 2:13 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

32,000 Americans killed by guns every year and for Trump and Republicans its never the time to talk about doing something about it.

Because for them lives mean nothing compared to the mandate of spreading guns as far as possible even allowing the mentally ill to buy them.

November 03, 2017 2:15 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"she's done something wrong. Republicans have spent decades and millions upon millions of dollars in dozens of investigations trying to find something, anything, on Hillary and have failed at every turn. There just isn't anything she's done wrong"

not according to Elizabeth Warren and Donna Brazille

are they part of that vast right-wing conspiracy now?

"Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) said “yes,” she believes the 2016 Democratic nomination for president was rigged in favor of Hillary Clinton, and that the party faces “a real problem” in dealing with the fallout from the revelation that Clinton’s campaign secretly took over control of the Democratic National Committee in 2015.

Responding to the disclosure by Donna Brazile, who became interim chairwoman of the DNC as last year’s election approached, Warren told CNN’s Jake Tapper on Thursday that Democratic leaders must restore faith in the party’s operations.

“What we’ve got to do as Democrats now is hold this party accountable,” Warren said,"

btw, Capone took decades to catch and was only convicted of tax evasion

just like Hillary

November 03, 2017 2:34 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

sooner or later Hillary gets on everyone's bad side

the world's against her

November 03, 2017 2:47 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Wyatt/bad anonymous said "sooner or later Hillary gets on everyone's bad side the world's against her"

LOL, the majority of American voters picked her to be president and even most Republicans would admit Trump has record low popularity around the world and Hillary is much more popular.

There he goes again, Wyatt/bad anonymous claiming reality is the opposite of what is obviously actually going on.

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!

November 03, 2017 2:56 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Trump argues he wasn't making a factual claim when he said women accusing him of sexual harrassment were liars

For at least the second time, Trump’s lawyers are trying to get a defamation suit dismissed by arguing that he was just speaking in political rhetoric rather than making a factual claim when he called women who have accused him of sexual harassment “horrible, horrible liars.”

Former Apprentice contestant Summer Zervos accused him of sexual harassment during the 2016 presidential campaign and Trump publicly called her a liar. But his attorneys now argue that “statements made in the context of a national political campaign are routinely treated as non-actionable.” Translation: He can lie with impunity during a presidential campaign and you can’t hold him accountable for it.

“All of the Statements occurred on political forums — a campaign website, on Mr. Trump’s Twitter account, in a presidential debate, and at campaign rallies — where the listeners expect to hear public debate, taken as political opinion rather than a defamatory statement.” This is a real pet peeve of mine, people who don’t make a distinction between an opinion and a factual claim. They aren’t the same thing.

You hear this in political arguments all the time, when someone will try to claim that their statements are immune to criticism and they have no need to defend the truth of their claims because it’s “just my opinion.” That’s absurd even when it does involve something that is a matter of opinion, but even more so when it involves a specific factual claim.

When all this broke last year, Trump said he was going to sue all the women who had accused him of sexual harassment, but he hasn’t. That’s par for the course for him. He likes to threaten to sue, and he often does, but not when he knows it will hurt him. And he knows that opening up discovery on those claims is going to make him look very, very bad. His attorneys are desperate to get this case dismissed for that very reason, especially in the current atmosphere of heightened attention to sexual harassment happening due to the Weinstein scandal.

November 03, 2017 2:57 PM  
Blogger JimK said...

Clinton "crime families"

Anon, I made it clear, this is not the place for fake news. If Hillary had been convicted of a crime -- if she had been charged with a crime -- after all the times the Republicans have tried to destroy her name with highly visible hearings and investigations, I'd let this pass.

The Clintons are not a "crime family" or "crime syndicate." If she was charged or convicted of something I'd let this pass. But it is pure fiction, pure libel, and TTF will not be the vehicle for it.

JimK

November 03, 2017 3:22 PM  
Anonymous Poor little rich girl said...

"New to the world’s most powerful women’s list is Ivanka Trump at number 19."

Not bad for someone this clueless:

"Ivanka Trump faced an immediate backlash online Friday after she told an audience in Tokyo that the sexual harassment of women at work should “never be tolerated.”

During her address at the World Assembly for Women, President Donald Trump’s daughter and adviser said that “all too often, our workplace culture fails to treat women with appropriate respect.”

