Wednesday, November 06, 2019

What Do They Want?

So here's my question -- what do they want? We know what Democrats want. They want cheaper, better, or even free health care. Affordable and good education. They want lawful, regulated, and fair immigration. Equal treatment for all citizens regardless of who they are. Everybody votes. They want to promote democratic ideals in foreign policies and discourage authoritarianism, injustice, and genocide. They want to regulate guns in a way that protects gun-owners' rights but keeps insanely deadly weapons out of the hands of potential murderers. And so on.

And the Republicans, as far as I can tell, are ... against that. We don't all have to agree on everything, and I am sure there are reasonable alternatives to all of the above, but we just have not heard any of them. Say, Obamacare. Republicans are against it. Okay, I get that it's got "Obama" right in the name. Reminds them that they lost a few elections, and the black guy won. But what is their plan, instead? Deregulation is something they like, do they think insurance companies, pharmacy corporations, and big hospital conglomerates should operate without regulation? It looks like it. Do Republicans really like the idea of breaking up families and keeping children in cages, in violation of clear legal standards for seeking amnesty, traveling, and immigrating? Is that something they believe in? Do Republicans think that mass murder is just a fact of life and it is just fine to live with mass shootings nearly every day? Is that part of their platform? To them, the "gun problem" is that there are not enough guns.

They mutter about a civil war, like they are ready to rise up against the tyranny. But look, for two years the Republicans controlled both houses of Congress and the Presidency. Why would they need to rebel against that? Okay, now it's only one house of Congress. Still, they can do a lot with that, just look at the courts. The government is theirs, what's this civil war thing about? You've got it, you're running things, now show us what it is you want to do. Then we will be able to see if it works or not. The victim thing doesn't work when you are on top. Have Trump and his Republican Congress done anything? If they have, I can't think of it. And the deal is, if you can't run the country then you will have to get out of the way and let some professionals take it over.

The liberals are fighting back, of course. They are not threatening civil war, but instead are following Constitutional guidelines to hold the President accountable for "high crimes and misdemeanors." They are focusing on one serious violation and letting the others go. Of course the President realizes that whether he resigns or is kicked out, he will be criminally liable for all those crimes that are not included in the impeachment proceeding, and there are a lot of them. So impeachment is about one little ol' extortion scheme involving little ol' Ukraine. Trust me, the fraud and money laundering, racketeering, tax evasion, perjury, and crimes against the United States are coming. He might even get pardoned for the Ukraine stuff, if Pence is able to squirm out of the net. I am pretty sure President Pelosi will not pardon him. But in any case he cannot be pardoned for the things he was not charged with in the impeachment process. When he steps out of the White House the sheriff'll be waiting.

And I am just wondering, what is this for? Is it really that gratifying to own the libtards, such a great feeling that you would trash the whole country for a snort of it?

If there were such a thing as "conservative principles," I would love to hear about it. We could debate them, negotiate, compromise, give speeches about principles, comparing ours to the other guy's. But it does not seem that there are any. It is just greed, rudeness, lying, belligerence, and simmering resentment. Is that what they want?

122 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Your ignorance is willful, Jim. Give it a little thought and you'll know exactly what conservative principles are. And maybe you've already done that, and this is just an attempt at a rhetorical throwdown.

Of course, I can understand some confusion. Donald Trump doesn't really have any principles. But his concern about making America great is sincere, just in a vague kind of way. He actually would be better as a mayor than a President. Right now, the economy is working for everyone and that's what people will primarily make their choice about. By this time next year, Trump will have made inroads into many Dem bases.

Impeachment is truly the Dems' only hope. It won't work. Trump is our President for the next five years.

November 06, 2019 9:20 PM  
Anonymous call Dems deacon blues said...

President Donald Trump is expected to be in Tuscaloosa on Saturday for No. 2 Alabama’s critical matchup against No. 1 LSU, marking the latest sporting event for Trump in recent weeks.

Though he’s met plenty of Presdients before, Crimson Tide coach Nick Saban sounded excited about hosting a president at Bryant-Denny Stadium.

“It’s an honor, I think, that the President of the United States would be interested enough to come to the game,” Saban said, via the Montgomery Advertiser. “I’m sure we’ll do everything we can to welcome him.”

Saban has plenty of experience with presidents, having made the trip to the White House multiple times after winning national titles — when Trump, President Barack Obama and President George W. Bush were in office. He also had a run-in with President Bill Clinton while he was at Michigan State, and even offered up his office couch.

“Bill Clinton came to Michigan State to speak at the graduation commencement ceremony, and they actually headquartered in our facility building, so I had the opportunity to meet him and talk to him,” Saban said. “[At one point], the Secret Service guys came and got my couch and asked if they could take it to his office so he could take a nap, and I said, ‘Certainly.’”

The game will mark Trump’s third appearance at a major sporting event in as many weeks. He attended Game 5 of the World Series at Nationals Park last month. Trump then made the trip to UFC 244 on Saturday — becoming the first sitting or former president to attend an MMA bout — and received a enthusiastic reaction from the crowd at Madison Square Garden.

Efforts are being made to prevent any fringe student groups from ruining the visit. The Alabama Student Government Association issued a warning to students on Wednesday in a letter. Any students or organizations that “engage in disruptive behavior” during the game, the letter said, will be “removed from block seating instantly for the remainder of the season.”

Neither Saban nor LSU quarterback Joe Burrow seem concerned about a potential sideshow from lunatic resisters.

November 07, 2019 6:31 AM  
Anonymous i feel a chill in the air said...

President Donald Trump is keeping his word and getting America out of a bad deal.

