Flynn Free, Trump Continues to March Off the Edge
The news is coming too fast and furious to blog about -- something posted in the morning is old news by afternoon. This morning Trump let go a series of Twitter statements that defy mental health. He is worse than an 8-year-old. It is pathetic. Later today a report is expected from Robert Mueller, new details about the crimes of the Trump mob family will come to light and it is actually frightening, as the stock market crashes with our international reputation and the lucidity of domestic policies and decisions.
It comes back to this video and the smug belief that they are better than the rest of us. There is no justification or even explanation for it, conservatives simply believe that they are good people and deserve power. Liberals are not just mistaken or misguided individuals, but criminals who should be jailed or shot, or thrown from helicopters. I have posted this before but you can never watch this video too much, and it is appropriate this week as we reflect on Michael Flynn's sentencing memo -- dark with redactions as multiple investigations continue. Here is Flynn at the 2016 Republican Convention, giving a speech supporting Donald Trump. Even while he was speaking, Flynn was a traitor and a criminal who was actively working to undermine the interests of the USA.
This isn't some schmoe sittin' in a bar somewhere complaining about the gummint. This is a retired Lieutenant General of the United States Army who would soon be appointed National Security Advisor to the US President, and was, while he spoke, actively working with foreign governments to sabotage American democracy. And don't forget, Trump knew all this when he appointed him National Security Advisor, he had been briefed by the Obama administration.
Flynn is leading a chant of "Lock her up," accusing Hillary Clinton of crimes involving her email use. Clinton, Trump's opponent in the election, had been under nearly constant political persecution by conservatives since the 1990s, and no matter how well-funded the Republicans were or how bloodthirsty they were to nail her on something, anything, the government repeatedly established that Hillary Clinton is not a criminal. If she had spit on the sidewalk once in the past thirty years they would have caught her at it, but there was nothing. The Republican Party was successful in creating a sort of aura of suspicion around her through a steady stream of accusations, but the worst they had was the fact she wore pant-suits sometimes, or was shrill and bitchy, that is, spoke her mind while female.
Flynn on the other hand was setting up backchannel deals with the Russians, arranging to undermine our presidential election and compromise our American sovereignty once Trump was in office. Things did not go as planned, and Flynn -- after being installed by Trump as the National Security Advisor -- has pleaded guilty of making "false, fictitious, and fraudulent" statements to the FBI.
The federal prosecutor recommended no prison time for him, which is incredible for someone who has been a leader in treason at the highest of levels of government. But Flynn talked, he talked a lot, and they are rewarding him for cooperating.
I know you've seen it, but watch this video again. Watch the face of nationalistic commitment, the eagle eyed intensity of a traitor who is arguing that his political opponent should be jailed for her beliefs. Look at how happy the Republicans are, chanting, cheering. Tearing down our country has been fun for them.
It comes back to this video and the smug belief that they are better than the rest of us. There is no justification or even explanation for it, conservatives simply believe that they are good people and deserve power. Liberals are not just mistaken or misguided individuals, but criminals who should be jailed or shot, or thrown from helicopters. I have posted this before but you can never watch this video too much, and it is appropriate this week as we reflect on Michael Flynn's sentencing memo -- dark with redactions as multiple investigations continue. Here is Flynn at the 2016 Republican Convention, giving a speech supporting Donald Trump. Even while he was speaking, Flynn was a traitor and a criminal who was actively working to undermine the interests of the USA.
This isn't some schmoe sittin' in a bar somewhere complaining about the gummint. This is a retired Lieutenant General of the United States Army who would soon be appointed National Security Advisor to the US President, and was, while he spoke, actively working with foreign governments to sabotage American democracy. And don't forget, Trump knew all this when he appointed him National Security Advisor, he had been briefed by the Obama administration.
Flynn is leading a chant of "Lock her up," accusing Hillary Clinton of crimes involving her email use. Clinton, Trump's opponent in the election, had been under nearly constant political persecution by conservatives since the 1990s, and no matter how well-funded the Republicans were or how bloodthirsty they were to nail her on something, anything, the government repeatedly established that Hillary Clinton is not a criminal. If she had spit on the sidewalk once in the past thirty years they would have caught her at it, but there was nothing. The Republican Party was successful in creating a sort of aura of suspicion around her through a steady stream of accusations, but the worst they had was the fact she wore pant-suits sometimes, or was shrill and bitchy, that is, spoke her mind while female.
Flynn on the other hand was setting up backchannel deals with the Russians, arranging to undermine our presidential election and compromise our American sovereignty once Trump was in office. Things did not go as planned, and Flynn -- after being installed by Trump as the National Security Advisor -- has pleaded guilty of making "false, fictitious, and fraudulent" statements to the FBI.
The federal prosecutor recommended no prison time for him, which is incredible for someone who has been a leader in treason at the highest of levels of government. But Flynn talked, he talked a lot, and they are rewarding him for cooperating.
I know you've seen it, but watch this video again. Watch the face of nationalistic commitment, the eagle eyed intensity of a traitor who is arguing that his political opponent should be jailed for her beliefs. Look at how happy the Republicans are, chanting, cheering. Tearing down our country has been fun for them.
posted by JimK at 10:09 AM
131 Comments:
President Donald Trump is still pushing for a border wall with Mexico, even though The New York Times revealed that his Guatemalan housekeeper at his New Jersey golf club is an undocumented immigrant.
“He never said there’d be a service entrance” in the wall so his maid can continue making his bed and ironing his boxer shorts, quipped “The Daily Show” comedian Desi Lydic.
“Good God, talk about jobs Americans don’t want to do,” piped in Trevor Noah with his new special “talking app.”..
Trump responded to the Times story by saying his housekeeper will be fired because she doesn’t have papers.
“I gotta tell you, I’m surprised,” said Lydic. “Usually if you’re a woman in Trump’s bedroom, the only document you need is a nondisclosure agreement.”
"someone who has been a leader in treason at the highest of levels of government"
could we have some details of this "treason"?
if you're going to slander an innocent man, could you at least elaborate on your lies?
as far as I can see, Flynn was an American hero persecuted by a special prosecutor channeling Robespierre
he would never have been convicted of the crime he plead to, he did so because he wasn't able to incur any further legal expenses without endangering his family's financial security
that's a flaw in our legal system that needs fixing
it's among many
when Federal prosecutors win 97% of their cases, something's wrong
btw, Mueller, in describing Flynn's help, said Flynn filled him in on conversations during the transition
not a word is mentioned about anything said during the campaign
yet another indication that Mueller has found no evidence of anything illegal in Trump's campaign
Mueller's final report, probably on January or February, will likely say that Trump may have obstructed justice by firing Comey but it depends on state of mind, which can't be ascertained
your desire to defend Hillary is quite chivalrous, Jim, but the latest polls show only 36% of Americans approve of her
maybe they know something you don't
Job growth continued in November despite the GM layoffs.
Non-farm payrolls increased by 155,000 for the month while the unemployment rate again held at 3.7 percent, its lowest since 1969, the Labor Department reported Friday.
Average hourly earnings again rose at a 3.1 percent pace from a year ago. The last year has been the best for wage growth in nine years.
Stock futures turned positive following the report.
The unemployment rate for African-Americans fell 0.3 percent to 5.9 percent, tied for its lowest on record.
The labor force participation rate was unchanged at 62.9 percent.
If you’re not a member of the Q-immunity, you might not be aware of just how important Wednesday really was. December 5 was the day. D-5 Day. The Coming of the Storm. The Avalanche of Truth. The Great Awakening. The day on which secret agent/hidden avenger/true heart of the Trump White House ‘Q’ brought down Trump’s enemies. Yesterday was the date the Deep State was ripped from its hidey hole and held up to the blinding light of righteous wrath! Right in front of the cameras of the world! Did you see it?
It’s been some months since we checked in on Bastard Son of Pizzagate. Since over that time Hillary Clinton has not been locked up and Donald Trump has inched ever closer to an orange jumpsuit, there might seem to be reasons for the Q faithful to be discouraged. But of course they are not. Because nothing says “Hi, I belong to a crazy cult” quite like the ability to reshape theories to fit any set of data.
Still, Wednesday had to be considered something of a special challenge. Under the hashtags #TheStormIsComing and #D5, Q Anon fanatics have spent weeks rubbing their hands in anticipation of the “greatest day in American history,” the day in which the veil would be removed, and everyone would learn that the Justice Department has been, all along, secretly investigating the pizza-basement-child-sex-traffic-drug-running-Deep-State ways of the Democratic Party. December 5 was supposed to be that day—the day when everyone would learn that Trump was not only right, but that there would barely be enough cells in the country to lock up all the people who needed locking.
Of course Obama and Clinton were givens for the lock-up. And everyone who ever worked at the DNC or the Obama White House or the Clinton White House. Senate Intelligence Committee Democratic leader Mark Warner? Absolutely. Didn’t you read the part where he’s a Democrat? Rod Rosenstein is also headed to jail, but not Robert Mueller because Mueller is secretly part of Team Q. All the paperwork he’s filed? Just cover to throw off the sheeple while Mueller puts “millions” of indictments in place. Of course, Mueller will have to ultimately indict Mueller because of his involvement with Clinton and Uranium One. But he’ll get a presidential pardon from Trump for his yeoman work in “distracting the Deep State and fooling the Fake News.”
Even the fact that George H.W. Bush was being memorialized on D5 didn’t cause an issue. Because, as one of the Q-messages says “what are the mathematical probabilities” that Bush should die and have his funeral on that day, and that Obama, and Clinton, and Carter, and all the rest of the dark heart of the Deep State would be so conveniently collected in one place? Even Bush’s casket, resting in the rotunda of the Capitol building, was seen as forming a “Q” as a “warning to the Deep State.” Clearly, this event was planned...
Oooo!
Q the spooky music!
No doubt it will be as highly regarded as tЯump's voter fraud commission was:
https://psmag.com/news/documents-reveal-the-flaws-of-voter-fraud-commission
https://fox61.com/2018/08/04/report-trump-commission-did-not-find-widespread-voter-fraud/
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/politics/wp/2018/08/03/the-most-bizarre-thing-ive-ever-been-a-part-of-trump-panel-found-no-voter-fraud-ex-member-says/
And after all that nothing:
Trump signs order disbanding voter fraud commission
https://www.apnews.com/b3d4e5974aba421b81763c153541ea06
Its Adam and Steve, not Adam and Eve!
"When you strike at a king you must kill him," Ralph Waldo Emerson once said. Well, this year China tried to strike at President Trump for daring to launch a trade war with Beijing -- and missed the mark entirely.
After Trump imposed massive tariffs on Chinese goods earlier this year, Beijing responded in June with what appeared to be a clever strategy: targeting retaliatory tariffs against Trump voters in rural farming communities across the United States. China is the largest importer of U.S. soybeans, buying $14 billion of them in 2017. Three of the biggest soybean-producing states, Indiana, Missouri and North Dakota, not only voted for Trump, but also in the 2018 midterms had Democratic senators who were up for reelection. If Beijing imposed painful tariffs on soybeans, Chinese leaders likely calculated, they could create a rift between Trump and rural voters who put him in the White House, give Senate Democrats a boost and force Trump to back down.
But Trump did not back down. He countered by announcing $12 billion in aid for farmers, threatened to increase his tariffs on Chinese goods and asked his rural base to stick with him while he faced down the economic predators in Beijing. That is exactly what they did. Far from abandoning the president, rural voters hurt by Chinese tariffs rallied around Trump and the GOP. They threw three Democratic Senators out of office, allowing Republicans to expand their Senate majority. And while Republicans lost control of the House, few of the GOP losses came from rural districts. Competitive rural districts mostly ended up staying Republican; it was the urban-suburban districts that flipped to the Democrats.
China's tariff ploy didn't just fail to sway the 2018 midterms; it actually backfired. The tariffs made the U.S. soybeans that China depends on more expensive, and Beijing soon found that alternative suppliers in South America could not produce enough to meet Chinese demand, leading to shortfalls.
In other words, China went for a kill shot -- and ended up shooting itself in the foot.
That has emboldened Trump in his negotiations with Chinese President Xi Jinping -- as shown by news this week that a senior executive of Chinese telecommunications giant Huawei had been arrested in Vancouver, at the request of the United States, on charges of violating sanctions on Iran. China demanded her release but nonetheless affirmed that it will still observe the 90-day tariff cease-fire Trump and Xi reached during their meeting last week in Buenos Aires -- putting off a scheduled Jan. 1 escalation of U.S. tariffs from 10 percent to 25 percent on $200 billion of Chinese goods while the two sides negotiate a deal.
Trump has leverage going into those talks. The U.S. economy is booming, while China has just posted its weakest growth in nearly a decade. Moreover, during the Group of 20 meeting in Argentina, Xi saw how Trump has been able to bend his trade rivals to his will, and deliver trade victories for his working-class political base, when he held an elaborate signing ceremony for the new U.S.-Mexico-Canada trade agreement.
China will of course be a much tougher adversary than Mexico or Canada. As my American Enterprise Institute colleague Derek Scissors points out, the Chinese Communist Party controls the economy through state ownership and massive subsidies in dozens of sectors where U.S. goods and services can't compete fairly. Lifting tariffs is easy. Getting China to change its entire industrial policy will be hard -- as will stopping China's theft of U.S. intellectual property.
But Trump knows that he has no chance of doing so by filing complaints with the World Trade Organization. So Trump is playing a game of chicken with Xi, appearing to calculate that the United States is in a better position to survive an all-out trade war. The markets panicked this week over Trump's recent pronouncement that he would be just as happy imposing tariffs as cutting a deal with China, but getting this message through to Xi is the only way to force his hand. As Trump tweeted this week, "We are either going to have a REAL DEAL with China, or no deal at all -- at which point we will be charging major Tariffs against Chinese product being shipped into the United States," adding, "remember … I am a Tariff Man."
He means it. Trump actually believes that tariffs are good for the U.S. economy. The question is whether Xi believes he believes it. The answer may determine whether we get a deal or a trade war.
December 7 at 4:04 PM
Oil prices spiked and stocks dove on Friday as uncertainty roiled global markets.
The Dow Jones industrial average slid 559 points, or 2.2 percent, to 24,388 on a disappointing jobs report Friday morning that seemed to cement worries that an economic slowdown is ahead.
The Standard and Poor’s 500-stock index was down 2.2 percent and the Nasdaq Composite retreated 3 percent Friday, adding to a wild week that has seen the major indices slide more than 4 percent. Some, like the Nasdaq, have hit correction territory. A correction is a decline of 10 percent from a 52-week high. The S&P 500 is close to that mark with a 9.5 percent decline from its recent high.
“Uncertainty remains with us, and so does the volatility,” said Michael Farr, a Washington investment manager. “We realize there is not any sort of a trade resolution with China. We aren’t any further along than we were before the G-20 meeting. But we have the added uncertainty of the president’s communication style.”
Technology and financial sectors were among the sectors that were hurt the most. Chip stocks were getting shellacked for their worst week since March. Apple dropped another 3.4 percent in afternoon trading. The iPhone maker is in retreat for the ninth of the last 10 weeks.
The siege on technology continued. IBM, Intel and Microsoft were among the biggest drags on the Dow 30, each down more than 3 percent in afternoon trading.
Kristina Hooper, global market strategist for Invesco, said a confluence of events pushed stocks lower Friday.
She singled out the labor report that showed November private-sector job gains of 155,000 versus the 198,000 that were expected.
A $34,000 debt links Republican candidate to possible election fraud in disputed North Carolina race.The New York Times is reporting that the campaign of Mark Harris, who ran for Congress as a Republican in a still unsettled race in North Carolina’s 9th district, has an outstanding debt to a consulting firm accused of illegally collecting, and possibly tampering with or misdirecting, absentee ballots. According to the newspaper, the Harris campaign “listed an obligation of $34,310 for ‘reimbursement payment for Bladen absentee, early voting poll workers; reimbursement door to door,” owed to the Red Dome Group. “Red Dome Group, in turn, contracted with L. McCrae Dowless Jr., a Bladen County political operative who has been accused of collecting absentee ballots from voters in a potentially illegal effort to tip the election toward the Republican nominee.”
This news intensifies doubts about the legitimacy of the election. On Thursday, Democratic candidate Dan McCready withdrew the concession he had previously made, saying in a statement, “I didn’t serve overseas in the Marines to come home to NC and watch a criminal, bankrolled by my opponent, take away people’s very right to vote. Today I withdraw my concession and call on Mark Harris to end his silence and tell us exactly what he knew, and when.”
https://twitter.com/McCreadyForNC/status/1070808315658190848
In a setback for Harris, Republican leaders in the state have indicated they are open to holding a new election. If there is a new election, it would have the same slate of candidates unless one of them died or moved out of state. As Gerry Cohen, a former special counsel for the North Carolina General Assembly, explained to The New York Times, if Harris didn’t want to be on the ticket he could “move to Rock Hill, S.C. or to a country with no extradition treaty.”
Self-professed neo-Nazi James A. Fields Jr. convicted of first-degree murder in car-ramming that killed one, injured dozens
CHARLOTTESVILLE — An avowed supporter of neo-Nazi beliefs who took part in the violent and chaotic white-supremacist “Unite the Right” rally in this city last year was found guilty Friday of first-degree murder for killing a woman by ramming his car through a crowd of counterprotesters.
A jury of seven women and five men began deliberating Friday morning and took just over seven hours to reach its decision that James Alex Fields Jr., 21, of Maumee, Ohio, acted with premeditation when he backed up his 2010 Dodge Challenger and then roared it down a narrow downtown street crowded with counterprotesters, slamming into them and another car. Heather D. Heyer, 32, was killed and 35 others were injured, many grievously. Fields was also found guilty on eight counts of malicious wounding.
When Fields was brought into the courtroom Friday evening, he nodded slightly toward his mother, who was sitting nearby. As the clerk read the verdict, his face betrayed no emotion.
The deadly attack in the early afternoon of Aug. 12, 2017, culminated a dark 24 hours in this quiet college town. It was marked by a menacing torchlight march through the University of Virginia campus the night before, with participants shouting racist and anti-Semitic insults, and wild street battles on the morning of the planned rally between white supremacists and those opposing their ideology.
As the sounds and images of brutal beatings, bloodied faces and hate-filled chants spread across the country and around the world, this city quickly became identified with the emergence of a new order of white supremacy that no longer felt compelled to hide in the shadows or the safety of online anonymity.
Many in their emboldened ranks shouted fascist slogans, displayed Nazi swastikas and Confederate battle flags and extended their arms in Sieg Heil salutes. Many also wore red Make America Great Again hats, saying they were encouraged in the public display of their beliefs by President Trump, who came under intense criticism when he said later that there were “very fine people” on both sides of the demonstration.
Fields’s conviction followed six days of testimony in Charlottesville Circuit Court, where Heyer’s deadly injuries were detailed and survivors of the crash described the chaos and their own injuries. Jeanne Peterson, 38, who limped to the witness stand, said she’d had five surgeries and would have another next year. Wednesday Bowie, a counterprotester in her 20s, said her pelvis was broken in six places. Marcus Martin described pushing his then-fiancee out of the Challenger’s path before he was struck. ..