Her well-intentioned comments didn’t garner a positive reaction, however, as many on Twitter pointed out her father’s history of misogyny and his often-demeaning attitude toward women. In particular, they cited the comments he made on the 2005 “Access Hollywood” bus ride with the show’s former host, Billy Bush:

enweer mohamed @EnweerMohamed
Replying to @Telegraph
Tell dad
4:11 AM - Nov 3, 2017

Iain McCowie @IainMcCowie
Replying to @screamingcow78 and 3 others
Maybe she can tell him the next time he says the next time he'd like to date her if she wasn't his daughter
4:20 AM - Nov 3, 2017

Linda Williams @Looby007
Replying to @FoxNews
That poor woman having a father who was recorded for all the world to hear bragging about sexually assaulting women. How hard would hat be?
3:51 AM - Nov 3, 2017

screamingcow78 @screamingcow78
Replying to @SBSNews
Right I see. Oh. @IvankaTrump maybe let your Dad @realDonaldTrump know how you feel.
4:17 AM - Nov 3, 2017

Amy ���� @AmyandColin
Replying to @SBSNews
Well she should start with her Daddy
4:05 AM - Nov 3, 2017

Joseph Christian @WriteYourWrongz
Replying to @FoxNews
Tell Twitter fingers that
3:46 AM - Nov 3, 2017

Thaddeus Arjuna @ThaddeusArjuna
Replying to @FoxNews
Unless it is my Dad....That is just Lockerroom talk and should be ignored.
3:50 AM - Nov 3, 2017
.."

November 03, 2017 4:04 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Shorter Republicans on Hillary:

"She murdered those four embassy workers! She was forcing Monica into sexual positions, while she had lesbian lovers. She placed Saddam Hussein into power, sold fully functioning nukes to osama bin laden. She performs abortions on babies hours before the women go into labor! And pays judges to let child molesters off with a warning."

November 03, 2017 4:08 PM  
Anonymous Don't Tread on Lefties said...

Priya, you forgot about the uranium.

Also, the latest, she used her political connections and power to get the Democratic Party to nominate her!!! Rigged!

November 03, 2017 4:28 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Here you go Wyatt, the latest form ThinkProgress:

The Uranium One deal approved by the Obama administration that allowed a Russian company to purchase a controlling interest in Uranium One, a Canadian mining company is frequently used by Republicans to shift the focus away from Mueller’s investigation towards the story President Trump has called “one of the biggest stories in a decade.”

Individuals like Gaetz and Gohmert argue that because Hillary Clinton was serving as Secretary of State, she approved the Uranium One sale in exchange for $145 million in donations from company investors to the Clinton Foundation.

The problem is there is very little weight behind this argument and Hillary receives none of the money donated to the Clinton Foundation

Clinton did not have the ability to either approve or veto the sale, her involvement was as one of nine cabinet members of the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS). Only the president can decide to block a sale for national security reasons. None of the other eight members or President Obama voted against or blocked the sale, and this is likely because the sale posed no national security risk.

A lot of discussion surrounding the deall focuses on an argument that Russia obtained 20 percent of the American uranium supply — in reality, it’s closer to zero. This is because the U.S. mines owned by Uranium One do not contain quality uranium and are barely used. The Russians were only interested in Uranium One to create productive Uranium mines in Kazakhstan. [edit: I've also read that by law none of the U.S. uranium can be exported]

This is how Republicans will try to distract you from Trump’s campaign manager being indicted

Look over there!

November 03, 2017 6:24 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Trump's golden shower dossier cost no where near what he claimed on Twitter

The dossier originally paid for by the Jeb Bush campaign and then later took over by the Clinton campaign cost $168,000, not the 12 million Trump claimed.


Some of the Dossier has been proven true and none of it has been proven false.

November 03, 2017 6:27 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

The New York Times - Trump Says He Knew of No Russian Ties. Documents Say Different.

November 03, 2017 6:31 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Republican House Members Think a $450K Salary is Middle Class

That's rich! Republicans suddenly believe that one percenters are barely struggling to be in the middle class, party officials revealed.

On Thursday, House Republicans issued a fact sheet about their new tax cut plan that referred to Americans earning $450,000 a year as “low- and middle-income” — even though that income level would put those taxpayers in the top 0.05% of all individual Americans.

The median household income in the United States is $59,039, after all.

The GOP made the announcement as part of the rollout of the tax cut plan, saying they would cut tax rates from 39.6 percent to 35 percent for those $450,000-earning middle class members — but the announcement was quickly overshadowed by the Republicans' bizarre understanding of wealth.

"Did somebody make a mistake?" laughed AFL-CIO Policy Director Damon Silvers when told of the income classifications by the GOP. "[Republicans] think that the income level of the top one percent is lower- and middle-class. This is a world where if you make less than $500,000, you don't exist."

There is no formal definition of the American middle class, but the Tax Policy Center puts its “middle quintile” between $48,300 and $85,600 a year.

Sixty percent of Americans say that the tax plan favors the wealthy, according to a new poll. Democrats are calling the bill a “Trojan Horse,” that helps the rich under the guise of aiding the middle class.

November 03, 2017 6:45 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

“This is a middle-class con job,” said Senator Ron Wyden of Oregon, a democrat.

It’s a bill that will “benefit the wealthy and the powerful to the exclusion of the middle class,” according to Senator Chuck Schumer of New York. He tweets "GOP argues their plan gives the middle class a tax breatk. What they won't tell you is many middle class families will see their taxes go up.". [Edit: it also will blow a 1.5 trillion dollar hole in the deficit Republicans will likely use to cut medicaid and medicare further hurting low income Americans]

Republicans are also concerned. 63 percent of Republicans believe that deficit reduction is more important than tax cuts for corporations, and 75 percent said it was more important than tax cuts for the wealthy, according to a survey.

“The optics don’t look very good...with 39.6 going to 35,” said GOP Senator David Perdue of Georgia.

Republican strategist John Weaver agreed. This “does not reflect the hopes and aspirations of Main Street Republicans around the country,” he said.

Some GOP Senators don’t mind the implications. Senator Richard Shelby of Alabama took a trickle-down approach. “People with money save money, create jobs, create risk," he said. "People with no money — I’ve been there — create nothing. You’re trying to live, to survive.”

It should be pointed out that Shelby, who has been in government since 1970 and has been a U.S. senator since 1986, has an estimated net worth of $4.2 million, according to data from Roll Call. [edit: the problem for Shelby is that wealthy Americans don't spend the tax cuts the get, they essentially remove that money from the economy whereas poor people spend everything they get and pump it back into the economy - reality is the opposite of what he claims].

November 03, 2017 6:46 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Good anonymous said "Oh you must mean this story in the Post: Post-ABC poll: Most Americans approve of Trump-Russia probe, and nearly half think Trump committed a crime"


Wyatt/bad anonymous said "that's the one I mean did you read that only 19% thinks there's solid evidence? the rest only suspect...good news, the Washington Post poll out tonight says only 19% of Americans think there is solid evidence that Trump committed criminal activity in connection with Russian attempts to influence the election"

Wyatt/bad anonymous is cherry picking the poll as he often does trying to make it sound a lot less bad than it is. 49% of Americans said he "likely committed the crime". Of those 19% say "there's solid evidence he likely committed the crime" and another 30% say they "suspect he committed the crime and its likely that he did"

November 03, 2017 6:59 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

November 03, 2017 8:04 PM  
Blogger JimK said...

Using her own email server was not a crime.

You don't get to decide whether someone has committed a crime, the prosecutor decides whether there is a possiblity of it and jury or judge decides whether it meets the criterion. There is no way you have been empowered to make that determination. No one has charged her -- the one offense you can come up with, using her own email server, is so trivial it is laughable. Fake news.

Bill obstructing justice? This is simply a rightwing talking point. Fake news.

Hillary "buying votes" : fake news.

What happens inside the DNC (or RNC) is their business. An investigation is absurd -- there is a reason we talk about "smoke filled rooms," everybody knows stuff happens in the background. Normally it is not revealed by Russian hackers. (You would have loved to hear the Republicans squawking as Trump kicked their asses one by one in the primary!) (But the Russians are hanging onto that batch of blackmails, uh, I mean emails.)

I am glad to hear that Sen Van Hollen is spending his own money on local entrepreneurs.

Fake news. Boom. Gone.

JimK

November 03, 2017 8:23 PM  
Anonymous Bill's the head of the crime family said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

November 03, 2017 8:55 PM  
Blogger JimK said...

A guy saying there is "evidence of potential violations" is not the same as saying that Hillary is a criminal. Fake news.

If classified information was mishandled it was trivial.

Hillary made a good investment in cattle futures, you say? What -- that is a crime?

Bill was impeached for lying about a personal matter. They had to get him for something and that was all they had. And his popularity ratings soared after that.

Fake news. Gone.

JimK

November 03, 2017 9:09 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Whatsa matter Wyatt? Can't think of anything to post that isn't B.S?