Stock market yesterday - 24,344.21 −603.46 (2.42%)
You've got to appreciate the irony of the situation: the big business man overseeing the gradual slide into a recession.
The popular vote losing unindicted co-conspirator is so used to bankrupting every thing he touches.. Why would the US economy be any different??
The National Rifle Association spent $30 million to help elect Donald Trump—more than any other independent conservative group. Most of that sum went toward television advertising, but a political message loses its power if it fails to reach the right audience at the right time. For the complex and consequential task of placing ads in key markets across the nation in 2016, the NRA turned to a media strategy firm called Red Eagle Media.
One element of Red Eagle’s work for the NRA involved purchasing a slate of 52 ad slots on WVEC, the ABC affiliate in Norfolk, Virginia, in late October 2016. The ads targeted adults aged 35 to 64 and aired on local news programs and syndicated shows like Jeopardy! and Wheel of Fortune. In paperwork filed with the Federal Communications Commission, Red Eagle described them as “anti-Hillary” and “pro-Trump.”
The Trump campaign pursued a strikingly similar advertising strategy. Shortly after the Red Eagle purchase, as Election Day loomed, it bought 33 ads on the same station, set to air during the same week. The ads, which the campaign purchased through a firm called American Media & Advocacy Group (AMAG), were aimed at precisely the same demographic as the NRA spots, and often ran during the same shows, bombarding Norfolk viewers with complementary messages.“I don’t think I’ve ever seen a situation where illegal coordination seems more obvious,” says a former chair of the Federal Election Commission.
The two purchases may have looked coincidental; Red Eagle and AMAG appear at first glance to be separate firms. But each is closely connected to a major conservative media-consulting firm called National Media Research, Planning and Placement. In fact, the three outfits are so intertwined that both the NRA’s and the Trump campaign’s ad buys were authorized by the same person: National Media’s chief financial officer, Jon Ferrell.
“This is very strong evidence, if not proof, of illegal coordination,” said Larry Noble, a former general counsel for the Federal Election Commission. “This is the heat of the general election, and the same person is acting as an agent for the NRA and the Trump campaign.”
Reporting by The Trace, which has teamed up with Mother Jones to investigate the NRA’s political activity, shows that the NRA and the Trump campaign employed the same operation—at times, the exact same people—to craft and execute their advertising strategies for the 2016 presidential election. The investigation, which involved a review of more than 1,000 pages of Federal Communications Commission and Federal Election Commission documents, found multiple instances in which National Media, through its affiliates Red Eagle and AMAG, executed ad buys for Trump and the NRA that seemed coordinated to enhance each other.
Individuals working for National Media or its affiliated companies either signed or were named in FCC documents, demonstrating that they had knowledge of both the NRA and the Trump campaign’s advertising plans.
Experts say the arrangement appears to violate campaign finance laws.
“I don’t think I’ve ever seen a situation where illegal coordination seems more obvious,” said Ann Ravel, a former chair of the Federal Election Commission, who reviewed the records. “It is so blatant that it doesn’t even seem sloppy. Everyone involved probably just thinks there aren’t going to be any consequences.”.
National Media, the NRA, the Trump campaign, and the White House did not respond to multiple requests for comment. AMAG does not appear to have any employees or contacts independent of National Media; a lawyer who has been identified in news accounts as representing AMAG did not respond to multiple requests for comment.
..
Conservatism is...
People who make $700 per hour convincing people who make $25 per hour that people who make $12 per hour are the problem.
Pass it on if you're proud not to be a conservative.
Communism is...
The government intervening in employer-employee negotiations and imposing wages
Pass it on if you're proud to have a mind
Blogger Priya Lynn is...
Someone without a functioning one
Republicans Worried Trump Troubles Will Engulf Party
“A growing number of Republicans fear that a battery of new revelations in the far-reaching Russia investigation has dramatically heightened the legal and political danger to Donald Trump’s presidency — and threatens to consume the rest of the party as well,” the Washington Post reports.
“Trump remains headstrong in his belief that he can outsmart adversaries and weather any threats, according to advisers. In the Russia probe, he continues to roar denials, dubiously proclaiming that the latest allegations of wrongdoing by his former associates ‘totally clear‘ him.”
“But anxiety is spiking among Republican allies, who complain that Trump and the White House have no real plan for dealing with the Russia crisis while confronting a host of other troubles at home and abroad.”
Hee hee hee!
“A growing number of Republicans fear that a battery of new revelations in the far-reaching Russia investigation has dramatically heightened the legal and political danger to Donald Trump’s presidency"
really?
what are they?
“In the Russia probe, he continues to roar denials, dubiously proclaiming that the latest allegations of wrongdoing by his former associates ‘totally clear‘ him.”
that's dubious?
how?
“But anxiety is spiking among Republican allies,"
really?
who are these "allies"?
come on, let's hear what Trump has to worry about?
Hee hee hee!
The matter of Gen. Michael Flynn began with criminal conduct. But it was not committed by Flynn. The crimes were leaking the contents of classified telephone conversations between Flynn and Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak and revealing the identity of Flynn as a party to the conversations.
The sorry saga began with a January 12, 2017 column about the Flynn/Kislyak conversations by The Washington Post’s David Ignatius, who described his source as a “senior U.S. government official,” i.e., an Obama administration functionary. Whoever told Ignatius the fact of and substance of the eavesdropped conversations committed a felony by leaking classified information.
The second crime is publicly revealing a U.S. citizen’s identity as being a party to those conversations. When there is authorized intelligence collection of foreign officials, the identity of the U.S. person who is incidentally picked up during that collection is to be minimized (not disclosed), even within the U.S. government. Instead of the party’s name, the document substitutes “[U.S. Person].” There is a process for “unmasking”—obtaining the name of the undisclosed person--when the government official determines knowing the name is important to national security. A written request must be made to the collecting agency that is responsible for the document. Only a handful of officials are given that authority, e.g. NSA has only 20. Perhaps there was a valid need for an Obama official to know Flynn’s identity. That issue is irrelevant. Providing it to Ignatius was a crime.
In his column, Ignatius questioned whether Flynn violated The Logan Act, opining that Flynn’s discussions with Kislyak might have “undercut the U.S. sanctions.” Enacted in 1799 and last used over 150 years ago, The Logan Act prohibits (probably unconstitutionally) unauthorized U.S. citizens from negotiating with a foreign government. At the time, Flynn had been named President Trump’s national security advisor and was receiving checks as a member of the transition team. One hopes that in addition to talking to Kislyak he would also have been talking to officials from Canada, Israel, Mexico, and so on. Any thought that Flynn would be legally considered “unauthorized” to talk with foreign countries is risible.
Before Flynn flunked remembering every word of a conversation he was asked to recall weeks later, an Obama administration official had egregiously broken the national security and privacy laws. But only Flynn has been charged with a crime.
But that did not stop Obama holdover, acting Attorney General Sally Yates, from utilizing Ignatius’ suggestion of criminal culpability as a pretext to direct the FBI, without notice, to Flynn’s office to question him about the Russian conversations. Query whether Ignatius’ leaker also prompted him to include the Logan Act musings to lay a “legal” groundwork for the trumped up interview.
Not only was the basis for questioning Flynn a ruse, but more significantly the FBI did not have to ask him about the conversations to determine if there was a crime because it had the transcripts and recordings of every single word. If Flynn had committed any illegal act in the conversations, the Justice Department could have indicted him that day. But it did not. Nor did Mueller ever mention such an illegality in his December 2017 charges against Flynn for false statements.
Thus, before Flynn flunked remembering every word of a conversation he was asked to recall weeks later, an Obama administration official had egregiously broken the national security and privacy laws. But only Flynn has been charged with a crime.
Unmasking requests are documented. Should there “be a record somewhere in our system whether … an unmasking request was made” for the conversations between Flynn and the Russian ambassador, Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., inquired of then former DCI James Clapper and Yates in a May 2017 hearing. Both agreed there is a record of the name of the requestor, who could then be asked whether the information was disseminated to someone else.
Mueller should have pursued these crimes as he is authorized to investigate any crime he finds in the course of the “collusion” investigation. He has had no problem charging Paul Manafort for decades-old tax crimes and looking into former Trump lawyer Michael Cohen’s taxi medallions. Yet the crimes against Flynn have been ignored. Why?
"The federal prosecutor recommended no prison time for him, which is incredible for someone who has been a leader in treason at the highest of levels of government."
still waiting for Jim's answer about what "treason" Flynn committed
perhaps the "treason" of working to fix the mess made by emperor for life, Obama the Worst
you know, what Trump was elected to do
"The Logan Act prohibits (probably unconstitutionally) unauthorized U.S. citizens from negotiating with a foreign government."
"probably unconstitutionally" sounds like BS some conservative troll pulled out of his colon.
"Enacted in 1799" I'm betting the folks in 1799 had a whole lot better idea of what the Constitution meant than any nameless conservative troll does today.
"One hopes that in addition to talking to Kislyak he would also have been talking to officials from Canada, Israel, Mexico, and so on. Any thought that Flynn would be legally considered “unauthorized” to talk with foreign countries is risible."
"Talk" is one thing - possibly undercutting US law regarding sanctions is another matter entirely. We have law-making bodies for a reason. We don't let just anyone renegotiate treaties, laws, and sanctions willy-nilly. You have to have something called "authority." That's just basic common sense.
"Only a handful of officials are given that authority, e.g. NSA has only 20. Perhaps there was a valid need for an Obama official to know Flynn’s identity."
Oh, so you DO actually understand the concept of "authority." You just don't like it when Democrats apply it to Retardicans.
Got it.
"That issue is irrelevant. Providing it to Ignatius was a crime."
Allow me to introduce to you the Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act (WPEA):
"The Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act (WPEA) provides millions of federal workers with the rights they need to report government corruption and wrongdoing safely. The law reflects an unequivocal bipartisan consensus, having received the vote of every member in the 112th Congress, passing both the Senate and House of Representatives by unanimous consent shortly before adjournment. The WPEA can be viewed here.
For over a decade, Government Accountability Project and an expanding coalition of all ideologies fought to get this legislation passed."
https://www.whistleblower.org/whistleblower-protection-enhancement-act-wpea?gclid=EAIaIQobChMIjqCD7NKV3wIVywOGCh387w0wEAAYASAAEgJrbPD_BwE
Yeah, normally those names should be kept secret. But if say, "individual 1" is committing crimes and only a handful of people happen to know that the criminal is lining up to play an important role in the next administration, somebody in the Justice Department should know about it before more crimes are committed.
Unless of course, you LIKE criminals running the White House.
"Breeders are destroying the planet. We should shower them with free condoms and birth control pills. said... "
Very impressive commentary Good Anonymous! Its the sad and unfortunate truth that humans are doing as species in nature often do - the human population is expanding geometrically and like always happens in nature we are outstripping the resources we use to live. Foolishly continuing to explode our population, humanity (and because of our awsome power over nature, nature itself) will suffer a massive, if not complete, die off.
Good Anonymous, thanks for all your excellent commentary. Its backed up, its logically sound and promotes the best for all in an equal and fair way.
""probably unconstitutionally" sounds like BS some conservative troll pulled out of his colon"
actually, it's the opinion of most legal experts
there's a reason no one has ever been charged under this law
indeed, if applied as you suggest it should be, virtually every elected President in history is a criminal
""Enacted in 1799" I'm betting the folks in 1799 had a whole lot better idea of what the Constitution meant than any nameless conservative troll does today."
you probably don't win a lot of bets
the whole thing was a political move
the target purposely violated it to dare his opponent to charge him, which he didn't
read up on the facts
the whole thing is easily available
""Talk" is one thing - possibly undercutting US law regarding sanctions is another matter entirely. We have law-making bodies for a reason. We don't let just anyone renegotiate treaties, laws, and sanctions willy-nilly. You have to have something called "authority." That's just basic common sense."
oh me gursh
it would be the responsibility of the other country to assure that they are dealing with someone who had authority
as President-elect of a party with control of both houses of Congress, the incoming administration actually was in a better position than Obama to negotiate
Obama didn't impose sanctions until after Trump won the election
why?
because Russia didn't do anything they, and many other countries, haven't always done
Dems weren't only looking for an excuse why Hillary lost
to recap, she lost because:
1. Americans perceived she didn't have stamina
2. Americans perceived she didn't have leadership qualities
3. Americans don't trust her
4. She didn't address the plight of Midwest blue collar workers
5. She didn't plan to appoint judges who wold protect the Constitution
"Oh, so you DO actually understand the concept of "authority." You just don't like it when Democrats apply it to Retardicans.
Got it."
you completely misunderstand
since the people who can do it this are so few, it should be easy to determine who committed a felony and leaked the confidential information
that person should go to jail
their crime was much more serious than anything Manafort or Cohen did
""The Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act"
Yeah, normally those names should be kept secret. But if say, "individual 1" is committing crimes and only a handful of people happen to know that the criminal is lining up to play an important role in the next administration, somebody in the Justice Department should know about it before more crimes are committed.
Unless of course, you LIKE criminals running the White House."
and what was the crime?
the intelligence agencies were already monitoring communications
your comment makes no sense
WASHINGTON, Dec 10 (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday rejected appeals by Louisiana and Kansas seeking to end public funding by those states to Planned Parenthood, a national women's healthcare and abortion provider, through the Medicaid program.
The justices left intact lower court rulings that prevented the two states from stripping government healthcare funding from local Planned Parenthood affiliates.
Three conservative justices, Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch, dissented from the decision by the nine-member court, saying it should have heard the appeals by the states.
The case is one of a number of disputes working their way up to the Supreme Court over state-imposed restrictions on abortion. The two states did not challenge the constitutionality of abortion itself.
Planned Parenthood's affiliates in Louisiana do not perform abortions, but some in Kansas do. Medicaid, the state-federal health insurance program for low-income Americans, pays for abortions only in limited circumstances, such as when a woman's life is in danger.
Louisiana and Kansas announced plans to terminate funding for Planned Parenthood through Medicaid after an anti-abortion group released videos in 2015 purporting to show Planned Parenthood executives negotiating the for-profit sale of fetal tissue and body parts. Planned Parenthood denied the allegations and said the videos were heavily edited and misleading....
A baby born when Robert Mueller started his investigation would be talking by now. But would she have anything to say?
We last looked at what Mueller had publicly—and what he didn’t have—some 10 months ago, and I remained skeptical that the Trump campaign had in any way colluded with Russia. It’s worth another look now, but first let’s give away the ending (spoiler alert!): there is still no real evidence of, well, much of anything significant about Russiagate. One thing that is clear is that the investigation seems to be ending. Mueller’s office has reportedly even told various defense lawyers that it is “tying up loose ends.” The moment to wrap things up is politically right as well: the Democrats will soon take control of the House; time to hand this all off to them.
Ten months ago the big news was Paul Manafort flipped; that seems to have turned out to be mostly a bust, as we know now he lied like a rug to the Feds and cooperated with the Trump defense team as some sort of mole inside Mueller’s investigation (a heavily-redacted memo about Manafort’s lies, released by Mueller on Friday, adds no significant new details to the Russiagate narrative.)
George Papadopoulos has already been in and out of jail—all of two weeks— for his sideshow role. Michael Avenatti is now a woman beater who is just figuring out he’s washed up. Stormy Daniels owes Trump over $300,000 in fees after losing to him in court. There still is no pee tape. And if you don’t recall how unimportant Carter Page and Richard Gates turned out to be (or even who they are), well, there is your assessment of all the hysterical commentary that accompanied them a few headlines ago.
The big reveal of the Michael Flynn sentencing memo on Tuesday was that he will likely do no prison time. Everything of substance in the memo was redacted, so there is little insight available. If you insist on speculation, try this: it’s hard to believe that something really big and bad happened such that Flynn knew about it but still wasn’t worth punishing for it, and now, a year after he started cooperating with the government, still nobody has heard anything about whatever the big deal is. So chances are the redactions focus on foreign lobbying in the U.S.
This week’s Key to Everything is Michael Cohen, the guy who lied out of self-interest for Trump until last week when we learned he is also willing to lie, er, testify against Trump out of self-interest. If you take his most recent statements at face value, the sum is the failed negotiations to build a Trump hotel in Moscow, which went on a few months longer than was originally stated, and that we all knew about already.
Meanwhile, the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York submitted a sentencing memo Friday for Cohen, recommending 42 months in jail. In a separate filing, Mueller made no term recommendation but praised Cohen for his “significant efforts to assist the special counsel’s office.” The memos reveal no new information.
Call it sleazy if you want, but looking into a real estate deal is neither a high crime nor a misdemeanor, even if it’s in Russia. Conspiracy law requires an agreement to commit a crime, not just the media declaiming that “Cohen was communicating directly with the Kremlin!” Talking about meeting Russian persons is not a crime, nor is meeting with them.
The takeaway that this was all about influence shopping by the Russkies falls flat. If Putin sought to ensnare Trump, why didn’t he find a way for the deal to actually go through? Mueller has to be able to prove actual crimes by the president, not just twist our underclothes into weekly conspiratorial knots.
"the whole thing was a political move"
Right... a political move that eventually led to indictments, prosecutions, plea bargains, and jail time, after months of careful investigations.
Unlike the political moves by Republicans - BenghaziGate and Obama's birth certificate, for example, that wound up as giant nothing burgers.
I bet you like fries with that.
For fun, look here at the creative writing needed to even suggest anything illegal. That doesn’t sound like Trump’s on thin ice with hot shoes.
Sigh. It is useful at this point of binge-watching the Mueller mini-series to go back to the beginning.
The primordial ooze for all things Russiagate is less-than-complete intelligence alleging that hackers, linked to the Russian government, stole emails from the Democratic National Committee (DNC) in 2016. The details have never been released, no U.S. law enforcement agency has ever seen the server or scene of the crime, and Mueller’s dramatic indictments of said hackers, released as Trump met with Putin in Helsinki, will never be heard of again, or challenged in court, as none of his defendants will ever leave Russia. Meanwhile, despite contemporaneous denials of the same, is it somehow now accepted knowledge that the emails (and Facebook ads!) had some unproven major effect on the election.
The origin story for everything else, that Trump is beholden to Putin for favors granted or via blackmail, is opposition research purchased by the Democrats and carried out by an MI6 operative with complex connections into American intelligence, the salacious Steele Dossier. The FBI, under a Democratic-controlled Justice Department, then sought warrants to spy on the nominated GOP candidate for president based on evidence paid for by his opponent.
Yet the real spark was the media, inflamed by Democrats, searching for why Trump won (because it can’t be anything to do with Hillary, and “all white people and the Electoral College are racists” just doesn’t hold up). Their position was and is that Trump must have done something wrong, and Robert Mueller, despite helping squash a Bush-era money-laundering probe, lying about the Iraq War, and flubbing the post-9/11 anthrax investigation, has been resurrected with Jedi superpowers to find it. It might be collusion with Russia or Wikileaks, or a pee tape, or taxes, packaged as hard news but reading like Game of Thrones plot speculation. None of this is journalism to be proud of, and it underlies everything Mueller is supposedly trying to achieve.
As the New York Times said in a rare moment of candor, “From the day the Mueller investigation began, opponents of the president have hungered for that report, or an indictment waiting just around the corner, as the source text for an incantation to whisk Mr. Trump out of office and set everything back to normal again.”
The core problem—at least that we know of—is that Mueller hasn’t found a crime connected with Russiagate that someone working for Trump might have committed. His investigation to date hasn’t been a search for the guilty party—Colonel Mustard in the library—so much as a search for an actual crime, some crime, any crime. Yet all he’s uncovered so far are some old financial misdealings by Manafort and chums, payoffs to Trump’s mistresses that are not in themselves illegal (despite what prosecutors simply assert in the Cohen sentencing report, someone will have to prove to a jury the money was from campaign funds and the transactions were “for the purpose of influencing” federal elections, not simply “protecting his family from shame”), and a bunch of people lying about unrelated matters.
And that’s the giveaway to Muller’s final report. There was no base crime as the starting point of the investigation. With Watergate, there was the break-in at Democratic National Headquarters. With Russiagate you had…Trump winning the election. (Remember too that the FBI concluded forever ago that the DNC hack crime was done by the Russians, no Mueller needed.)
Almost everything Mueller has, the perjury and lying cases, are crimes he created through the process of investigating. He’s Schrodinger’s Box: the infractions only exist when he tries to look at them. Mueller created most of his booked charges by asking questions he already knew the answers to, hoping his witness would lie and commit new crimes literally in front of him. Nobody should be proud of lying, but it seems a helluva way to contest a completed election as Trump enters the third year of his term.
Mueller’s end product, his report, will most likely claim that a lot of unsavory things went on. But it seems increasingly unlikely that he’ll have any evidence Trump worked with Russia to win the election, let alone that Trump is now under Putin’s control. If Mueller had a smoking gun, we’d be watching impeachment hearings by now.
Instead, Mueller will end up concluding that some people may have sort of maybe tried to interfere with an investigation into what turned out to be nothing, another “crime” that exists only because there was an investigation to trigger it. He’ll dump that steaming pile of legal ambiguity into the lap of the Democratic House to hold hearings on from now until global warming claims the city of Benghazi and returns it to the sea. That or the 2020 election, whichever comes first.
"The primordial ooze for all things Russiagate is less-than-complete intelligence alleging that hackers"
And the primordial ooze for Bush the Incompetent going into Iraq was the warmongers in his cabinet not believing our own intelligence folks saying Saddam didn't have WMD. So Dumbsfeld set up his own "intelligence" operation inside the Pentagon to twist the intelligence to their own ends, and "find" the justification they needed to do what they wanted to anyway. Leading to a trillion dollar debacle that has spanned over a decade.
Gotta love ooze... it's so ooozzzyyy.
I said passage of the Logan Act in 1799 was a political move, and here's the TTF response:
"Right... a political move that eventually led to indictments, prosecutions, plea bargains, and jail time, after months of careful investigations.
Unlike the political moves by Republicans - BenghaziGate and Obama's birth certificate, for example, that wound up as giant nothing burgers.
I bet you like fries with that."
is the TTFer stupid or lying?
likely, both
the Logan Act was merely the excuse for lame duck Obama to have the FBI question Flynn
Flynn wasn't charged with violating it nor did he plead guilty to it, and Mueller didn't bring it up last week
looks like even Mueller agrees it's unconstitutional
to recap, Flynn was charged with lying to the FBI about a conversation that public and well-known
the FBI agents who interviewed him have said they don't believe he was lying
he would have never been convicted and plead guilty to avoid huge legal fees
hopefully, Trump will pardon him right away
"He’s Schrodinger’s Box: the infractions only exist when he tries to look at them. Mueller created most of his booked charges by asking questions he already knew the answers to, hoping his witness would lie and commit new crimes literally in front of him."
This begs the obvious question, if they didn't do anything wrong, why did they lie?
You don't lie to cover up your LEGAL business dealings.
You guys lie so much you don't even know when or even why you should lie - and then claim it shouldn't be prosecuted when you lie to criminal investigators. These guys DO have highly paid lawyers that should be able to point to the laws their clients DIDN'T break, and thus have no need to lie.
All this from the "law and order" fanatics. With all the political ads and blatant hypocrisy, it looks like you really only care about "law and order" being applied to people with the darker skin tones.
"And the primordial ooze for Bush the Incompetent going into Iraq was the warmongers in his cabinet not believing our own intelligence folks saying Saddam didn't have WMD. So Dumbsfeld set up his own "intelligence" operation inside the Pentagon to twist the intelligence to their own ends, and "find" the justification they needed to do what they wanted to anyway. Leading to a trillion dollar debacle that has spanned over a decade.
Gotta love ooze... it's so ooozzzyyy."
yes, that whole disaster was set in motion by the family liberals were idolizing last week
btw, Hillary voted in full support of the operation
"Flynn wasn't charged with violating it nor did he plead guilty to it, and Mueller didn't bring it up last week"
Mueller wouldn't have known whether or not Flynn violated it unless he did an thorough investigation.
That's WHY you have investigations. Potential criminals get investigated all the time. If they don't find anything, they don't go through the expense and hassle of trying to indict them for the crime. That's the way the justice department is supposed to work. You just don't indict people because someone made an accusation.
This is basic simple stuff. I shouldn't have to explain it to morons.
"This begs the obvious question, if they didn't do anything wrong, why did they lie?"
gee, I don't know
you lie all the time
are you guilty of something?
"that whole disaster was set in motion by the family liberals were idolizing last week"
You'll have to clue me in on that one - I was working - didn't have time to watch the liberal idolizing channel last week.
Yes. You caught me.
I'm guilty of troll the troll.
Whadda ya gonna do 'bout it?
"Mueller wouldn't have known whether or not Flynn violated it unless he did an thorough investigation."
the facts aren't in dispute and are well-known
there's nothing to investigate
Flynn did what Obama said was a violation of the Logan Act
the Logan Act is unconstitutional
it's over 200 years old
there are many examples of it being violated throughout American history
let's see one case of it being enforced
we'll wait
What was he charged with?
Prosecutors alleged Flynn “did willfully and knowingly make materially false, fictitious and fraudulent statements” to FBI agents during a Jan. 24 interview about his conversations with the Russian ambassador. According to the allegations, Flynn falsely told FBI agents that he did not ask Kislyak to delay a vote on a pending United Nations Security Council resolution.
In court on Friday, prosecutors said at least some of Flynn's contacts with Russian officials had been coordinated with a "senior official of the presidential transition."
Flynn pleaded guilty on Friday.
Has he released a statement?
Yes. Here's what he had to say:
"After over 33 years of military service to our country, including nearly five years in combat away from my family, and then my decision to continue to serve the United States, it has been extraordinarily painful to endure these many months of false accusations of 'treason' and other outrageous acts. Such false accusations are contrary to everything I have ever done and stood for. But I recognize that the actions I acknowledged in court today were wrong, and, through my faith in God, I am working to set things right. My guilty plea and agreement to cooperate with the Special Counsel's Office reflects a decision I made in the best interests of my family and of our country. I accept full responsibility for my actions."
Why is this significant?
Flynn was considered one of the most vulnerable people in special counsel Robert Mueller's ongoing investigation into Russian meddling in the 2016 presidential election. He has made no secret of his desire for a deal to testify in exchange for immunity from possible prosecution.
Who else has been charged in Mueller's probe?
Former Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort and his associate, Rick Gates, were indicted in October for working on behalf of pro-Russia factions in Ukraine without registering with the Justice Department as foreign agents -- a legal requirement -- and laundering millions of dollars in profits to evade taxes.
Additionally, George Papadopoulos pleaded guilty in October to lying to the FBI about his communications with people who represented themselves as tied to the Russian government.
"there are many examples of it being violated throughout American history"
Then you should be able to point to them. I'll wait.
"let's see one case of it being enforced"
So, basically, your argument is that since the law wasn't enforced before, Flynn should be able to get away with it.
I bet when you get pulled over for speeding you argue "why didn't you pull over the guy in front of me who was speeding?"
To which the cop replies "I can't catch 'em all. Now, can I see your driver's license?"
Flynn did what Obama said was a violation of the Logan Act
"the Logan Act is unconstitutional
it's over 200 years old
there are many examples of it being violated throughout American history
let's see one case of it being enforced"
If that's REALLY the case, Flynn missed out on hiring you as his lawyer. You must have a law degree. How come you aren't in the White House cabinet now protecting all Rump's cronies from these frivolous investigations?
Seems like you could make a major fortune and become the darling of the Right Wing media if all your legal expertise could be used saving innocent Republicans from the outlandish machinations of the Justice Department.
What are you doing wasting your time here on a blog that maybe 6 people read?
Your country needs you man!
Yes, there's no doubt about it, it'd be best for everyone if birth control were free.
Just how deranged do you have to be to think birth control is immoral.
Jim said "Tearing down our country has been fun for [Tяump supporters]."
That's just it, isn't it.
No matter how many laws he breaks, no matter how much he lies and deceives, no matter how much he sells out the States and the world to Russia and Saudi Arabia Tяump supporters love it because, even if it hurts them, it also hurts liberals.
Decades from now, when its blatantly, undeniably obvious that man-made global warming is irreversibly killing the planet, will conservatives still be gleeful that they enabled this destruction so as to vex and frustrate 'libtards'?
Maria Butina, a Russian gun rights activist, is poised to plead guilty in a case involving accusations that she was working as an agent for the Kremlin in the United States, according to a new court filing.
Attorneys for Butina and federal prosecutors jointly requested in court documents Monday that U.S. District Judge Tanya S. Chutkan set a time for Butina to withdraw her previous plea of not guilty. They said they could be available for her to enter her plea as early as Tuesday.
“The parties have resolved this matter,” Butina’s lawyers and D.C.-based prosecutors wrote in their joint filing.
A plea is not final until it is entered in court and accepted by a judge. Monday’s filing did not indicate to what charge she will plead.
Butina was accused of working to push the Kremlin’s agenda by forming bonds with National Rifle Association officials and other conservative leaders and making outreach to 2016 presidential candidates.
A native of Siberia, she founded a group to expand gun rights in Russia, a profile that allowed her to develop relationships with U.S. conservatives intrigued with her work. Prosecutors said Butina, 30, stepped up her activities after moving to Washington in September 2016 to attend graduate school at American University.
Her lawyers had said her interactions with the NRA and others were typical of an ambitious student anxious to network and eager to build better relations between the United States and her country. They had at one point argued her outreach should be covered by constitutional protections for free speech and noted that she was not accused of attempting to steal U.S. secrets or working with Russian intelligence.
But prosecutors said her goal was to advance the foreign policy aims of the Kremlin and that she was acting at the direction of a Russian government official, Alexander Torshin, a former senator who now serves as deputy director of the Russian central bank.
Butina has been jailed for nearly five months since her July arrest. In that time, her case had been embraced by the Russian government, which had vigorously protested that she was an innocent student whose incarceration was unjust. With the plea deal, Butina could be released in coming months and deported to Russia.
Butina was prosecuted by the U.S. attorney’s office in Washington, rather than special counsel Robert S. Mueller III — an indication that Mueller may have determined that her activities did not directly connect to his investigation, which involves scrutinizing any links between Russia and President Trump’s campaign.
Still, Butina intersected with Trump’s campaign several times before the 2016 election. In June 2015, she wrote a column for an American magazine in which she argued that only the election of a Republican president would result in better ties between the United States and Russia. A month later, at a public town hall event in Las Vegas, she was able to ask a question directly to Trump, inquiring about how he viewed sanctions imposed on Russia after its 2014 invasion of Crimea.
“We get along with Putin,” he told Butina, referring to the Russian president. “I don’t think you’d need the sanctions.”
Butina was then involved with an unsuccessful effort to organize a meeting between Torshin and Trump at an NRA convention in May 2016. Instead, she and Torshin briefly interacted with Donald Trump Jr., the president’s son, at the event, according to documents turned over to Congress...
Tяump's lie that the tax cut he signed was the biggest in history is one he has told 123 times.
Even before President Tяump’s tax cut was crafted, he promised it would be the biggest in U.S. history – bigger than Ronald Reagan’s 1981 tax cut. Reagan’s tax cut amounted to 2.9 percent of the gross domestic product and none of the proposals under consideration came close to that level. Yet Tяump persisted in this fiction even when the tax cut was eventually crafted to be the equivalent of 0.9 percent of GDP, making it the eighth largest tax cut in 100 years. This continues to be an all-purpose applause line in the president’s rallies.
And if it gets applause, that’s the only thing that matters to him. He’ll keep repeating it forever and ever because he’s absolutely obsessed with claiming that everything he does is the biggest, the greatest, most stupendous, yuuuuuuuuuuugest thing in the history of the universe. And because he simply doesn’t care whether it’s true or not, only whether it’s useful to him at the moment. Similarly, his lies about trade deficits have been told 117 times. And on and on and on.
Yes, all politicians are dishonest, but this is one place where Tяump’s claim to be the greatest is actually true. He’s the most shameless liar we have ever seen in politics. He makes Richard Nixon look like George Washington and his famous (and mythical) “I cannot tell a lie.” Tяump cannot tell the truth.
"And if it gets applause, that’s the only thing that matters to him. He’ll keep repeating it forever and ever because he’s absolutely obsessed with claiming that everything he does is the biggest, the greatest, most stupendous, yuuuuuuuuuuugest thing in the history of the universe."
the only thing that's more pathetic are those who feel this is something to discuss ad nauseum
who cares?
"George Washington and his famous (and mythical) “I cannot tell a lie.”"
indeed, GW's mastery of deceit was essential to our victory over Britain
you know, the country that easily conquered Canada
tee hee hee
The revelations of the last few days are, though disguised, the crash in ignominy of the Robert Mueller putsch. But they are far from the end of the story. While the sire of the Mueller hit-squad assault, former FBI director James Comey, declared 245 times at last Friday’s House Judiciary Committee hearing that he did not recall events that occurred in the last several years, the president’s official enemies confessed that the best they could do to show collusion between Russia and the Trump presidential campaign was that lawyer Michael Cohen, who had almost nothing to do with the campaign, had received a message in 2015 from someone promising “synergy” between Russia and a Trump presidency. Cohen did not respond to the message. There is no evidence of such collusion, as chief FBI bloodhound Peter Strzok acknowledged to his intimate colleague Lisa Page in 2016, and collusion is not a statutory offense anyway, unless it is for an illegal purpose. Despite 29 months of mighty investigative effort, not a shred of evidence of such wrongful collusion has been adduced.
Collusion to rig the presidential election was cited by Hillary Clinton, along with being “shivved three times by Jim Comey,” as the reasons for her election loss, in her post-electoral memoir, What Happened. The first didn’t occur, and of the three administrations of the shiv, two were dubious exonerations about which the former FBI director now, under oath, has suffered a merciless attack of amnesia. An optimist could at least celebrate the end of this malignant idiocy of impeaching Trump for collusion with Russia, but there is something about the Trump phenomenon that is only now becoming clear: His support is irreducible and his enemies are inexhaustible, so, in the worst imaginable application of the tired phrase, the show must go on. His enemies hate him so fanatically, they cannot accept the absence of evidence against him.
Carl Bernstein, who predicted almost two years ago that the Steele dossier would bring Trump down, and announced almost a year ago that the president qualified under the 25th Amendment as mentally incompetent to serve, was nodded to approvingly by CNN’s always mechanically anti-Trump Brian Stelter when Bernstein asseverated that Mueller was causing the world to “tremble” by the gravity of his revelations. Poor Anderson Cooper, television’s saddest person, thought the “synergy” message, which Cohen did not respond to, “could stick.” Stick to what? He and his fellow commentators, adhering to CNN’s rigorous policy of 100 percent partisan hatred of the president, thought the whole business seemed “collusiony.” I submit that this sort of mindless, biased drivel is an assault on reasonable standards of public information and thus in some measure constitutes a form of animosity to the people. This lends a color of right to Trump’s references to his more perfervid media critics as “enemies of the people.”
Sane and serious commentators such as Andy McCarthy, former assistant U.S. attorney (and a friend), and law professor Jonathan Turley are more concerned about the finding by the U.S. attorney in Manhattan that the president, before his election, ordered Cohen to violate election-financing statutes, in paying off the aggrieved claimants to long-past alleged sexual relationships with Mr. Trump: Stormy Daniels and Karen McDougal. Since this is so far out of Mueller’s field of investigation, he handed it off to the U.S. attorney in New York’s Southern District. One of the president’s senior counsel, Rudolph Giuliani, said or implied months ago that the threats of the two women (rather refreshing personalities, from what the public has seen of them) and the settlements, both in response to blackmail attempts that were breaches of contract, were paid by Cohen and repaid by Trump in the normal course of paying unitemized legal billings from Cohen.
What makes the Southern District’s U.S. attorney leap to (all of) his feet, snarling and snapping and with dreams of publicity and political sugar plums dancing in his head in the manner of many American prosecutors, is that as part of his plea bargain, Cohen claimed that the payments to the two women were illegal campaign contributions, as they were made to spare candidate Trump embarrassment in the last phase of the 2016 election, and that Trump knew about them. This has invited and created the inference in the Trump-hating media that the president is an unindicted co-conspirator. That he may be so in the mind of an American prosecutor carries no more weight than did the opinions of a few flaky West Coast federal judges last year that Trump had no right to exercise his constitutional prerogative of controlling entry by foreigners into the United States.
It’s an opinion and a headline. But the U.S. attorney catechized Cohen into the claim that it was a campaign contribution when, in fact, Trump paid Cohen’s bills and a candidate can contribute to his own campaign. It will likely be found, if necessary, that a prosecutor cannot indict an incumbent president, and has to send anything regarded as incriminating evidence to the House Judiciary Committee for possible action. Even the incoming chairman of that committee, Jerrold Nadler, whose every fifth word since the last presidential election has been “impeachment,” will have difficulty imagining that this tawdry and comical business has legs as an impeachment case. Cohen is charged, inter alia, with lying to Congress, and if every such episode in the pre-presidential lives of U.S. presidents were judged as retroactively impeachable, at least ten previous presidents would be dragged from their honored immortality and besmirched. It is obvious that both Mueller (with former Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort) and the federal prosecutors in New York (with Michael Cohen) are negotiating sentences in exchange for the confection of more damaging evidence against the president. In any serious foreign jurisdiction, the prosecutors would be disbarred, though this perverted plea-bargain system is the core of American criminal justice and its North Korean levels of conviction.
It is all nonsense; it has always been nonsense, but it is ineluctable. Adam Schiff, the incoming chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, claims that the president may be imprisoned after the end of his term. As long as the Democrats continue to pretend that they have a legal reason to destroy the president, the president’s supporters will pursue the Democrats, led by Hillary Clinton, James Comey, his deputy FBI director Andrew McCabe, former intelligence directors James Clapper and John Brennan, and former attorney general Loretta Lynch, for what clearly seems to be lying to federal officials or Congress, and involvement in a fraudulent FISA surveillance warrant or renewal. The heaviest and fiercest phase of this struggle may be about to begin.