November 03, 2017 10:12 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Trump Spokeswoman Sanders Lies About Something We Have on Video

I’ve said many times that Trump is the most shameless liar I’ve ever encountered, but his press secretary, Sarah Huckabee Sanders, may be a close second. Here she is lying about what Trump said only 24 hours earlier, something we have on video:

“We need quick justice and we need strong justice — much quicker and much stronger than we have right now — because what we have right now is a joke, and it’s a laughingstock,” Trump said at the meeting.

The president’s remark followed a terror attack in New York City on Tuesday that killed eight people. The suspect, Sayfullo Saipov, was shot on the scene and quickly taken into custody. Authorities later found items that indicate the attack was inspired by ISIS.

A few hours after Trump’s Cabinet meeting, CNN’s Jim Acosta asked White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders, “Why did the president call the U.S. justice system a joke and a laughingstock?”

“That’s not what he said,” Sanders replied. “He said that process has people calling us a joke and a laughingstock.”

No, he didn’t. And you’re lying. Which is not a surprise, of course. You’re always lying. It’s what you are paid to do. Far more disturbing than the fact that she can look into the camera with a completely straight face and lie about something we have on video to prove she’s lying is that this is just considered normal now. His supporters not only won’t care, it won’t even register a blip on their ethical radar. Lying is now perfectly fine as long as it serves one’s favored political agenda.

November 03, 2017 10:28 PM  
Anonymous Hillary is corrupt said...

"A guy saying there is "evidence of potential violations" is not the same as saying that Hillary is a criminal. Fake news."

actually, it is

negligence is a crime when you have responsibility for maintaining the nation's secrets

it's the law

she wasn't prosecuted because of politics

"If classified information was mishandled it was trivial."

well, the Russians didn't think so

funny how easy she was to hack

"Hillary made a good investment in cattle futures, you say? What -- that is a crime?"

it wasn't just a good investment

she hit the lottery

clearly, a securities violation

"Bill was impeached for lying about a personal matter. They had to get him for something and that was all they had."

well, he made it easy

he should have resigned for having sex with a subordinate right out of school

that's what any politician would have done before him

he started the era we're in now, where politicians have no shame, and no dignity

he coarsened our public lie and our nation's history, basically our version of Henry the VIII

and he's a big hero to JK

"And his popularity ratings soared after that."

oh yeah, people loved that

next crime for Jim to rationalize and cover up:

remember when records from Hillary's law firm were under subpoena and no one could find them for two years but a maid found them lying on a table in Hillary's personal quarters in the White House with Hillary's fresh fingerprints on them?

would hold up as obstruction of justice in any court in the land

November 04, 2017 12:37 AM  
Anonymous you're in town said...

Don't let the Orwellian name of this blog, "Teach the Facts", fool you

liberals wackos come her day in, day out and post fake news

here's a whopper:

"The dossier originally paid for by the Jeb Bush campaign and then later took over by the Clinton campaign cost $168,000, not the 12 million Trump claimed."

this is a complete falsehood

Clinton and the organization she secretly bought, the DNC, paid for every cent of the dossier

the dossier was produced by a foreign national whose services were not obtained until the Clinton machine got involved

the amount paid much more than 168K

Trump always exaggerates everything, my recollection is they paid the firm 9 million, but it's not relevant

the Clinton was also a prime proponent pushing this document, which had been rejected by media outlets from every side as well as intelligence agencies

"Some of the Dossier has been proven true and none of it has been proven false."

Yeah, some of the dossier has been proven true. This is a phrase that echoes through the left-wing media but there's never any specifics about what has been proven true. If the left-wing media knew that, and it was something that hurt Trump, they'd tell us. So either the true parts are something innocuous like the dates of Trump's travels or they don't know what they're talking about.

And the allegations that Trump and Russian spy prostitutes urinate on each other will be a little hard to disprove. But you could say the same about anyone. Someone might say Priya's boyfriend urinated on Priya, and no one would be able to disprove it.

November 04, 2017 7:31 AM  
Anonymous guess who's going to extend their lease at 1600 Penn in 2020 said...

"It’s a bill that will “benefit the wealthy and the powerful to the exclusion of the middle class,” according to Senator Chuck Schumer of New York. He tweets "GOP argues their plan gives the middle class a tax breatk. What they won't tell you is many middle class families will see their taxes go up."."

And what are you not telling us Chuck?

Yes, some middle class families will see their taxes rise but they all live in New York, your constituents, or California, think Nancy Pelosi.