There is some truth to the view of Peggy Noonan and many others that even if the president hasn’t committed crimes, the House of Trump has a lot of rocks and bricks in its foundation that, when lifted, reveal “bugs and spiders.” He has been traduced and defamed and wrongfully assaulted by the most venomous of the swamp creatures. But he is so rough-edged and self-preoccupied, it mitigates what would normally be the tidal wave of support Americans would give their president when he is wronged. It is all distasteful and unseemly and no one really wins. This was what was being mourned at the Bush and even McCain funerals — that the whole business of American politics has become so nasty and horribly expensive. The Clintons had more to do with this than Trump has, but when the Obama administration allowed the Justice and intelligence apparatus to become corrupted in their support of the Clinton candidacy against so politically formidable and vehement a no-holds-barred opponent as Trump, the entire system was compromised, and it is now stripping itself naked, round after round. Trump will almost certainly win, but the cost in the distraction to the country and the washing of dirty laundry before a nonplussed world will be damaging.
We are where we are, and it will not be easy to row back. The best that can be hoped for is that when all the combatants have shed their blood and gored their enemies, the attorney general–designate will succeed in abolishing or radically reforming the position of special counsel or prosecutor and the plea-bargain system, the dysfunctional lopsidedness of American criminal justice will be reformed, the country will have learned the evil of criminalizing policy differences, and the Justice Department and the intelligence agencies will have learned never to stray into partisan misdeeds again. For such an outcome to this sordid intractable business, those given to such activity should prepare to propitiate the Almighty with unprecedented fervor and eloquence.
Two years ago this month, the set-up of Lt. General Michael Flynn began. And now that Special Counsel Robert Mueller has recommended the lightest sentence possible for Flynn’s crime of lying to the FBI in 2017, Americans are reminded that the real criminals—top officials at our nation’s most trusted agencies—have yet to be charged for illegally leaking classified information about Flynn to the news media in an effort to sabotage Donald Trump’s presidency.
Flynn was toward the top of Barack Obama’s enemies list. Forced out of the Defense Intelligence Agency in 2014 by Obama loyalist James Clapper, Flynn joined the Trump campaign and became an outspoken critic of Obama and Hillary Clinton. Famously, he led the “lock her up” chants at the Republican National Convention. Ten days later, James Comey’s FBI opened up a counterintelligence probe into possible election collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia. Flynn was one of four campaign associates targeted by the agency for his “suspected Russian ties.” (It’s unclear whether Comey also obtained a FISA order on Flynn, as he had on Carter Page.)
Obama warned Trump not to hire Flynn during their post-election meeting in the Oval Office on November 10. When Trump defied that advice, Team Obama made him pay.
In December 2016, Flynn held several conversations with Sergey Kislyak, the Russian ambassador to the United States. Trump’s incoming national security advisor legally and appropriately spoke with Kislyak about a number of topics, including a scheduled call between the nation’s two leaders after the inauguration.
What Flynn may not have known at the time is that his conversations—and perhaps all of his communications—with the Russian diplomat were being monitored by James Comey’s FBI. Someone in the Obama Administration illegally leaked details about Flynn’s call to Washington Post reporter David Ignatius.
On January 12, Ignatius reported that “according to a senior U.S. government official, Flynn phoned Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak several times on Dec. 29, the day the Obama Administration announced the expulsion of 35 Russian officials as well as other measures in retaliation for the hacking. What did Flynn say, and did it undercut the U.S. sanctions?”
Ignatius was the first reporter in this election saga to introduce Americans to the Logan Act, an unused and potentially unconstitutional 1799 statute that bars U.S. citizens from interfering in foreign policy. Flynn was said to be in violation of it because allegedly he discussed U.S. sanctions with Kislyak. The article—cited in Mueller’s sentencing report on Flynn—set off a chain reaction, including an interview by the FBI and subsequent trip to the White House by acting Attorney General Sally Yates, who warned Trump’s lawyer that Flynn hadn’t told the truth about his discussions with Kislyak and therefore could be vulnerable to Russian blackmail. (LOL)
When Trump’s team defended Flynn from the allegations, holdovers in the Justice Department turned up the heat.
Another Washington Post article in February, which cited “nine current and former officials, who were in senior positions at multiple agencies at the time of the calls, [and] spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss intelligence matters,” claimed Flynn did indeed discuss sanctions contrary to his public statements. The details of the conversations were culled from secret intelligence reports and illegally leaked to the Post reporters. (One of the reporters, Adam Entous, is a reliable mouthpiece for Trump foes and the recipient of several illegal leaks of classified or nonpublic information.)
Flynn walked back his initial denial, saying he “couldn’t be certain the topic [of sanctions] never came up.” The day after Flynn resigned amid the growing controversy, the Post published another Entous story disclosing Yates’s private warnings to the White House counsel about Flynn’s vulnerability to Russian blackmail. (Trump had fired Yates for refusing to defend his so-called travel ban.) The February 13 Post story again relied on former and current officials “who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss intelligence matters.”
Entous reported how three Trump foes—Yates, Clapper, and former CIA director John Brennan—feared Flynn had put himself in a “compromising position” by misleading Trump Administration officials about his discussions with Kislyak. The transcripts of the phone calls were never released. Flynn pleaded guilty in December 2017 to one count of the lying to the FBI.
During his March 2017 testimony before the House Intelligence committee, Comey confirmed repeatedly under questioning that the disclosure of classified information to a reporter is a felony punishable by up to 10 years in prison.
Citing the Washington Post articles, Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.) pushed Comey to admit there is no exception for former or current government officials; Gowdy asked how the FBI would investigate the felonious disclosures: “You would start by figuring out, who are the suspects? Who touched the information that you’ve concluded ended up unlawfully in the newspaper and start with that universe and then use investigative tools and techniques to see if you can eliminate people or include people.”
Gowdy went through a list of top Obama officials who might have had access to the intercepted content of Flynn’s calls. A very uncomfortable-looking Comey confirmed that Clapper, Brennan, Yates, former National Security Advisor Susan Rice, and former Attorney General Loretta Lynch would “in theory” have had access to the classified material. Comey also refused to tell Congress whether an investigation into the felonious leaks was underway.
A month later, presumably emboldened by Comey’s tepid response to illegal leaks about classified information, Entous reported on the FISA warrant against Carter Page sourced by “officials [who] spoke about the court order on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss details of a counterintelligence probe.” Entous wrote that FISA warrants are “some of the most closely guarded secrets in the world.”
To date, none of the law enforcement or intelligence officials who illegally leaked the information about Flynn has been identified or charged, let alone tried and convicted.
Only one government official—James Wolfe, the security chief of the Senate Intelligence Committee—has been identified as disclosing top secret information to reporters, including his young journo girlfriend, about the Carter Page FISA order. Wolfe has pleaded guilty to one count of lying to the FBI about his illegal disclosures.
The Justice Department allegedly has been investigating since early 2017 more than two dozen illegal leaks. But while the wheels of justice move quickly for Trump associates such as Flynn, Paul Manafort, and Michael Cohen, there is no urgency in nabbing deep state criminals who actually threaten the rule of law and democratic norms. Despite their bluster about the danger that Trump poses to our institutions, it is they—not the president—who are destroying the integrity of those institutions without consequence.
Big Investors Urge Governments to Fight Climate Change
A group of fund managers that handle a total of $32 trillion in investments is urging the governments of the world to take serious action to arrest climate change, including subsidizing next generation energy production and using carbon taxes to reduce the use of fossil fuels. Failure to do so, they say, could lead to a massive financial collapse.
Global investors managing $32tn issued a stark warning to governments at the UN climate summit on Monday, demanding urgent cuts in carbon emissions and the phasing out of all coal burning. Without these, the world faces a financial crash several times worse than the 2008 crisis, they said.
The investors include some of the world’s biggest pension funds, insurers and asset managers and marks the largest such intervention to date. They say fossil fuel subsidies must end and substantial taxes on carbon be introduced…
“The long-term nature of the challenge has, in our view, met a zombie-like response by many,” said Chris Newton, of IFM Investors which manages $80bn and is one of the 415 groups that has signed the Global Investor Statement. “This is a recipe for disaster as the impacts of climate change can be sudden, severe and catastrophic.”
Investment firm Schroders said there could be $23tn of global economic losses a year in the long term without rapid action. This permanent economic damage would be almost four times the scale of the impact of the 2008 global financial crisis. Standard and Poor’s rating agency also warned leaders: “Climate change has already started to alter the functioning of our world.”
Wyatt and Regina have seemed particularly anti-gay since they made a somewhat positive comment about one of my posts and I never gave them any credit for it. In this thread I posted a comment about the doubt surrounding Supreme court nominee Brett Kavanaugh and Wyatt/Regina said "don't agree with everything said by Priya, but it was a remarkably restrained response you could almost say reasonable, and even reasoned to some extent".
That to me seemed a pretty magnanimous gesture coming from them and I'm sorry I didn't acknowledge it at the time. Thanks for that showing of flexibility and consideration guys.
I was just trying to tell it like it is, but I appreciate the response, Priya. Have a good holiday.
Stephen King✔
@StephenKing
Wait a minute, wait! Wasn't...um, Mexico going to pay for Trump's useless, just-tunnel-under-it wall?
"useless"?
it will be an obvious upgrade to our security
just because someone could break a window to get in your house doesn't mean you don't lock the front door
the price tag isn't much and you have to wonder why the Dems are so opposed to something they could probably get something they want out of Trump for
it would be a small price to pay to help the Dreamers
but, with Schumer, it’s like a manhood thing with him — as if manhood can be associated with him
Trump promises Mexico will pay for wall
Mexico president hits back after Trump revives claim country will pay for wall
Trump threatens government shutdown if Congress refuses to pay for border wall
TRUMP: U.S. MILITARY WILL BUILD MEXICAN BORDER WALL IF CONGRESS REFUSES
President Donald Trump’s former national security adviser Michael Flynn has asked a judge to spare him a prison sentence because of his cooperation with the Russia investigation.
Special counsel Robert Mueller, who is leading the investigation, recommended last week that Flynn, a retired Army general, receive little or no prison time. Mueller said Flynn has been interviewed 19 times by the special counsel or other Justice Department officers and has provided documents and communications.
In a sentencing memo filed Tuesday, Flynn’s attorneys ask that he receive one year’s probation at most, along with 200 hours of community service, when a federal judge sentences him Dec. 18. The memo cites his military service and says he’s accepted responsibility for his conduct.
“As the Government has made clear, his cooperation was not grudging or delayed,” the defense memo said. Federal sentencing guidelines suggest up to six months in prison.
Flynn in December 2017 pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI about his contacts with Russian government representatives while he was serving in Trump’s White House. Trump in February 2017 claimed he fired Flynn after less than a month on the job because he had lied to Vice President Mike Pence about a conversation with then-Russian ambassador Sergey Kislyak.
Trump continued to defend Flynn publicly for a year and a half, saying he had been treated “unfairly” by the “fake media.” But the president has stayed quiet since Mueller’s recommendation of no jail time for Flynn.
Flynn has been a central figure in the probe into the Trump campaign’s contacts with Russia during the 2016 election.
Former Trump attorney and fixer Michael Cohen faces sentencing on Wednesday for crimes including tax evasion and illegal hush-money payments to women who said they had affairs with Trump to shield him from negative publicity during the campaign.
"Trump threatens government shutdown if Congress refuses to pay for border wall"
that's all he wants?
so far, no word from the Dems on why they would oppose that
"President Donald Trump’s former national security adviser Michael Flynn has asked a judge to spare him a prison sentence because of his cooperation with the Russia investigation.
Special counsel Robert Mueller, who is leading the investigation, recommended last week that Flynn, a retired Army general, receive little or no prison time.
Flynn in December 2017 pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI about his contacts with Russian government representatives while he was serving in Trump’s White House.
Trump continued to defend Flynn publicly for a year and a half, saying he had been treated “unfairly” by the “fake media.”"
Trump is right
the FBI agents questioned Flynn about things they already knew
a tape of the conversation Flynn had with Kislyak had already been reported in the media
the FBI agents who conducted the interview said they don't think Flynn was lying, but simply misspoke
after the tape had been leaked to the media by an Obama official who will eventually go to jail, the FBI agents called Flynn at the White House and asked if they could come over and talk to him
they told him he didn't need a lawyer and Flynn said "sure, come on over"
they got there two hours later and Flynn was very congenial and took them on a tour of the White House
they did not inform him that he was under oath or that there were criminal penalties for making false statements to them
he likely didn't understand the nature of the meeting
he would never have been convicted and wouldn't have been prosecuted if he didn't have inside information on Trump's White House that Mueller wanted
in a just world, Flynn should be pardoned, Mueller dismissed for prosecutorial misconduct, and the Obama leaker should be prosecuted
"Former Trump attorney and fixer Michael Cohen faces sentencing on Wednesday for crimes including tax evasion and illegal hush-money payments to women who said they had affairs with Trump to shield him from negative publicity during the campaign."
you have it bass-ackwards
Trump paid them to prevent disclosure for personal reasons
the John Edwards case makes this established law
the reason the women came forward is they thought he was vulnerable to blackmail because he was running for president but that's not the same as Trump's motives
this week, a judge has ordered Stormy Daniels to pay Trump $300,000
justice served
"Trump threatens government shutdown if Congress refuses to pay for border wall"
that's all he wants?
so far, no word from the Dems on why they would oppose that"
That should be obvious, blind one.
The Rumpster got into office promising that he would build a wall and that Mexico would pay for it.
I don't see any money coming from Mexico, amigo.
With Rumplethinskin exploding the deficit with gigantic tax cuts for the rich that will never pay for themselves, there is simply no reason to build an expensive wall that will only motivate migrants to use taller ladders.
Apparently, Hair Hitler doesn't believe brown people would know how to use maybe $50 worth of ropes and ladders to defeat $5 billion in decorative wall.
Maybe he can keep immigrants out by providing the military with "smocking guns."
XO)
"there is simply no reason to build an expensive wall"
it's a hindrance that has proven effective
even Nancy and Chuck, at the White House yesterday, agreed that we need safe borders
the argument that the wall is pointless because some immigrants would scale it or tunnel under is pretty lame
a crook can smash the window and break into your house but you still lock the door when you go out
"With Rumplethinskin exploding the deficit with gigantic tax cuts"
your President, Donald Trump, cut the corporate tax to make it competitive with all other countries and our factories can stop closing
that was phase I
next step is eliminating wasteful liberal spending
if the Dems stand in the way of that, they'll be hell to pay at the polls in 2020
and, yes, Dems have plans to spend hundreds of billions on infrastructure so the meager cost of the wall is a drop in the ocean
the Dems are political toast!
Since the spring, Trump has gone from denying knowledge of any payments to women who claim to have been mistresses to apparent acknowledgement of those hush money settlements - though he claims they wouldn't be illegal in any case. But both Cohen and federal prosecutors said the payments were made at Trump's direction to fend off damage to his White House bid, an apparent campaign finance violation.
Though prosecutors have implicated Trump in a crime, they haven't directly accused him of one, and it's hardly clear that they could bring charges even if they want to because of Justice Department protocol. Nonetheless, Trump's evolving explanations have clouded the public understanding of what occurred and are running head-on into a problematic set of facts agreed to by prosecutors, Cohen and a media company that has acknowledged participating in the hush money scheme to aid the president's campaign.
"You now have a second defendant or group of defendants saying that these payments were made for the primary purpose of influencing the election, and that it was done in coordination with Trump and his campaign," said Rick Hasen, an election law expert at the University of California, Irvine.
Trump's first explanation of the payment that would eventually help lead Cohen to a three-year prison sentence came at 35,000 feet over West Virginia.
Returning to Washington on Air Force One, Trump on April 6 for the first time answered questions about the reports of $130,000 in hush money given to adult film actress Stormy Daniels, issuing a blanket denial to reporters while saying they would "have to ask Michael Cohen."
Three days later, the FBI raided Cohen's office, seizing records on topics including a $130,000 payment to Daniels. Furious, Trump called the raid a "disgrace" and said the FBI "broke into" his lawyer's office. He also tweeted that "Attorney-client privilege is dead!"
(There is no attorney-client privilege for committing crimes.)
"this week, a judge has ordered Stormy Daniels to pay Trump $300,000
justice served"
It just means tЯrump owes Stormy $300K (a figure representing 75 percent of the amount Trump had been seeking) less than the $1,500,000 tЯrump lost to Stormy's win in the NDA case.
Even Republicans know a wall isn't going to be worth the cost. That's why they didn't give it to him even though they have been in control the last two years.
In fact, they will be in control for a while longer. If it was that important, they could give it to Don the Con today.
That's another right wing talking point that isn't true - because they never include the VAT tax in those comparisons. The US is one of the few countries without them. When you include ALL the taxes other countries pay, you'll find out they pay a lot more than we do. Yet somehow they are still globally competitive, and they don't bitch as much as American corporations.
"and, yes, Dems have plans to spend hundreds of billions on infrastructure so the meager cost of the wall is a drop in the ocean"
Infrastructure spending was one of the things Don promised voters 2 years ago. It's a well known and often used plan to boost jobs and get the economy going during rough times.
And after decades of federal spending cuts by Republicans, much of our infrastructure desperately needs it. The American Society of Civil Engineers grades our nation's infrastructure every four years. It currently stands at a pathetic D+:
https://www.infrastructurereportcard.org/
We could have used infrastructure spending to help blunt the effects of the disastrous Bush Recession, but rather than let a Democrat take credit for skillfully pulling us back from the abyss, Republicans forced average Americans to suffer economically while they tried to undermine every action Obama took towards recovery - blocking well known cures to boosting the economy claiming it was going to be "too expensive."
Since Republicans have been in power though, they've exploded the deficit like a teenager with 10 new credit cards.
Whatever happened to fiscal conservatives???
President Donald Trump is said to not be worried about setting the US up for a massive debt crisis because he doesn't think it'll erupt until after he leaves office.
The Treasury Department estimated in October that the federal government would issue $1.34 trillion in new debt during 2018 — a 146% jump from 2017 and the highest amount of new debt issued since 2010.
US debt sits at about $21 trillion, and in a few years the US could be paying more in interest on that debt than on the military or on Medicare.
The Retardican's new tax law is expected to add $1.5 trillion to the debt over 10 years and drive the US's exploding deficit. This only mentions NEW debt that is added. Of course, Bush's tax cuts never paid for themselves, and those have been adding debt since the early 2000s - that's not included in the 1.5 Trillion figure.
Retardicans have stepped on the gas and are driving us over the cliff.
Because at some point, the bankers and investors will realize we have taken on far to much debt to be likely to pay it back. And they will stop buying US debt instruments like treasury notes. Interest rates will have to be boosted to make them look worth while. That of course will slow down our economy.
And politicians won't really have too many choices about what to spend money on - like the military - because it will be bankers and foreign investors deciding where the US has to spend its taxes, not elected politicians.
Of course, Retardicans will predictably blame it all on Democrats.
"Since the spring, Trump has gone from denying knowledge of any payments to women who claim to have been mistresses to apparent acknowledgement of those hush money settlements"
he had affairs
he tried to conceal them
so what?
it really didn't surprise anyone
and, in the post-Bill Clinton era, it's not unusually scandalous
"though he claims they wouldn't be illegal in any case"
that not just his claim
it's standard legal consensus
if you are now going to say that once someone is running for President that any money spent to protect their reputation is a campaign violation, it will get the point where no one will want to run for President
it's actually a ridiculous theory
if this expenditure is an expense because it makes him look better, why not haircuts?
"But both Cohen and federal prosecutors said the payments were made at Trump's direction to fend off damage to his White House bid, an apparent campaign finance violation"
Cohen agreed whatever was necessary in exchange for leniency for crimes he did commit: tax evasion and bank fraud
he got two years less than recommended for those crimes because he supported the prosecutor's dubious interpretation
so now, Mueller can say Trump was an accomplice to a crime that a perpetrator was guilty of, even though there was no trial
it's a new vista in prosecutorial abuse
our justice system needs reform
"Though prosecutors have implicated Trump in a crime, they haven't directly accused him of one, and it's hardly clear that they could bring charges even if they want to because of Justice Department protocol"
not to mention that they would lose the case and prosecutors hate that
"Nonetheless, Trump's evolving explanations have clouded the public understanding of what occurred"
the public understanding isn't clouded whatsoever
we all knew, from the second this all came to light, that Trump had an affair and paid the porn star to keep quiet
didn't you?
"You now have a second defendant or group of defendants saying that these payments were made for the primary purpose of influencing the election, and that it was done in coordination with Trump and his campaign,"
again, you have someone who was given motive to say that
you might even call it blackmail
it's a new vista in prosecutorial abuse
our justice system needs reform
"Trump's first explanation of the payment that would eventually help lead Cohen to a three-year prison sentence came at 35,000 feet over West Virginia."
the payment didn't lead Cohen to a three-year prison sentence
his tax evasion and bank fraud, unrelated to Trump did
his relationship with Trump got him a reduced sentence
"Of course, Retardicans will predictably blame it all on Democrats."
perhaps that's because if you take that deficit and divide up into Presidents responsible, the biggest chunk belongs to the head Dumbocrat, Obama the Worst
John Harwood✔
@JohnJHarwood
US Atty from Southern District of NY announces it won't prosecute American Media after firm, headed by Trump friend David Pecker, admits it acted w/Trump campaign to suppress allegation of extra-marital affair before 2016 election. heightens Trump vulnerability to felony charge
1:40 PM - Dec 12, 2018
"he had affairs
he tried to conceal them
so what?"
If he had paid off McDougal back in 2006 when he had the affair, it's doubtful his shenanigans would have risen to the top of his unending list of bad behavior.
The fact that he wait a DECADE - to 2016 to do that - you know, when he was RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT puts that payment in a whole new light.
But you've never been one to let facts or Republicans breaking campaign financing laws bother you. So carry on with your irrelevant drivel.
I'll make more popcorn.
"perhaps that's because if you take that deficit and divide up into Presidents responsible, the biggest chunk belongs to the head Dumbocrat, Obama the Worst"
Spending was constrained during Obama's terms by Republicans forcing sequestration on him. The deficits loomed so large be cause tax revenues dropped in HALF because of the Bush collapse, and took years to recover. You can blame part of that deficit on Obama signing in making the Bush tax cuts permanent. But then you'd have to admit that those tax cuts led to the ballooning deficit, which Retardicans will never admit.
How long do you think Retardicans can keep fooling the public with their destructive economic policies before they finally wake up?
New York Attorney Gen.-elect Letitia James says she plans to launch sweeping investigations into President Donald Trump, his family and "anyone" in his circle who may have violated the law once she settles into her new job next month.
"We will use every area of the law to investigate President Trump and his business transactions and that of his family as well," James, a Democrat, told NBC News in her first extensive interview since she was elected last month.
James outlined some of the probes she intends to pursue with regard to the president, his businesses and his family members. They include:
Any potential illegalities involving Trump's real estate holdings in New York, highlighting a New York Times investigation published in October into the president's finances.
The June 2016 Trump Tower meeting with a Russian official.
Examine government subsidies Trump received, which were also the subject of Times investigative work.
Whether he is in violation of the emoluments clause in the U.S. Constitution through his New York businesses.
Continue to probe the Trump Foundation.
"We want to investigate anyone in his orbit who has, in fact, violated the law," said James, who was endorsed by New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo.
James campaigned on passing a bill to change New York's double jeopardy laws with an eye on possible pardons coming out of the White House. James told NBC News she wants to be able to pursue state charges against anyone the president were to pardon over federal charges or convictions and whose alleged crimes took place in the state. Under current New York law, she might not be able to do that.
"I think within the first 100 days this bill will be passed," she said, adding, "It is a priority because I have concerns with respect to the possibility that this administration might pardon some individuals who might face some criminal charges, but I do not want them to be immune from state charges."
She's also enlisting help from some prosecutorial heavy hitters, like former U.S. Attorney General Loretta Lynch, as a part of her transition to help her identify important hires for her office with an eye on bringing in experts for its Trump-related investigations.
New York is home to the president's namesake business, the Trump Organization, and it is where Trump's presidential campaign was headquartered and his reelection campaign as well. And it is where a number of key events under special counsel Robert Mueller's microscope, such as the controversial June 2016 Trump Tower meeting, took place. All of that falls within James' jurisdiction.
As a result, she is about to become one of the most recognizable — and powerful — state attorneys general in the country.
"Taking on President Trump and looking at all of the violations of law I think is no match to what I have seen in my lifetime," James said.
"the payment didn't lead Cohen to a three-year prison sentence
his tax evasion and bank fraud, unrelated to Trump did
his relationship with Trump got him a reduced sentence"
On Wednesday, Michael Cohen, President Donald Trump’s former lawyer and longtime fixer, was sentenced to three years in prison in a case that also implicates the president. The heart of the case is the secret payment of hush money to alleged former lovers of the president in violation of campaign finance laws. Cohen blamed his fate on “blind loyalty” to Trump. “Time and time again, I felt it was my duty to cover up his dirty deeds, rather than listen to my own inner voice,” Cohen said in packed courtroom. “My departure as a loyal soldier to the president bears a very hefty price.”
Meanwhile, over at AMI:
The National Enquirer paid $150,000 to Karen McDougal, an alleged former lover of Trump, and then buried the story she sold them.
In a statement, prosecutors said, “As a part of the agreement, AMI admitted that it made the $150,000 payment in concert with a candidate’s presidential campaign, and in order to ensure that the woman did not publicize damaging allegations about the candidate before the 2016 presidential election.” Prosecutors said that AMI provided “substantial” assistance to the government. The co-operation of AMI will make it harder for President Trump to argue that Cohen was acting as a rogue operator.
Note: Legal Definition of obstruction of justice:
the crime or act of willfully interfering with the process of justice and law especially by influencing, threatening, harming, or impeding a witness, potential witness, juror, or judicial or legal officer or by furnishing false information in or otherwise impeding an investigation or legal process
The ex-boyfriend of an outspoken advocate for domestic violence survivors was indicted Tuesday on charges of murdering her.
Nathaniel Mitchell, 34, is accused of beating Donna Alexander in the head with an unknown object on Sept. 21 in her home in Grand Prairie, roughly 13 miles west of Dallas.
Mitchell allegedly broke into the 36-year-old entrepreneur’s house through her bedroom window in the middle of the night and assaulted her as her two children hid in their rooms. Alexander was taken to the hospital, where she died of her injuries three days later.
A Tarrant County grand jury indicted Mitchell on multiple charges Tuesday, including murder and burglary with the intent to commit aggravated assault.
Alexander was best known for founding the Anger Room, a company in Dallas that rents out rooms to people who are looking for an outlet for their rage. Customers destroy items in a customized “rage room” in five-, 15- or 25-minute sessions.
The Chicago native had said she first came up with the idea for her business when she was 16.
Customers “get gratification — and relief of whatever they have going on in their personal lives or work issues,” Alexander told CBS in 2015. “It prevents them from lashing in the public world — breaking other people’s property, putting their hands on other people.”
Though Alexander hoped to curb domestic violence with her business, experts say anger has little to do with such domestic abuse.
“It is now widely accepted that domestic violence is not about anger but instead it is the abuser’s desire to control his partner through any means that will work,” Australia’s Domestic Violence Prevention Centre says on its website.
Alexander’s death is especially tragic given her anti-violence focus, her sister Lauren Armour told The Chicago Tribune in October.
“No matter how much [Donna] tried to get away from it, [Mitchell] always ended up back in her life,” Armour said. “She was talented, creative, loved people and loved them hard. Despite how ugly a person might be, she loved them hard.”
Mitchell is being held in Tarrant County Jail. He faces life in prison if convicted.
"US Atty from Southern District of NY announces it won't prosecute American Media after firm, headed by Trump friend David Pecker, admits it acted w/Trump campaign to suppress allegation of extra-marital affair"
as I said, they were blackmailed with the threat of legal harrassment
it's not difficult to understand why they did it
I suspect that even a half-wit like you gets it
"If he had paid off McDougal back in 2006 when he had the affair, it's doubtful his shenanigans would have risen to the top of his unending list of bad behavior.
The fact that he wait a DECADE - to 2016 to do that - you know, when he was RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT puts that payment in a whole new light."
that doesn't prove he didn't do it for personal reasons
it's just that, since he was running, the women had more incentive and opportunity to go public
he wanted to prevent the public exposure, regardless of when the risk came about
and, when there are dual possible motives, the benefit of doubt should go to the accused
the campaign finance laws are already of questionable constitutional viability and this extrapolation is nowhere near what Congress intended when they wrote the laws so the resistance is really in lala land now
"Spending was constrained during Obama's terms by Republicans forcing sequestration on him."
not in the first few years
if it wasn't for sequestration, Obama's total would have been much higher
"The deficits loomed so large because tax revenues dropped in HALF because of the Bush collapse,"
Bush didn't cause the collapse
it happened about 18 months after Dems took over Congress
GOP policies had produced an economic miracle from the early eighties until then
"those tax cuts led to the ballooning deficit"
the tax cuts reversed a recession that was taking hold when Clinton left office
they were in place for years before Obama blew the deficit through the roof
"New York Attorney Gen.-elect Letitia James says she plans to launch sweeping investigations into President Donald Trump, his family and "anyone" in his circle"
targeted harassment without evidence of a crime is unconstitutional
"We will use every area of the law to investigate President Trump and his business transactions and that of his family as well,"
wow, will the Big Apple become the Big Banana Republic?
"She's also enlisting help from some prosecutorial heavy hitters, like former U.S. Attorney General Loretta Lynch,"
Lynch may be going to jail
the Senate is investigating her actions
"On Wednesday, Michael Cohen"
"Meanwhile, over at AMI"
they both received something in return for their statements
their testimony isn't reliable
"Note: Legal Definition of obstruction of justice:"
you may be the only moron in America who thinks that paying the women is "obstruction of justice"
maybe they can put you on stool in a glass case at Ripley's Believe It or Not
"Bush didn't cause the collapse
it happened about 18 months after Dems took over Congress"
Retardicans keeps trying to peddle that lie, but the records of the congress are a matter of public record. And Retardicans have yet to actually identify which laws they passed actually caused the recession. When you look at what they did, you find they spent an inordinate amount of time naming post offices. Not particularly useful, but certainly not the cause of the collapse.
Retardicans are becoming more and more Rump like every day - whatever comes out of there mouth - or fingertips had to first pass through their colons.
Why do you think people actually believe the stuff you make up? When I want to read fiction, there are plenty of good authors out there - Herbert, Asimov, Rowling, among many others. They write great fiction, and they've even mastered punctuation and the paragraph form. You could learn a lot from them.
"Lynch may be going to jail"
Oh yeah, "Lock her up!"
LOL Is Trey going to "investigate" her?!
Thanks for my daily dose of political humor.
Fox News Senior Judicial Analyst Andrew Napolitano repeatedly told the morning show’s hosts that the sentencing of former Trump attorney Michael Cohen on Wednesday is sure to cause trouble for the president. Cohen was sentenced to three years in prison for multiple violations, including breaking campaign finance law through hush money payments to women who claimed they had sexual affairs with Trump. Prosecutors said Trump directed Cohen to make the payments ahead of the 2016 election.
“A very, very telling statement came out of the judge’s mouth yesterday ... and that was about the president,” Napolitano, a former judge, said on “Fox & Friends.” “The judge finding that the president ordered and paid for Michael Cohen to commit a crime. That is very telling.”
Trump denied telling Cohen to break the law, as “Fox & Friends” host Steve Doocy noted. Cohen made a “damage control payment” and not an illegal campaign payment, Doocy said, paraphrasing Trump.
“I understand the president’s argument,” Napolitano said. “Unfortunately, the court and the prosecutors who work for the president disagree with him.”
Napolitano argued that if payments made on behalf of Trump to cover up alleged affairs were misreported or filed incorrectly, they could have been corrected. But that’s not what happened.
Oh really, ya don't say. How interesting. Seems like with all the lawyers Rump has, one of them should be able to file paperwork correctly. It's so hard to find good help these days.
“If you do this as part of a scheme, to try to hide it, then it’s not a civil wrong, then it’s a crime. That’s what the judge found yesterday,” Napolitano said.
Earlier Thursday, Napolitano published an op-ed piece on Fox News’ website asserting that Trump is “directly in the legal crosshairs of federal prosecutors” based on sentencing memorandums for Cohen and Paul Manafort, who is Trump’s former campaign chairman.
Napolitano argued that based on those memorandums, the scope of Trump’s legal trouble goes beyond these hush-money payments.
“The president may want the public to think that none of this troubles him,” he wrote. “Yet the evidence of the falsity of his publicly denied proximity to [Russian President Vladimir] Putin during the campaign and the possession of evidence by the Department of Justice of his pre-presidential criminal behavior are gravely serious, and he cannot reasonably pretend that they are not.”
"Retardicans have yet to actually identify which laws they passed actually caused the recession"
the converse is true
Dumbocrats blame Bush, without explaining how anything he did caused it
didn't Clinton deregulate the banks?
didn't Barney Frank, key committee chair, push HUD to pass out more home loans to under-qualified borrowers?
when some problems began to surface a few weeks before the election, didn't Dumbocrats work to exacerbate them by undermining confidence in our economy?
yes, they did all that and more!
"there are plenty of good authors out there - Herbert, Asimov, Rowling,"
Asimov is always interesting
Herbert's a bore
Rowling's child literature is about your level
"Thanks for my daily dose of political humor"
I don't think Lynch is laughing
"Fox News Senior Judicial Analyst Andrew Napolitano repeatedly told the morning show’s hosts that the sentencing of former Trump attorney Michael Cohen on Wednesday is sure to cause trouble for the president. Cohen was sentenced to three years in prison for multiple violations, including breaking campaign finance law through hush money payments to women who claimed they had sexual affairs with Trump. Prosecutors said Trump directed Cohen to make the payments ahead of the 2016 election."
Trump did do that
but since the payments weren't illegal, Trump committed no crime
"“I understand the president’s argument,” Napolitano said. “Unfortunately, the court and the prosecutors who work for the president disagree with him.”"
unfortunately for the court and the prosecutors, neither the Senate which makes our laws nor the Supreme Court that interprets them, agree with them
"“If you do this as part of a scheme, to try to hide it, then it’s not a civil wrong, then it’s a crime. That’s what the judge found yesterday,” Napolitano said."
relax, Nap
there was no trial to consider this and the judge, who spoke inappropriately, is not the Chief Justice
“Yet the evidence of the falsity of his publicly denied proximity to [Russian President Vladimir] Putin during the campaign and the possession of evidence by the Department of Justice of his pre-presidential criminal behavior are gravely serious, and he cannot reasonably pretend that they are not.”
no pretense necessary
there is no evidence of proximity to Putin during the campaign and no evidence his pre-presidential criminal behavior
if you guys can channel Dorothy and click your heels together, maybe you can go to a land where this is all true
One day after former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn's legal team made the bombshell allegation that the FBI had pushed him not to bring a lawyer to his fateful Jan. 24, 2017 interview with agents at the White House, the federal judge overseeing Flynn's criminal case is demanding answers from Special Counsel Robert Mueller.
U.S. District Judge Emmet G. Sullivan ordered Mueller late Wednesday to turn over all of the government's documents and "memoranda" related to Flynn's questioning. The extraordinary demand puts Mueller under the microscope, and sets a 3:00 p.m. EST Friday deadline for the special counsel's office to produce the sensitive FBI documents.
Sullivan -- who overturned the 2008 conviction of former U.S. Sen. Ted Stevens after government misconduct came to light -- is weighing how to sentence Flynn, who pleaded guilty to one count of lying to federal authorities during the 2017 interview in the West Wing. Flynn faced mounting legal bills that forced him to sell his home amid the prosecution.
The judge could determine why the FBI apparently took a significantly more aggressive tack in handling the Flynn interview than it did during other similar matters, including the agency's sit-downs with Hillary Clinton.
Flynn is set to be sentenced next Tuesday -- but Sullivan's move might delay that date, or lead to other dramatic and unexpected changes in the case. Sullivan has the authority to toss Flynn's guilty plea and the charge against him if he concludes that the FBI interfered with Flynn's constitutional right to counsel.
Federal authorities undertaking a national security probe are ordinarily under no obligation to inform interviewees of their right to an attorney unless they are in custody, as long as agents do not act coercively. Flynn's lawyers claimed in Tuesday's filing that FBI brass had threatened to escalate the matter to involve the Justice Department if Flynn sought the advice of the White House Counsel before talking with agents. That may be seen a coercive.
Things must be pretty bad in the Democratic Party if outgoing California Gov. Jerry Brown thinks the party is out of touch with mainstream America. But then again, look at what the party's new socialist darling, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, is now successfully pushing.
In a radio interview this week, Brown said that the Democratic Party has gone "further out than I think the majority of people want." Brown was talking mostly about his own state's Democrats, which now completely dominate the state government and might go off the deep end.
But the observation applies equally to Democrats outside the Golden State. The Democratic Party has lost its mooring and has been drifting steadily to the extremist left.
Now the far left is the "mainstream" in the Democratic Party. Even if their ideas are radical by every else's measure.
Just look at how the party is quickly buckling under pressure from socialists like Ocasio-Cortez.
Before taking office, Ocasio-Cortez has convinced many Democratic colleagues to sign on to her economy-wrecking Green New Deal (GND) agenda. That resolution would establish a goal of having the country shift to 100% renewable energy in a decade. It would decarbonize all industries. And it promises to upgrade "every residential and industrial build for state-of-the-art energy efficiency."
Ocasio-Cortez also threw in a jobs guarantee, socialized medicine and just about every other item on the left's wish list. Oh, and the GND would also set up a new "public bank" to finance all this new government spending. There's also be a new select committee in the House to figure out how to make all this a reality.