The limit on the state tax deduction will only cancel out the rate reduction in these highly taxed areas that voted for Hillary.

That's the genius of this tax bill. Only the people who think higher taxes are wonderful will pay higher taxes.

Everybody's happy!!

"it also will blow a 1.5 trillion dollar hole in the deficit Republicans will likely use to cut medicaid and medicare further hurting low income Americans"

this is rich

anyone want to venture how much was added to the national debt during Obama's term?

hint: it was more than the combined amount of all other Presidents in history

and it didn't even produce much growth

average of 2% during his term v. average of over 3% for all the other Presidents since 1980, including Trump

yesterday's unemployment numbers were down to 4.1%, growth is currently 50% higher than the average during Obama's term, inflation is very low

and the Post yesterday commended Trump yesterday for his choice to lead the Fed

if this keeps up, Dems will continue to stay out of power for the next eight years

so, other than upper middle class constituents of NY and Calif, there are no losers in this tax bill

and they will vote for Elizabeth Warren in 2020 anyway

after Elizabeth convenes a Senate committee to investigate Hillary's actions to disable the Democratic presidential nominating process

and

November 04, 2017 7:51 AM  
Anonymous former TTFer said...

"this is a complete falsehood"

wow, it looks like you're right

this lie about Jeb Bush must be Priya's lie of the day

November 04, 2017 7:57 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The August 26, 2015, memorandum of understanding from Clinton campaign manager Robby Mook to DNC CEO Amy Dacey details the relationship between Clinton's campaign and the DNC long before she won her party's nomination.

In exchange for Hillary for America's (HFA) helping the cash-strapped DNC raise money, the party committee agreed "that HFA personnel will be consulted and have joint authority over strategic decisions over the staffing, budget, expenditures, and general election related communications, data, technology, analytics, and research."

So, the money DNC paid to the foreign national for information from Kremlin sources was approved by Hillary since she had "joint authority" over DNC "expenditures"

Merrick Garland is fuming, Bernie Sanders is apoplectic, Elizabeth Warren is going to do something about it

November 04, 2017 8:04 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"good ol' anonymous is cherry picking the poll as he often does trying to make it sound a lot less bad than it is. 49% of Americans said he "likely committed the crime". Of those 19% say "there's solid evidence he likely committed the crime" and another 30% say they "suspect he committed the crime and its likely that he did""

the only relevant number is that only 19% thinks there's solid evidence

relevancy is not "cherry picking"

that 30% suspect he committed a crime is not relevant because of the constant misrepresentation by the media

after all, most polls show that people suspect Hillary committed a crime as well

even former Dem President Jimmy Carter agrees that the media has been biased against Trump

oh, let me guess:

that's cherry picking because the other dumb Dem president, Bill Clinton doesn't think that-

or does he?

November 04, 2017 8:11 AM  
Anonymous What C stands for said...

This is like a third-grader saying the dog ate my homework. Do you really think there is some reason Hillary Clinton is relevant at this time? Is there some reason it matters to you now?

Yes of course there is -- to draw attantion from the incompetent miscreant who was elected instead.

Reading this morning about Bergdahl. Ha -- you got Obama! He sent in men to free a prisoner of war! What an asshole! The guy turned out to be a deserter.

Court martialled him and he got no time for desertion -- no time for deserting in a time of war. Unheard of. As you know the typical response is to shoot them in the back. But you know why he got no time? It's because the President does not understand how the Constitution works or how the law works. He shot his mouth off about the case (playing to the base) and there was no way Bergdahl could get a fair trial, so the judge demoted him, gave him a dishonorable discharge, and sent him home. For deserting.

Now, anon, you have produced one of the most brilliantly stupid comments ever. According to you, the Russians hacked into Hillary's private email account and found classified material. I think you set a record for getting the most things wrong in one little comment. It is a distillation of numerous fake news stories, stunning in its ignorance and its encapsulation of a moment in history when the citizens of the US lived in a state of delusion about their political system.

November 04, 2017 9:22 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Yeah, some of the dossier has been proven true. This is a phrase that echoes through the left-wing media but there's never any specifics about what has been proven true. If the left-wing media knew that, and it was something that hurt Trump, they'd tell us."

Special Counsel Robert Mueller will continue to let you know via his indictments how much of the dossier his team has managed to prove true.

November 04, 2017 9:36 AM  
Anonymous Well lookie here said...

"The Trump administration released a dire scientific report Friday calling human activity the dominant driver of global warming, a conclusion at odds with White House decisions to withdraw from a key international climate accord, champion fossil fuels and reverse Obama-era climate policies.