None of it is even remotely possible, and all of it would amount to basically a complete takeover of the economy by the federal government. That is, of course, the thinly veiled goal of environmentalists here and abroad, who see climate change as the excuse to establish socialist utopias.
Yet despite the incredibly radical nature of this proposal, it's quickly gaining significant traction amount House Democrats. Three dozen House member have already signed on, as have several Senators.
This, mind you, comes after protests erupted across France over a relatively modest climate-change-driven hike in gasoline taxes. The Green New Deal might be an exciting development for insulated leftists, but it's not going improve the Democratic Party's appeal to the working-class voters they claim to represent.
Meanwhile, the incoming Democratic leadership gave in without a fight when liberals pushed to jettison a House rule that requires a three-fifths majority in the House to approve tax hikes. Pelosi and company tried to keep the rule in place. They said they'd be willing to kill the supermajority rules for tax hikes on the top 20% of Americans (remember when Democrats only targeted the top 1%), as well as tax hikes on corporations. No dice.
"Some liberal organizations and lawmakers said that did not go far enough," according to the Washington Post. They said it would still "make it nearly impossible to enact progressive legislation such as Medicare-for-All or free universal college."
Translation: Democrats have now made it clear that, if they have the chance, they will raise taxes on everyone to finance their socialistic agenda. The move did not go unnoticed by Republicans.
"It's barely gotten any attention, but Nancy Pelosi just made it easier for House Dems to raise taxes on everyone," Republican National Committee Chair Ronna McDaniel tweeted. "Not on the wealthy. Everyone. They've never been for the middle class — just more government."
These developments make it clear to everyone just how far out of the mainstream the party has become.
"Retardicans have yet to actually identify which laws they passed actually caused the recession"
the converse is true"
Dumbocrats blame Bush, without explaining how anything he did caused it"
It has been explained several times here, but as usual you completely ignore it except to make snide comments. Bush's crime wasn't so much the laws that he signed, but the laws that his administration never enforced - The SEC didn't bother to regulate the financial instruments it was tasked with overseeing, and just took the money from the investment banks and gave them AAA ratings in return. Investment banks were free to make "liar loans" even though they were against the law. Nobody was enforcing the law so they went ahead and made those loans as if they were legal - knowing that Freddie Mac and Fanny Mae were being forced to guarantee them, and they would be bailed out by the govt if they failed.
"didn't Clinton deregulate the banks?"
Clinton pulled on the Glass-Steagall thread of the banking system by signing the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, also known as the "Financial Services Modernization Act of 1999." In case you don't recall, Gramm, Leach, and Bliley were (are) all Republicans, and that was just one of the pieces of legislation Republicans sponsored and passed in their systematic deregulation of the banking system that started under Ronnie RayGun's watch.
"didn't Barney Frank, key committee chair, push HUD to pass out more home loans to under-qualified borrowers?"
Barney never passed any laws that told the banks they should make "liar loans" or otherwise disregard other laws intended to keep banking safe. The banks did that on their own. In fact, the Freddie Mae and Freddie Mac were in far better shape than the private banks when the collapse hit because they were at least following the laws. Unfortunately, since they had also purchased investments from the private banks, they got hit with the same problems.
Go back and look at the laws Barney and friends passed before the collapse. None of them affected enough total assets to bring down the collapse of the entire international global investment system. If what you think Barney did was the problem, you might be able to convince yourself that explains the collapse of the housing market here in the US. But that's just a tiny piece of the picture. Barney doesn't pass laws for Iceland, Greece, Spain, and other European countries as well. He has no affect on those countries.
It was no coincidence that the investment banking system collapsed all around the rest of the world just before the housing market collapsed here in the US. It wasn't Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae the Hank Paulson had to socialize the losses for first - it was Bear Stearns. And then of course, there was the Lehmann Brothers collapse.
Their investments weren't failing because Barney told Hud to make more loans. They were failing because these investment banks were pushing mortgage companies to make more and more risky loans so they could buy credit default swap options - guaranteed by the US government, and approved by the SEC. The investors didn't care if the loans were legal or not, and so neither did the banks. And who want's to deal with all those pesky regulations anyway? Those just get in the way of the "new economy!"
No fool.
It's the same old economy.
Just new fools.
There are lots of resources around the web where you can find out what really happened before, during, and after the collapse. But your obsession with Barney blinds you to the facts.
The "Giant Pool of Money" is a good place to start:
https://www.thisamericanlife.org/355/the-giant-pool-of-money
Another place to look is Tine's Top 25 list of people to blame for the financial crisis:
http://content.time.com/time/specials/packages/completelist/0,29569,1877351,00.html
(Each name is a link that summarizes his part in the collapse.)
And yes, Bill Clinton is in there for being an accomplice to the Republican dismantling of banking regulations.
But Barney isn't on this list. Nor are the poor people who got screwed over by the illegal practices of the investment banks.
Rather, the list is mostly populated by really rich, greedy, and careless white business men.
Jacob Walter Anderson, the former Baylor University fraternity president who received a $400 fine and zero jail time on Monday on charges related to rape, has been banned from his current campus at the University of Texas at Dallas but will still receive his college degree.
Anderson was expelled from Baylor University after he was investigated for allegedly drugging and repeatedly sexually assaulting a 19-year-old female student during a fraternity party in 2016. The former fraternity president transferred to UT Dallas where he continued his education until the sentencing this week.
Shortly after Anderson’s controversial sentencing, students at UT Dallas created a petition calling for the university to remove Anderson from campus. Anderson was originally indicted on four counts of sexual assault, and faced two to 20 years in prison and a $10,000 fine. But after being offered a controversial plea deal of a lesser charge in October, Anderson was given a $400 fine, a recommended three years’ probation and ongoing counseling.
Not all the material in the Steele dossier has been proven. But none has been disproven.As a raw intelligence document, the dossier holds up well.
Priya, it is difficult to disprove most things. For example, I don't think any sane person ever thought Hillary was running a child prostitution ring out of Comet Ping Pong. But no one has ever disproved it. That doesn't mean as it "holds up well."
Nothing except already publicly known information from the Steele dossier has been proven true. It is a document cleverly devised to be difficult to disprove. That's why Hillary paid so much for it. She knew Fusion GPS was one of the best at creating this type of slander.
The Steele report says Cohen went to Prague several times to collude with Russians. Cohen denied it under oath. And, yet, it was not mentioned in any of Mueller's filings in the last week. It's obviously false.
The Department of Justice wiped text messages between former FBI employees Lisa Page and Peter Strozk from their cell phones before the Office of the Inspector General could review them, a new report from the DOJ watchdog reveals.
Page and Strozk’s involvement with special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation has been heavily scrutinized after it was revealed they had sent numerous anti-Trump text messages back and forth to one another. Mueller has been tasked with looking into whether or not Donald Trump and his campaign associates coordinated with Russian officials to steal the 2016 election away from Hillary Clinton.
The 11-page report reveals that almost a month after Strzok was removed from Mueller’s team, his government-issued iPhone was wiped clean by another individual working in Mueller’s office.
When the OIG obtained his old cell phone in January, investigators were unable to recover any text messages sent or received by Strozk on that device.
Two weeks after Page departed Mueller’s team on July 15, 2017, her government-issued iPhone was also wiped. No one within the special counsel’s office or the Justice Management Divisions of the agency had any records as to who cleared all the data from the iPhone.
Instead of a dastardly scheme to participate with the Kremlin in the hacking of Democratic emails to subvert the election, prosecutors have uncovered a dastardly scheme to try to keep from the voters — as if they weren’t already aware — that Trump is a womanizer.
Everyone should agree that these payments were sleazy. But because Democrats want to see Trump impeached or even jailed, the question is whether he can be successfully prosecuted for the payments after leaving office.
The law, and common sense, suggest the answer is “no.”
The idea that Trump is going to lose re-election, then, get indicted and stand trial on a dubious campaign-finance violation is fantastical. This would be a banana-republic move, and is more a Democratic revenge fantasy than a realistic scenario.
There are major legal obstacles to Trump’s prosecution. One is whether he had the requisite intent of violating the law, and here the standard is very high.
The other is even more fundamental. Bradley Smith, a former chairman of the Federal Election Commission, argues persuasively that the payments don’t constitute campaign contributions.
Federal law defines a contribution as “anything of value made by any person for the purpose of influencing any election for Federal office.”
That seems straightforward enough, but Smith points out that another part of the law defines what is an expenditure for personal use: “expense of a person that would exist irrespective of the candidate’s election campaign.”
“Irrespective of the campaign” is the key phrase. It is meant to keep campaign monies from being used for things that might influence a campaign, but that a candidate would spend on anyway — clothing and mortgages are cited as examples.
Payments to mistresses aren’t, but the rules weren’t written with Trump in mind.
He didn’t undertake his flings with Daniels and McDougal as part of his campaign, and it’s easy to imagine him paying them off even if he wasn’t running. He is a past master at non-disclosure agreements.
Michael Cohen made a noteworthy point in his sentencing memorandum. He said he acted to squelch stories that would “adversely affect the Campaign and cause personal embarrassment to Client-1 and his family.”
The latter would have been a strong incentive to buy off Daniels’ and McDougal’s silence, regardless. Indeed, Smith, the former FEC chairman, makes a telling point: If Trump had paid the women with campaign funds, his critics would certainly be screaming that he’d improperly diverted campaign resources for personal use.
There are key differences, but the case against Trump is a close cousin of the failed campaign-finance prosecution against John Edwards for payments to his mistress.
In that case, two former FEC chairmen said they would have advised Edwards that the payments weren’t campaign expenditures.
The ethics outfit Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington filed a brief opposing the prosecution and noting some of the same absurdities that the case against Trump raises. If any payments to maintain a candidate’s image are legitimate campaign expenditures, can a candidate who wants to present himself as a family man pay for child care with campaign funds?
With Trump, in the absence of evidence of something like Russia collusion, his opponents will work with whatever material they have, no matter how tawdry or removed from the alleged offense that got the investigative ball rolling.
If there was any doubt about whether the LGBT political establishment wields cultural power in the United States, it was put to rest last week with the Kevin Hart Oscars-hosting debacle. Hometown comedian Hart, a Hollywood workhorse who might have struck the right tone at the helm of a show that apparently nobody wants to host, was hounded off and publicly shamed almost as soon as he was announced.
In what is now a depressingly common phenomenon, old tweets of Hart’s, including some that contained homophobic jokes, were “revealed” (they were publicly available), and a protest movement was mounted. As soon as the rumblings began, the end was written. Hart stepped down from hosting last Friday.
The optics of the shaming of Hart, a successful black comedian, by a mostly white LGBT Hollywood establishment were horrible, as was pointed out by black entertainers like Nick Cannon — who surfaced similar tweets from white comedians like Amy Schumer and Sarah Silverman.
Why was Hart punished, and why won’t somebody like Schumer — of Democratic royalty, sharing a name with her cousin, Democratic Senate Leader Chuck Schumer — be forced to pay a penance? Hart is a run of the mill, everyman-type comic whose politics are difficult to decipher, while Schumer et al. are outspoken progressives whose politics are in line with those of the Hollywood establishment. As long as you toe the progressive party line, you get the benefit of the doubt.
As if this wasn’t enough, USA Today reporter Scott Gleeson then took it upon himself to publish tweets from Oklahoma quarterback Kyler Murray just as he was announced as this year’s Heisman Trophy winner. At the age of 14, Murray apparently had some homophobic things to say — much like many 14-year-old boys. Overshadowing Murray’s life achievement for some juvenile tweets was, in a word, cruel.
Do I like homophobia? No. I have experienced it personally. It hurts. It has left lasting scars on my life and has hurt others far worse, when it has morphed into severe and violent bullying.
But I don’t really care to see people publicly punished for jokes they made years ago.
I don’t look to comedians to make me feel comfortable and use only language that I approve of; I look to them to spin humor from the threads of dread and chaos that are inherent in the human experience. I don’t need football players to “affirm” me; I want them to show off exceptional agility and clobber their opponents.
It feels to me that the LGBT movement has largely won our cultural battles here in the U.S.: in our battle for marriage, many but not all legal protections, and cultural representation. Some have now moved on to punishing our perceived enemies now that we have gained cultural clout. Aside from Hart and Murray, nowhere is this more evident than in the cases of the Christian wedding-cake bakers who will happily serve gay customers but do not wish to create custom cakes for gay weddings. The legal plights of such business owners have reached the halls of the U.S. Supreme Court and imbued among the Christian right an understandable feeling that there is no tolerance being shown for their beliefs.
What could possibly be motivating some on the LGBT left to drive these people out of business but a total vindictiveness? Surely, there must be some room in our society for them too.
We demanded tolerance and to be able to exist safely back in the era where coming out was still dangerous and gay people were regularly scorned in public society. We should display some grace in our victories, or risk becoming the bullies we used to fight against
CNBC:
Trump: I'll choose the best people for my administration
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Trump_administration_dismissals_and_resignations
The baby Jesus left his own country to illegally enter Egypt. His "excuse"? A very convenient story about how he'd die if he stayed home. So why didn't baby Jesus file the necessary paperwork that Egypt could then reject? Because baby Jesus's parents were criminals who preferred to unlawfully cross borders into sovereign countries. These swarthy illegals without papers should have been separated and imprisoned. And if baby Jesus had died in custody, he would have learned a valuable lesson about respecting national borders.
Priya, I think movement among different provinces of the Roman Empire was permitted. Both Judea and Egypt were part of the empire.
Try to enjoy the season. You can always go back to attacking God in the new year. Lots of people do that.
Few people who are swarming into the US are fleeing because the government has decreed that all children must die. They are just looking for a better economy. We allow that but we can absorb only so many. The Trump administration has said they will allow Canada to send buses down and take them up north though.
Republicans lost the House in November as droves of female voters spurned the party, a reflection of the gaping gender gap. The election devastated the GOP’s already meager group of congresswomen. Almost none of the political survivors will hold positions of power in Congress next year.
Republican women recognize this is a serious problem. It’s unclear whether GOP men agree.
“It’s very painful,” said Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers (Wash.), who championed female candidates for a decade as the only woman in Republican leadership. “We need to make sure that we are growing our ranks.”
The stark contrast between the parties on gender will be evident when the new Congress is sworn in Jan. 3.
Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) is poised to reclaim the speaker’s gavel as 36 women join her caucus. But House Republicans, who have already elected men to their top two posts, will see their group of women reduced by almost half to just 13, with West Virginia’s Carol Miller the lone GOP woman in the freshman class.
Rep. Elise Stefanik (R-N.Y.) said the number of Republican women in the House has fallen to “crisis level.”
“Women are a majority of voters in our country, and the GOP must do more to ensure our conference represents their views,” said Stefanik, who announced plans this month to help Republican women in their primaries in 2020.
The GOP’s poor performance with women this election cycle has exposed sensitive fault lines within the party over identity politics and how to win elections.
Republican leaders often hedge on whether recruiting female candidates should be a top priority, saying they want whoever is most qualified. The need for more female lawmakers to better reflect the country — or at least to win votes from more women — has not been a given for all party members.
President Trump’s position as head of the party has not helped. His sexual boasts and vulgar comments about women such as former White House staffer Omarosa Manigault Newman and adult-film actress Stormy Daniels were seen as fueling this cycle’s gender gap and Republicans’ punishing defeat with female voters in the nation’s suburbs.
Brett M. Kavanaugh’s nomination to the Supreme Court and allegations against him of sexual misconduct during his teen years — claims he denied — further galvanized female voters.
The New Democrats: Members of the Freshman Class Preview the 116th Congress
Newly-elected Democrats preview the 116th Congress (Priya Mathew/Washington Post Live)
According to exit polls, the gender gap was 12 percentage points in the midterm elections as female voters favored Democrats over Republicans. The last time women voted for Democrats by anywhere near that margin was 1982, when the gap was 17 points.
The GOP’s problem with women could worsen as a number of female Democrats run for president in 2020 and newcomers like Rep.-elect Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) become standard-bearers for the party.
“This is something we’ve got to come to grips with,” former National Republican Congressional Committee chairman Tom Cole (R-Okla.) said of the 2018 gender gap.
“If you look at the post-election analysis and polling, you’d have to be pretty blind not to see the problem,” Cole said. “We’re maximizing rural voters, we’re maximizing white male voters, particularly white males without a college education. Those are all great to have, but they’re not enough to be a majority in the House.”
Disgust with Trump has turned some female Republican legislators into Democrats.
In Kansas last week, state Sen. Barbara Bollier left the GOP after more than four decades, citing Trump’s vulgar comments about women and issues such as the Medicaid expansion and reproductive health.
Bollier said she could no longer “stand up and say, ‘It’s fine to blindly support Trump Republicanism.’ ”
After changing parties, “now I can sleep better — it was a huge moral thing,” she said...
"It's gonna get ugly and it's gonna take time, but the ship of state is slowly turning. And none of Tяump's mountain of lies will stop the juggernaut of truth. Donald Tяump is a lifelong criminal and he will go."
Sad!
While the Russian influence campaign on the 2016 election was far larger in scope than anyone imagined, the media cannot be let off the hook for their terrible editorial decisions to treat email server management practices as an existential threat to the Republic.
Forty-eight persons pleaded guilty out of 69 charged in the Watergate investigations, Wired magazine reminds us. President Richard Nixon may have been the nexus of the affair, but dozens of associates participated in the break-ins and the cover-ups that led to his undoing. President Ronald Reagan never faced impeachment over the Iran-Contra affair, but prosecutors charged 14 others with criminal offenses. Most were convicted. Two received preemptive pardons. Presidentin' is risky business for those guilty of perfidy.
The problem with money is it leaves clues wherever it goes. Even now, 80 percent of U.S. bills carry traces of cocaine. For a town like Washington, D.C. that runs on money, lots of it, following the money leads investigators places. As in prior investigations into clandestine presidential misadventures, money is key to the Department of Justice uncovering dirty little secrets about President Donald Trump's public and private business.
Wired reports:
"More than two years in, the constellation of current investigations involves questions about foreign money and influence targeting the Trump campaign, transition, and White House from not just Russia but as many as a half-dozen countries. Prosecutors are studying nearly every aspect of how money flowed both in and out of Trump’s interconnected enterprises, from his hotels to his company to his campaign to his inauguration. While President Trump once said that he’d see investigations into his business dealings as crossing a “red line,” it appears that Trump himself obliterated that line, intermingling his business and campaign until it was impossible for prosecutors to untangle one without forensically examining the other.
Obviously, some of these investigations below may—or will—eventually overlap. Many of the players, particularly those like Michael Cohen, may end up central to multiple cases. And the existence of an investigation does not necessarily mean convictions will follow."
Although some preemptive pardons are not yet out of the question. As a public service, Wired compiled a list of investigations into the Trump administration (that we know of so far), many with Donald Trump as a nexus:
Investigations by the Special Counsel
1. The Russian Government’s Election Attack
2. WikiLeaks
3. Middle Eastern Influence
4. Paul Manafort’s Activity
5. The Trump Tower Moscow Project
6. Other Campaign and Transition Contacts With Russia
7. Obstruction of Justice
8. Campaign Conspiracy and the Trump Organization’s Finances
9. Inauguration Funding
10. Trump SuperPAC Funding
11. Foreign Lobbying
12. Maria Butina and the NRA
13. Elena Alekseevna Khusyaynova
14. Turkish Influence
15. Tax Case
16. The Trump Foundation
17. Emoluments Lawsuit
Eventually perhaps, someone will bring charges against administration officials for actions driven more by cruelty than by money: the mistreatment of migrant children held indefinitely in border camps, or the denial of entry to asylum seekers in contravention of U.S. and international law.
For now it's seventeen investigations and counting.
"President Donald Trump’s personal charity has agreed to shut down amid an ongoing ethics investigation, the New York attorney general announced on Tuesday.
The agreement follows a court ruling last month that a lawsuit filed against the Donald J. Trump Foundation by Attorney General Barbara Underwood will be allowed to move forward.
“Our petition detailed a shocking pattern of illegality involving the Trump Foundation — including unlawful coordination with the Trump presidential campaign, repeated and willful self-dealing, and much more,” Underwood said in a statement. “This amounted to the Trump Foundation functioning as little more than a checkbook to serve Mr. Trump’s business and political interests.”
As part of the agreement, the Trump Foundation will dissolve under judicial supervision. It will also be required to distribute any remaining charitable assets to reputable organizations approved by Underwood’s office.
Underwood’s lawsuit seeks millions in restitution and penalties. It also seeks to prevent Trump and his three eldest children ― Donald Trump Jr., Ivanka Trump and Eric Trump ― from serving on the boards of other New York charities.
The president vowed shortly after Underwood’s lawsuit was filed to fight the case, calling it the work of “sleazy New York Democrats.”
“I won’t settle this case!” he tweeted."
Another tЯump lie.
"‘Tariff Man’ Has No Idea How Tariffs Work
Tяump has declared himself to be “Tariff Man,” which is apparently the dumbest superhero ever because he doesn’t even understand how tariffs work. He has repeatedly claimed that tariffs force foreign governments to pay us to export their goods here, but the tariff is not paid by the exporter but by the importer of the goods (and ultimately by the consumer).
On Fox News, he told Harris Faulkner:
“We have placed tremendous tariffs on China. When China sends things into America now, they’re paying 25% interest on everything they send in.”
No, you dolt. They’re not. The tariffs are paid by the company that imports them, which is why it’s dramatically raising the costs of so many products. When you put a 25% tariff on steel and aluminum, for instance, every company that imports those things and uses them to make products, like cars and appliances, has to pay that 25% tax to the federal government. Those specific tariffs have cost GM an estimated $1 billion already, which is why they’re having to shut down plants. But Tяump is just too ignorant to understand that.
And this man has a master’s in finance from an Ivy League school, for crying out loud. I can only assume that his dad bought him that degree. What other explanation is there?"
Its amazing how stupid Tяump is, how can someone get elected president who doesn't know very basic things like this? I honestly think Tяump's IQ is 80-85.
MIKE SLATER (HOST, THE MIKE SLATER SHOW): "You know, Steve, with this story in particular, I used to get really outraged by this, but right now I’m just — I feel sad. I feel sad for them. They’re so deceived. I think this is a sign of how prosperous we are here in America, where these people don’t think they need God, and they get their kicks out of mocking God. They get their kicks out of mocking this religion and mocking Christmas in general. But I’ll tell you, it’s not going to affect my walk with God. It’s not going to affect what happens inside my house. It’s not going to affect what I teach my kids and the Bible. So I just feel sad for these people. A friend of mine just got back — two days ago, got back from a Middle Eastern country and he had to go to underground churches where they had one Bible and truly, if they got caught, they would be killed. So, people over there aren’t worshiping Satan openly, so it’s a shame that Americans here are abusing the freedoms here when they could be worshiping God. "
You know why Christians are persecuted in the Middle East? Because they don’t have separation of church and state to protect against it. Islam is predominant and, in most countries of the Middle East, the official and exclusive religion of the state. The very same separation of church and state that protects the right of the Satanic Temple to openly go about their business is the same principle that would protect against the persecution of Christians and — ironically — the principle that Christians like Slater wants to eliminate so that his religion can dominate and oppress.
Happy Winter Solstice everyone!
Remember: A big party in the middle of winter is the reason for the season :)
This seems like a common christian caricature of what they think an atheist believes.
"The universe doesn’t care whether we live or die, or whether we’re virtuous or sinful. Nature simply doesn’t give a damn."
What that statement overlooks is that people are part of nature as well. Other people and even our pets care that we are here and are happier for it, so it is false that the universe/nature doesn't give a damn about us.
"When a life is over, the question lingers: Was there any point, really? Was it all meaningless? What was achieved by the lifelong hassle of earning money, raising children, fending off illness, and finally succumbing? I guess the answer is: Each person’s life is intensely real and vital to him or her while it’s in progress – then it ends. Afterward, did it really matter?"
Many great questions have caused me anguish over the decades: What did vegetation around the world look like during the time of dinosaurs before grass evolved? What did dinosaurs really look and behave like? Of the trillions of stars there must be fantastic forms of life and technology, it torments me sometimes that I can never know what any of it is like, let alone all of it.
But one "great question" that has never bothered me is "Why am I here? What is my purpose?" Maybe I'm missing something, but it all seems very obvious to me - I don't need a reason to be here, or a purpose for my existence. I'm here for the same reason a rock is, or Pluto, or a cow - random mutation in combination with rhythmic laws of physics and mathematics. That I'm here and, on the whole, have more happiness in life than sadness is enough. I don't need any reason or purpose for existing beyond that.
Being that we are evolved to survive and thrive through cooperation...we care about each other, our lives are better because on the whole humans cooperate more than they fight.
After thousands of hours of thinking about such things I need nothing more than that and see no possibility for anything more than that.
Same sex relationship problems
President Trump sought Thursday to defend his decision to withdraw all U.S. military forces from Syria amid mounting criticism from lawmakers in both parties — and fresh praise from Russian President Vladimir Putin.
Trump justified pulling out of Syria by claiming that the United States had defeated the Islamic State, an assertion that was widely criticized as premature, risking future aggression in the absence of U.S. forces.
The move plunged U.S. allies into uncertainty and created the potential for greater regional instability even as it provided Russia and its ally, Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, a chance to cement greater control over the country amid a civil war.
Some of the most persistent criticism of Trump’s move came Thursday from Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.), an ally of the president on most issues.
Graham, who earlier called Trump’s decision “a disaster,” drafted a nonbinding resolution for the Senate to call on Trump to reconsider his decision and for any future decision to withdraw to come only after a “robust interagency process” — implicit criticism of Trump’s lack of consultation before Wednesday’s announcement.
“I think there’s a lot of votes for it,” Graham said at a news conference, adding that he was confident Trump had not consulted senior members of his national security team before making his decision.
“Only in President Trump’s parallel alternate universe has ISIS been defeated,” said Sen. Robert Menendez (D-N.J.), the top Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, who appeared alongside Graham at the news conference on Capitol Hill.
During a separate news conference, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) criticized Trump for making his decision in “a cavalier fashion,” calling it “a Christmas present to Vladimir Putin.”
As Trump was tweeting from the White House, Putin, at his annual year-end news conference, said the Islamic State has suffered “serious blows” in Syria and praised Trump’s decision to withdraw U.S. forces.
“On this, Donald is right. I agree with him,” Putin said.
The population of the United States last year grew at the slowest rate in 80 years.
USA! USA! USA!
So, the Americans asked the Kurds to fight ISIS and told them they'd have their back if they did, providing air strikes, troop support and so on.
Now that there are about 2000 ISIS troops left in Syria the Kurds just about have ISIS wiped out.
So, what does Tяump do? Turkey's president tells Tяump "I'd sure like it if you'd pull out of Syria, and by the way in a couple of days we're going to attack the Kurds where your troops are."
So, Tяump caves and announces the U.S. is withdrawing all support from Syria and the Kurds. Tяump tells the Kurds "Yeah, I know we got you into this fight and said we'd have your back but we're running away now that its time to support you like you supported us.
This is the sort of thing why the United States is hated around the world. The U.S. pushes people to fight against dictators and then when things get's tough abandons all those who cooperated with the United States to be done with as ISIS and the dictators choose.
And Putin tells Tяump "Nice of you to leave Syria but you've been saying you'd leave Afghanastan for 17 years, how about it?" Two hours later Tяump announces a sudden withdrawl of half of American troops from Afghanastan.
Tяump is utterly unconcerned with the effects of the withdrawls, he just wanted something to distract from the 17 investigations surrounding his presidency that are going badly for him.
I believe Tяump is becoming unhinged under all the pressure coming to a head and this is his last desperate attempt to fight off the sharks closing in on him. Look for him to get increasingly erratic and impulsive over the comming weeks. God let's hope he doesn't start world war III.
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/12/17/worst-start-to-december-for-the-stock-market-since-great-depression.html
https://www.aol.com/article/news/2018/12/20/2-more-kansas-republicans-just-left-their-party-to-become-democrats/23623954/
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2018/12/21/defense-secretary-james-mattiss-anti-trumpism-resignation-letter-annotated/
And today, Chief bully at tЯumplandia's thugs-Я-us white house is threatening to shut down the government for Christmas and beyond.
Trump threatens government shutdown ‘will last for a very long time’ if Democrats oppose House bill that includes border wall money
Because a government shut-down will make us safer?
HO HO HO
Trump said Mexico would pay for the wall.
Why is he trying to force US tax-payers to pay for it?
"After thousands of hours of thinking about such things I need nothing more than that and see no possibility for anything more than that."
Priya, your post the other day was a nice explanation of what you believe and why without attacking anyone else's beliefs. Not easy to accomplish.
Happy Winter Solstice.
It's the longest night of the year. Take advantage of it
Unless a miracle “Santa Claus rally” emerges, this is going to be the worst year for U.S. stocks since 2008.
Ever since the 2016 election, Trump has pointed to market gains as proof that his economic policies are working and that the country is thriving under his leadership. Now a favored talking point is crumbling.
Before the market downturn, Trump would take prepared remarks and add comments about the economy, officials say. But lately he has tweeted less about the economy.
The Dow’s performance since Trump took office is now significantly less than what was achieved at the same point in Barack Obama’s presidency. The Dow is up 18 percent under Trump, compared with 45 percent at this point under Obama, according to Bespoke Investments.
"Priya, your post the other day was a nice explanation of what you believe and why without attacking anyone else's beliefs. Not easy to accomplish."
Thank you. I'm glad you found it that way.
While I was writing it it hadn't crossed my mind that "I shouldn't or don't want to attack anyone's beliefs", it just came out that way as the simplist summarization I could give.
Just a friendly reminder that illegal border crossing hovers near the bottom of a 40 year low and the only reason Tяump keeps pushing for his wall is because it amps up his insane cult of sycophants who hate brown people.
"I don't care if Tяump broke the law." - Senator Orrin Hatch. This says everything you need to know about today's Republican party.
Imagine being a political party whose burning mission is to take health care away from sick people because a black president gave it to them.
Tяump a couple of days ago "We're leaving Syria because I have defeated ISIS."
Tяump now "Russia, Iran, and Syria will have to fight ISIS without us"
Two days after Russia and Turkey demanded it, Tяump pulls out of Syria - he is their puppet.
The last cooler than average year globally was 1976.
tЯump gave it away.
Perhaps the timing of George H.W. Bush’s death last month was merciful. This way he didn’t have to see America lose the Cold War.
Bush presided over the Soviet Union’s collapse in 1991. But the triumph he and others earned with American blood and treasure over 71 years, defeating the Soviet Union and keeping its successor in check, has been squandered by President Trump in just two.
Trump’s unraveling of the post-war order accelerated this week when he announced a willy-nilly pullout from Syria, leaving in the lurch scores of allies who participated in the campaign against the Islamic State, throwing our Kurdish partners to the wolves, isolating Israel, and giving Russia and Iran free rein in the Middle East. Then word emerged that Trump is ordering another hasty withdrawal, from Afghanistan. Trump’s defense secretary, retired Gen. Jim Mattis, resigned in protest of the president’s estrangement of allies and emboldening of Russia and China.
The TV series “The Man in the High Castle” imagines a world in which Nazis won World War II. But we don’t need an alternative-history show to imagine a Soviet victory in the Cold War. We have Trump.
Mattis, in his memorable resignation letter (a bookend to George Kennan’s “long telegram” of 1946) wrote: “We must do everything possible to advance an international order that is most conducive to our security, prosperity and values, and we are strengthened in this effort by the solidarity of our alliances. Because you have the right to have a secretary of defense whose views are better aligned with yours on these and other subjects, I believe it is right for me to step down from my position.”
Mattis spelled out the views of his that are apparently not “aligned” with Trump’s: “treating allies with respect,” believing in the 29 NATO democracies (Trump has repeatedly raised questions about NATO’s utility); respecting the 74-nation “defeat-ISIS coalition” (now to be abandoned in Syria); and recognizing threats from China and Russia, which “want to shape a world consistent with their authoritarian model . . . at the expense of their neighbors, America and our allies.
Republicans now profess to be alarmed. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), who has enabled Trump at every step, says he’s “particularly distressed.” Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.) sees “chaos.” But that is too little, too late. Turkey says it will postpone an invasion of Syria as U.S. forces leave — the better to “bury” our Kurdish allies. And Russian President Vladimir Putin exults: “American troops should not be in Syria and have been there illegally.”...
Indeed, a Soviet leader hardly could have outlined a better scenario than Trump has created for Putin:
A rift between the United States and NATO allies over the future of the alliance.
A U.S. demand that Russia be returned to the Group of Seven , as Russia continues provocations in Ukraine.
A U.S. threat to pull out of the World Trade Organization, and a round of U.S.-imposed tariffs that severely weakened it.
A U.S. president abandoning human rights, accepting Saudi Arabia’s murder of a U.S.-based journalist and embracing repressive leaders around the globe.
A U.S. president creating a rift with Europe over Iran (the nuclear agreement) and climate change (the Paris accord).
A U.S. president embracing as “very honorable” North Korea’s brutal dictator without any tangible concessions on nuclear weapons.
A U.S.-launched trade war that, the Federal Reserve said this week, is partially responsible for cooling worldwide growth.
Lost confidence among Americans in elections, the Justice Department, the FBI, the courts and the free press.
And the loss of a bipartisan consensus against the Russian threat. Forty percent of Republicans called Russia an ally or friend in a Gallup poll, up from 22 percent in 2014.
Why has Trump squandered so much for so little? Maybe it’s because, during the 2016 campaign, Russia was privately negotiating a business deal in Moscow with him and releasing stolen documents that hurt his Democratic opponent. (Meanwhile, Trump was praising Putin and his campaign was softening the GOP platform on Russia.)
Whether special counsel Robert S. Mueller III concludes there was a quid pro quo, Putin clearly has benefited from Trump’s presidency.
In Helsinki, in front of the world, Trump accepted Putin’s word over that of U.S. intelligence agencies. Trump has chafed at aides’ insistence on Russia sanctions, and the few who could resist Trump’s pro-Putin instincts are gone: H.R. McMaster, Rex Tillerson, John Kelly and now Mattis.
Generations of Americans paid any price and bore any burden, from Berlin to Saigon to Havana. Now, 29 years after the wall fell, Trump is handing Moscow the Cold War victory it could never win.
Yes, no doubt about it, Tяump has been a global disaster.
The world is on the edge - he may be the tipping point that destroys it.
Tяump yesterday: "I won an election, siad to be one of the greatest of all time,"
The popular vote losing pussy grabber wants to be a comedian now - he lost the popular vote to Hillary by 3 million votes!
Seriously, this guy is completely detached from reality!
"Unless a miracle “Santa Claus rally” emerges, this is going to be the worst year for U.S. stocks since 2008"
so what?
the stock market is generally an educated guess by investors as to what the economy will be a year from now
right now, investors are concerned about the Fed's determination to stop the Trump economic boom and the trade war with China
the Fed is concerned that the economy is doing too well and believes we need to put more people out of work and decrease opportunity to prevent a rise in wages and the resulting inflation
what do you think?
China has engaged in massive abuse for years which past "dignified" presidents have acquiesced in to the extent that China is now threatening to overtake us in the coming decades
if that world were to occur, with the technology that exists now, life as we know it now, would cease to exist
China would install puppets in other governments and privacy would be gone
already, China regularly attacks the privacy of Americans by stealing personal data on millions and has decimated many of our industries
Trump is the first president with the balls to respond
someone had to do it, and war is costly
"Ever since the 2016 election, Trump has pointed to market gains as proof that his economic policies are working"
actually, he pointed to the stock market as proof investors approved
the proof his economic policies are working is employment rates at record lows and labor participation rates that are improving after Obama said they never would and the resurgence of manufacturing after Obama said it never would
minorities and women have never had as much opportunity as they have under Trump
but, still, TTF's concern for the stock portfolios of the upper class is a touching reversal
Trump has stuck with the interests of working Amerians
"Just a friendly reminder that illegal border crossing hovers near the bottom of a 40 year low and the only reason Tяump keeps pushing for his wall is because it amps up his insane cult of sycophants who hate brown people."
Trump pushes for the wall because he promised to do it and has taken campaign promises much more seriously than most Presidents
Dems really have no logical reason to oppose the wall
""I don't care if Tяump broke the law." - Senator Orrin Hatch. This says everything you need to know about today's Republican party."
everything you need to know about today's Democrat party is that no one cares if Comey, Brennan, Clapper, Hillary, Obama broke the law, as long as their malfeasance undermined the victory of Trump over Hillary
"The last cooler than average year globally was 1976."
America has met the goals of the Paris climate agreement
no other country has come close
we could invade those countries and force them to install nuclear plants, stop cutting down forests, and make them convert to natural gas (which we could sell them)
is that what you think we should do?
if not, then what?
"Perhaps the timing of George H.W. Bush’s death last month was merciful. This way he didn’t have to see America lose the Cold War."
a little history lesson:
the cold war was between two political philosophical systems: democracy and communism
the US led a group of nations defending democracy, the USSR defended communism
the USSR no longer exists, the US is thriving
the major threat to world peace, currently, is China
the struggle against them will be costly but we will prevail
Trump has this right
as for H.W. Bush, he may have been the most disastrous president of the post WWII era
his decision to push Iraq out of Kuwait was flawed, we had no interest in the interminable hostilities of Mid-east Muslims and are better off when they are fighting one another
but, as bad as that was, the worst blunder in our history was allowing Saddam to remain in power
the result was 9/11, the second Iraq war, ISIS, the suffering of millions, deaths of hundreds of thousands, waste of trillions of American dollars...for what?