To the surprise of some scientists, the White House did not seek to prevent the release of the government’s National Climate Assessment, which is mandated by law. The report affirms that climate change is driven almost entirely by human action, warns of a worst-case scenario where seas could rise as high as eight feet by the year 2100, and details climate-related damage across the United States that is already unfolding as a result of an average global temperature increase of 1.8 degrees Fahrenheit since 1900.

“It is extremely likely that human influence has been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century,” the document reports. “For the warming over the last century, there is no convincing alternative explanation supported by the extent of the observational evidence.”

The report’s release underscores the extent to which the machinery of the federal scientific establishment, operating in multiple agencies across the government, continues to grind on even as top administration officials have minimized or disparaged its findings. Federal scientists have continued to author papers and issue reports on climate change, for example, even as political appointees have altered the wording of news releases or blocked civil servants from speaking about their conclusions in public forums. The climate assessment process is dictated by a 1990 law that Democratic and Republican administrations have followed.

The White House on Friday sought to downplay the significance of the study and its findings...."

No surprise there.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2017/11/03/trump-administration-releases-report-finds-no-convincing-alternative-explanation-for-climate-change/

November 04, 2017 9:52 AM  
Anonymous tax cut mania is gripping the nation said...

you guys seem fixated on Kansas as an example

here in Maryland, we cut taxes and the economy supernovaed

Before Governor Larry Hogan, Maryland's economy ranked 49th out of 50 states. In just two and a half years, Maryland's economy is now ranked 7th best in the entire country – that's the greatest economic turnaround of any state in the nation.

Maryland went from losing 100,000 jobs under the previous administration to gaining 130,000 under Governor Hogan's leadership.

We have now completed three consecutive budgets without a single tax increase. In fact, Governor Hogan actually cut taxes – something previously unheard of in Maryland. In total, over $700 million in tolls, taxes and fees are being taken out of the pockets of government and are being put back into the pockets of hardworking Marylanders.

We are changing Maryland for the better, and we're just getting started!

November 04, 2017 10:41 AM  
Anonymous I'm with him said...

we are just getting started

November 04, 2017 10:43 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

One of the most important elections we've faced since Donald Trump took office is coming up in JUST FOUR DAYS -- ON TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 7.

The polling shows a tight and unpredictable race. Poll results are all over the map right now, but one thing seems clear: The Republican base is getting more and more fired up.

If Democrats can't turn out OUR base -- voters of color, young people and progressives -- our candidates could be in trouble.

Get Out The Vote operations in Virginia are in full swing right now, and DFA members -- along with our allies at Indivisible -- will be playing a critical role over the next four days. We're making calls specifically focusing on Black and Brown voters in Virginia and urging them to cast their ballots for our endorsed candidates for delegate on Election Day.

Can you sign up to join DFA and Indivisible for a DFA Dialer shift aimed at motivating the Democratic base during the critical Get Out The Vote period through Election Day, November 7?

No, I can't make calls now, but I will chip in $3 or more to fund DFA Dialer and all of DFA's Get Out The Vote work for progressives in Virginia now.

This election is an important test of the strength of the resistance against Donald Trump. The pundits and the media will be watching what happens in Virginia closely to determine whether or not our movement is for real.

Motivating the base is key to winning in Virginia, and one-on-one conversations are by far the most effective way of getting out the vote. Can you join us for a DFA Dialer shift during the crucial, final 4 days of this election cycle?

No, I can't make calls, but I can pitch in $3 or more immediately to fuel DFA's Get Out The Vote efforts for progressive candidates in Virginia.

These calls are so important. Thank you for signing up to help Get Out The Vote!

- Charles

Charles Chamberlain, Executive Director
Democracy for America

November 04, 2017 12:16 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

10/29-11/1 Northam by 4
10/29-11/2 tie
10/31-11/3 Gillespie by 3

I sense a pattern

in every race, big and small

the Dem is always way ahead in the polls for months

until the last two weeks, when mysteriously, the race tightens

do you ever wonder if the pollsters are just lying?

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2017/governor/va/virginia_governor_gillespie_vs_northam-6197.html

November 04, 2017 12:48 PM  
Anonymous another case bites the dust said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

November 04, 2017 1:06 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

November 04, 2017 1:17 PM  
Anonymous Looks like a Trump campaign rally said...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=367&v=MxxxlutsKuI

November 04, 2017 1:49 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home