"Bush presided over the Soviet Union’s collapse in 1991. But the triumph he and others earned with American blood and treasure over 71 years, defeating the Soviet Union and keeping its successor in check,"
Ronald Reagan won by threatening a military build-up that the USSR couldn't possibly match
Bush, and later, Clinton squandered the victory in that brief period when Russia was committed to democracy but refusing to provide assistance
this allowed a dictator like Putin to exploit the economic conditions
still, he doesn't present much of a threat to American interests or democracy around the world
the free world should unite to thwarting the plans of China
"The popular vote losing pussy grabber wants to be a comedian now - he lost the popular vote to Hillary by 3 million votes!"
this statement has no basis
we don't decide the Presidency by a national popular vote
to ensure widespread support, we hold fifty-odd popular votes in different states to prevent one populous region from oppressing the remaining country
in this election, Southern and Rustbelt states allied to stop coastal elites from this oppression
if we had had a national popular vote, Trump may have won anyway
The Republican vote was suppressed in California, with 10% of the population, because their system has most races with two Dems and no Repubs in the general election
tЯump: Who's going to pay for the wall?
Deplorable crowd: MEXICO!!!
tЯump: Who?
Deplorable crowd: MEXICO!!!
tЯump: 100%
"to ensure widespread support, we hold fifty-odd popular votes in different states to prevent one populous region from oppressing the remaining country"
Your claims of oppressive victim-hood know no bounds.
It wasn't one populous region - it was a number of them - spread around the country.
The electoral college system was put in place by rich white landowners to insure they had a "trump card" to overthrow the popular vote, should the need ever arise to keep themselves in power.
It did precisely what it was designed to do. For rich white landowner whose name just happens to be "Trump."
The "coastal elites" the rabid right likes to claim is always oppressing them just happens to be the majority of people living in large cities creating most of the nation's GDP.
The people in these large cities know how to work together, get along, and be productive, and their out-sized share of the nations GDP is a testament to that.
In much of the rest of the country, you have entitled white folks who think they can graze their private cattle on federal lands for free - and then take over federal offices by force - with plenty of guns - and claim they are being "oppressed."
Of course, that's just the most extreme of them. Many of the rest are just anti-social, obnoxious nitwits that nobody likes having around. The large empty areas between them makes everyone happier.
But being outvoted by the majority of people isn't "oppression" in ANY sense of the term, moron.
It's called democracy.
This morning I phoned my friend, the former Republican member of Congress.
ME: So, what are you hearing?
HE: Trump is in deep sh*t.
ME: Tell me more.
HE: When it looked like he was backing down on the wall, Rush and the crazies on Fox went ballistic. So he has to do the shutdown to keep the base happy. They’re his insurance policy. They stand between him and impeachment.
ME: Impeachment? No chance. Senate Republicans would never go along.
HE (laughing): Don’t be so sure. Corporate and Wall Street are up in arms. Trade war was bad enough. Now, you’ve got Mattis resigning in protest. Trump pulling out of Syria, giving Putin a huge win. This dumbass shutdown. The stock market in free-fall. The economy heading for recession.
ME: But the base loves him.
HE: Yeah, but the base doesn’t pay the bills.
ME: You mean …
HE: Follow the money, friend.
ME: The GOP’s backers have had enough?
HE: They wanted Pence all along.
ME: So …
HE: So they’ll wait until Mueller’s report, which will skewer Trump. Pelosi will wait, too. Then after the Mueller bombshell, she’ll get 20, 30, maybe even 40 Republicans to join in an impeachment resolution.
ME: And then?
HE: Senate Republicans hope that’ll be enough – that Trump will pull a Nixon.
ME: So you think he’ll resign?
HE (laughing): No chance. He’s fu*king out of his mind. He’ll rile up his base into a fever. Rallies around the country. Tweet storms. Hannity. Oh, it’s gonna be ugly. He’ll convince himself he’ll survive.
ME: And then?
HE: That’s when Senate Republicans pull the trigger.
ME: Really? Two-thirds of the Senate?
HE: Do the math. 47 Dems will be on board, so you need 19 Republicans. I can name almost that many who are already there. Won’t be hard to find the votes.
ME: But it will take months. And the country will be put through a ringer.
HE: I know. That’s the worst part.
ME: I mean, we could have civil war.
HE: Hell, no. That’s what he wants, but no chance. His approvals will be in the cellar. America will be glad to get rid of him.
ME: I hope you’re right.
HE: He’s a dangerous menace. He’ll be gone. And then he’ll be indicted, and Pence will pardon him. But the state investigations may put him in the clinker. Good riddance.
Wyatt/Regina said "to ensure widespread support, we hold fifty-odd popular votes in different states to prevent one populous region from oppressing the remaining country"
You keep saying that when obviously the truth is the exact opposite. The electoral college results in a president with less widespread support - Tяump was made president despite having the support of 3 million fewer voters.
The electoral college consistently results in presidents with less widespread support.
As it is now the majority of voters are held hostage to the overly conservative beliefs of a minority of the population - you've never made a logical case to justify this being the case. Because you can't, conservatives just want special privileges you don't deserve.
There is such a thing as the "tyranny of the majority", for example, one can clearly justify protecting LGBT people from the tyranny of the majority because they've obviously been unfairly treated.
But there is no rational case to be made that conservatives have been unfairly treated and should have their votes worth more than liberals. LGBT people don't have their votes count for more than other voters, conservatives shouldn't have that special privilege.
The constitution does not contain a right for conservatives to oppress LGBT people.
The first amendment is based on equality, it does not make christians superior to other Americans.
The American Talibangicals are doing everything they can to pervert the right not to be oppressed by the government for one's religion into a right to christian superiority.
This is the same sort of bastardization conservative christians have performed on the concept of love - they've long perverted the meaning of love into the attempt to prevent harmless innocent LGBT people from having same sex relationships.
To conservative christians, love does not mean "I enjoy being around you, I want to be with you, I hope for your happiness", it means "I seek to exert control over you whether you like it or not".
U.S. puts in God we trust on their money Canada puts its OK to be gay score one more for Canada
Its like the Dow Jones has finally realized Tяump is president.
Susan Collins Delivered 2018's Most Shameful Hijacking Of Feminism
The vote was bad enough. Sending a man the majority of Americans believe to have sexually assaulted someone to the court, conferring supreme judicial power to a second fabulist accused of sexual misconduct. Granting this man decisive power over the nation’s current and future female bodies. Swinging open the door for the real backlash against women’s outrage. But she not only sold out women’s bodies to confirm a Supreme Court justice selected explicitly to imprison them in enforced pregnancies: She dressed that vote up as a feminist call to arms.
Sen. Susan Collins could have simply, quietly, disappointingly voted to confirm this man. Instead, she ostentatiously wrapped her confirmation in a false feminine bow, grandstanding on the Senate floor for nearly 45 minutes. She dressed head to toe in taupe, the color of neutrality, and told women that the lesson of Christine Blasey Ford’s lasting trauma is that if Brett Kavanaugh committed such crimes on her 15-year-old body, Ford should have reported it.
Collins, Our Lady of Perpetual Moral Bankruptcy, droned on about how many survivors’ stories she’d heard over the preceding days, aligning herself with the popular rhetoric around believing women. Just not this one, she painstakingly attempted to explain, using debunked junk science, disregarding any credible neuropsychology about how trauma affects memory ― the very science Ford teaches at the university level, and which she explained patiently through her own testimony as her own expert witness.
Collins could have simply, quietly, disappointingly voted to confirm this man. Instead, she ostentatiously wrapped her confirmation in a false feminine bow.
It’s perhaps the ultimate anti-woman double-sided coin, to simultaneously dismiss both a woman’s expertise and her story. Blithely rejecting both her academic rigor and her sworn testimony ― whose hand was over her mouth, whose face pressed up against hers, whose cruel laughter rang forever in her ears, what she testified she was 100 percent certain about.
These days, such offenses against women must be prettied up in fake feminism. Collins paired her dismissal of Ford’s trauma with a cri de coeur, calling for increased reporting of sexual harassment and assault. “We must listen to survivors, and every day we must seek to stop the criminal behavior that has hurt so many,” she said. “We owe this to ourselves, our children, and generations to come” ― so long as it’s politically expedient.
Watching Ford’s hours of detailed, self-critical testimony, millions of us sat suspended in fear that our elected officials would not believe her. But then a worse fear crept in: that they would believe her, and it wouldn’t matter.
The best argument Collins could find for disbelieving Ford was a theory that one of Kavanaugh’s friends, Ed Whelan, the president of the conservative Ethics and Public Policy Center, had floated on Twitter: Sure, she was sexually assaulted, but she must have the wrong guy. Almost immediately, Whelan apologized for this “appalling and inexcusable” lack of judgment in suggesting such a thing, and offered his resignation. But that appalling and inexcusable theory was exactly what Collins cited to tear Ford down and make the case that women must feel empowered to report their own assaults. That’s how incredible her disbelief is. And how cynical her politics.
One day, very soon, the Supreme Court will agree to hear a case that slashes women’s control over their own bodies and futures “for generations to come,” robbing agency even beyond how Kavanaugh stripped away Ford’s. When it does, let’s not forget the senator who was most complicit in delivering this specious jurist. And how she applied lipstick to her lip service, pretending, as she did it, that she stood for our country’s daughters and granddaughters.
(more at the link above)
Tяump Berates Whitaker Over Cohen Prosecution
There are multiple reports out there that Tяump berated Acting Attorney General Matthew Whitaker after Michael Cohen’s guilty plea implicated him in campaign finance violations for paying off mistresses to prevent their stories from affecting his presidential campaign. This is yet another attempt to obstruct justice and interfere with the Mueller investigation.
CNN noted that the reporting didn’t suggest that Tяump directed Whitaker to quash the charges — but according to Elie Honig, a former assistant US Attorney for the Southern District of New York, just the pressure could spell trouble for him.
“It doesn’t matter if the president lashed out or if he asked really nicely,” Honig said. “The bottom line is: it’s patently obvious what his message was to Matthew Whitaker, which was, ‘Get the Southern District off my back, you need to make sure the Southern District doesn’t do things in the future that reflect poorly on me.’”
“Maybe he didn’t say, ‘Make sure they don’t,’ but if he said, ‘I’m angry that this happened,’ any boss giving any subordinate that message is entirely clear what he means,” the former prosecutor said. “He means, ‘don’t let this happen again.’”
Of course it means that. Who could possibly doubt that? Why would he scream at Whitaker over it in the first place? Because Whitaker oversees all federal prosecutors and could, if he chose, tell the Southern District of New York to back off on this. But doing so would be an obvious case of obstruction of justice. Remember, Tяump is on record many times saying that the job of the attorney general is to protect him legally, not to make sure justice is done. Tяump’s purpose was unmistakable to all but the most delusional.
In one year the average American taxpayer making $50,000 a year pays:
$36 towards food stamps, $6 for other safety net programs, $870 for corporate subsides, $1600 to offset coporate tax loopholes, and $1231 to offset losses from overseas tax havens.
We can afford to help the poor, not corporate welfare.
Souces: The Tax Foundation, Citizens for Tax Justice.
Trump's version:
“Yes, West Virginia, there is a Santa Claus. He worked with an army of little people deep below Comet Ping Pong, a pizza restaurant in Washington. Between 3 million and 5 million of them voted fraudulently in 2016 election.
“But after I threatened to rain fire and fury on Santa’s workshop the likes of which the world has never seen, he gave us a much better deal. He will now export beautiful, clean coal from West Virginia to stockings across the world. Santa, by giving a nod and laying a finger aside of his nose, will replace Obamacare with something cheaper and better. With a wink of his eye and a twist of his head, he will cut the debt in half and make the tax cut pay for itself. He will give a whistle, and Mexico will pay for the wall. Steel jobs will return, Russia will be our friend, North Korea will surrender its nuclear weapons, Germany will pay for NATO, ISIS will disband, everybody will be home for Christmas, and all your Christmases will be white. Yes, West Virginia, and Ohio, and Michigan, there is a Santa Claus.”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/trump-finally-found-a-conspiracy-theory-he-doesnt-believe/2018/12/26/21e1f56a-0935-11e9-85b6-41c0fe0c5b8f_story.html
Turning the Tables on Same-Sex Marriage? Not with THIS Argument:
The Masterpiece Cakeshop case was decided by the Supreme Court last summer in favour of the baker who refused to make a wedding cake for a same-sex marriage, but it was a narrow ruling that set little or no precedent. It remains an open question how far “My religion demands that I not serve your kind” can go.
Before that case was decided, a Christian blogger wanted to demonstrate the hypocrisy of gay couples asking Christian bakers for wedding cakes. So it’s not okay for Christian bakers to refuse? Let’s see how gay bakers like it when the tables are turned!
The Freedom Outpost blogger asked thirteen gay or pro-gay bakers for a cake that said, “Gay Marriage is Wrong.” Each baker turned him down.
"f anyone who objects [says] our request for the cake was hateful, this is exactly the type of thing the homosexual activists do to Christian bakeries when they use the state to coerce them to make a cake with an explicitly pro homosexual slogan on it. Well, to turn it against them, we asked for an explicitly anti-homosexual marriage cake."
Blatant hypocrisy, right?
This inept experiment fails since the two positions aren’t symmetrical. The gay couple in the 2012 Colorado case simply wanted a wedding cake, not an anti-Christian or anti-conservative statement or even a political statement of any kind. It’s just a wedding cake—a symbol of love, remember? If someone is determined to take offence at that or see the wedding not as a loving couple wanting to get married but a deliberate poke in the eye of their lord and saviour . . . well, I guess there’s not much you can do about that. But an objective observer would not see the imagined crime.
(Going forward, I’ll sometimes use conservative/liberal as synonyms for the clumsier phrases “same-sex marriage opponent/proponent.” This may bring to mind politics, but that’s fine since politics seems to be at least as much of a driving force as Christianity.)
The “Gay Marriage is Wrong” cake was just hate speech. You’re welcome to say that, but you’re not entitled to demand someone else to do so. You want a symmetric experiment? Ask a gay baker to bake a wedding cake for a straight couple with the familiar bride/groom cake topper. If the baker demands that you take your business elsewhere because they don’t serve “your kind,” then you’ve got a case.
I’m sure that Freedom Outpost knew that that request wouldn’t cause any sparks, which is why they didn’t try an honest symmetric experiment but opted instead for a groundless grandstanding opportunity.
Tom Gilson of the Thinking Christian blog supported this experiment:
"Every gay marriage wedding cake, no matter how it’s decorated, says the man-woman-only view of marriage is wrong; but it takes special effort to make a man and woman’s wedding cake communicate that gay marriage is wrong."
First, the cake does have a point to make, but “the man/woman-only view is wrong” is not it. How hateful do you have to be to take a couple’s celebration of their special day and insist that the purpose is actually just to be mean to you?
If you enjoy being cantankerous, you could see the same kind of message in a man/woman wedding cake. Is this cake a deliberate jab at the couples who couldn’t afford a wedding this nice? Or the couples who only bought a small cake because they don’t have as many friends? Or the people whose potential mate turned them down?
Who would imagine any of those messages as subtext in a wedding cake? Who would think that that is a primary message of the wedding? If you’re thin-skinned, see this as a winner-take-all political game, and are determined to be offended, then you might see every gay wedding cake as a personal affront, but that’s your problem.
(More detailed arguments at the link)
20 Arguments Against Same-Sex Marriage, Rebutted (Part 2)
[Some Christians pretend that marriage is all about the babies]
We’re looking at popular arguments against same-sex marriage (and a few that are just anti-gay). Conservative radio host Frank Turek provides most of the material. (Part 1 here.)
5. Think of the babies!
Frank has an odd but popular view of what marriage is.
"The real reason governments have an interest in promoting natural marriage [is] because only natural marriage perpetuates and stabilizes society. Strong marriage laws encourage men and women to procreate and then stay together to mother and father their children."
First off, Frank seems confused about cause and effect. Children are important to society, but give credit where it’s due. It’s sex that makes babies, not marriage. Two people might barely know each other but still start the baby-making process in five minutes, which has very little to do with what we think of as marriage.
Second, Jesus is portrayed in the Bible as the metaphorical husband married to the church. The ideas of joy, love, and protection are used when discussing this marriage, never making babies. Frank needs to explain why his definition is at odds with that in the Bible.
Third, it’s true that government makes laws that protect and encourage stable families. However, there’s a lot more to marriage than just children. For example, society makes laws about divorce, spousal abuse, care of elderly, taxes, control of assets when a spouse is imprisoned or incapacitated, the definition of common law marriage, inheritance, and more that affect marriages with or without children.
Fourth, Frank now has a fun slogan: “it’s not bigotry—it’s biology!” Don’t blame him; we’re bound by the realities of nature. But if it’s all about the biology, wouldn’t you expect to see this biology made plain in marriage vows or in the state’s marriage certificate? The silence screams volumes.
Let’s be consistent about the children. If marriage is all about making and raising children, then don’t offer marriage to straight couples who don’t or won’t or can’t have children. Give a willing couple five years, say, and if they don’t produce, yank the marriage license. Or consider another example: my wife and I won’t be making any more children, so do we deserve to still be married?
If you’re okay with childless straight couples, then be consistent and support gay couples with no interest in children. And if your focus is on the children, support the 40,000 children in California living with same-sex parents, prohibited until recently from getting married.
Frank again:
"Children raised in biological two-parent homes tend to do better and cause society much less trouble than children raised in other situations" [all the research bigots like Frank refer to here compared married heterosexual couples with single parents - none of it compared same sex parents to opposite sex parents - this is a favourite deception of anti-gay people]
We probably describe the perfect household in a similar way, but just because we prefer a home with loving parents, financial security, a safe neighborhood, excellent schools, and good job opportunities doesn’t mean that that exists for every child. But if children’s environment is truly a concern, why not focus on what we all agree degrades that environment—urban decay, poverty, drugs, domestic violence, gangs, and so on? Why does Frank focus solely on the sex of the parents? I’m beginning to suspect that this concern for children is just a smokescreen.
And let’s not be too quick to rank mom-and-dad households over households with same-sex parents. [The vast majority of research shows children raised by same sex couples do just as well, if not better than opposite sex parents]. Frank’s assumption that same-sex households are significantly worse is at least debatable. Anyway, that’s irrelevant—if a woman got divorced, has custody of her child, and is now a lesbian (to take one example), the argument “But your family would be better with a man” is irrelevant.
And I’m surprised at Frank’s preference for biological parents. Doesn’t that undercut adoption as the conservative solution to unwanted pregnancies?
6. Gayness is harmful!
Don’t blame Frank for the facts of nature, he says. He reminds us that babies only come from male/female sex (which is clumsy sleight of hand to make us think that the topic is sex rather than marriage).
And then this:
"I didn’t make up the fact that we all have desires we ought not act on, regardless if we are born with those desires."
He expands on this idea:
"If you are born with a genetic predisposition to alcohol, does that mean God wants you to be an alcoholic? If someone has a genetic attraction to children, does that mean God wants you to be a pedophile? . . . For the sake of civilization, we all need to restrain our destructive behaviors."
Sure, we have desires we shouldn’t act on—harmful ones. The problem for Frank’s argument is that he does nothing to argue that same sex desires and monogamous gay marriage are harmful.
Post a Comment
<< Home