The poorly negotiated Paris climate accord imposed unfair, unworkable and unrealistic targets on the United States for reducing carbon emissions.

As the climate deal punished America’s energy producers with expensive and burdensome regulations, it gave other countries U.S. taxpayer-funded subsidies and generous timelines.

Countries like China got a free pass to pollute for over a decade. With abundant low-cost coal, China and India would put our manufacturers at a huge competitive disadvantage. Economic costs would be severe.

According to the National Economic Research Associates, if we met all of our commitments as part of the Paris climate agreement, it would cost the American economy $3 trillion and 6.5 million industrial sector jobs by 2040. We don’t need to cripple our economy to protect our environment.

America’s emissions actually continue to decline, and we are the world’s driver of innovative solutions. Since 2005, the United States has reduced its combustion-related carbon dioxide emissions more than any other nation in the world. Global emissions have moved in the opposite direction.

Our reduction in emissions was largely from new and innovative technologies from the private sector — not international agreements or punishing regulations.

Groundbreaking research into carbon capture technologies and advanced nuclear reactors hold the key to continued emissions reductions.

American free-market innovation can address a changing climate.

We all want cleaner air, but the Paris climate agreement, and the regulations that would come with it, put America at a competitive disadvantage with the rest of the world.

This was a bad deal. The president is right to get us out of it

November 07, 2019 9:50 AM  
Anonymous homosexuality doesn't yield life and two of 'em ain't ever a marriage said...

The global warming true believers are convinced of their moral superiority. In their minds, they’re just better people. But better people don’t advocate thinning of the human population. The alarmists do.

A group of “more than 11,000 scientist signatories from around the world” has declared “clearly and unequivocally that planet Earth is facing a climate emergency,” and recommends leaving fossil fuels “in the ground,” replaced by low-carbon renewable energy sources.

Nothing new there. Crackpots have been predicting the end of the world for probably as long as man has existed.

This group, though, also believes that because the global population is “still increasing by roughly 80 million people per year, or more than 200,000 per day,” it “must be stabilized — and, ideally, gradually reduced — within a framework that ensures social integrity.”

By what authority do these scientists believe they have the right to reduce the number of humans? And through what mechanism do they propose to use to reach their goal?

Henry I. Miller, a physician, molecular biologist, and Pacific Research Institute senior fellow, says “the scientists’ assumption of a ‘climate emergency’ requiring policymakers imminently to introduce not only radical changes to energy, food, and economic policies but also population control, verges on the hysterical.”

Others have already crossed that line.

The urge to control human reproduction is more common than one might think. Wikipedia’s page for “population concern organizations” lists 12 groups just in the U.S., and another 11 around the world, with one network of academic researchers called Population Europe. These groups, and our 11,000 or so scientists, seem to have a common bond with the nasty people throughout history who have wanted to improve the genetic quality of humanity by selecting out less-desirable groups. In modern America, those groups might be the “deplorables” and “deniers” among us.

Don’t think it couldn’t happen here? In our not-so-long-ago past, the 20th century, in fact, “roughly 70,000 individuals were forcibly sterilized” in the U.S., says Chelsea Follett, a policy analyst at the Cato Institute. It was done under the authority of “‘eugenic’ legislation,” and the horrors were justified as a means “to improve the population by preventing people thought to have inferior genes from having children.”

November 07, 2019 9:59 AM  
Anonymous homosexuality doesn't yield life and two of 'em ain't ever a marriage said...

This makes us wonder: Who would the 11,000 scientists target for population control? Their manifesto tells us they “stand ready to assist decision-makers in a just transition to a sustainable and equitable future.” Do they already have a gene pool in mind that they wish to pare down?

Columbia University professor Matthew Connelly compiled a history of the population control movement that became “Fatal Misconception: The Struggle to Control World Population.” Published in 2008, it is the story, says the author, “of how some people have tried to control others without having to answer to anyone.”

“They could be ruthless and manipulative in ways that were, and are, shocking,” Connelly wrote.

One striking example of the heartlessness behind population control comes from Garrett Hardin, an ecologist who supported sterilization. In 1968, he wrote an essay in which he declared “the freedom to breed is intolerable.” Decades later, he held out China’s population-control policy as something the U.S. might be able to learn from.

“There is no talk in China of a woman’s ‘right’ to reproduce or of married couples’ ‘right to privacy,'” he wrote. The coercion used in that country to slow population growth — when “a woman who gets pregnant without permission is pressured by her sisters to have an abortion,” for example — “should be compared to forcing a Westerner to pick up the litter he or she has dropped on the ground in a public park.”

Readers can draw their own conclusions as to whether or not he saw humans as no more than garbage dumped on the planet.

Naturally the 11,000 will deny that their methods will be “ruthless and manipulative,” and at the same time swear their motives pure. But population control has been historically sought out of “kindness,” says climate justice activist Simon Butler, who reviewed Connelly’s book. Its traffickers insist it’s “a benevolent measure that can lift people out of poverty, hunger and underdevelopment.”

November 07, 2019 10:00 AM  
Anonymous Merrick Garland......LOL!! said...

The dirty little secret about wokeness is its lack of diversity. It’s a movement entirely comprising of white, college-educated progressives.

Therein lies the problem for the Democratic Party as it lurches left. It has wedged itself between the demands of an aggressively woke left flank and the more socially conservative, more religious black community. Since the party needs 85 percent of the black vote to win power, that’s a problem with lethal political consequences.

Which is why Democrats are nervous about President Trump’s embryonic popularity with African Americans, after he won just 8 percent of the black vote in 2016.

You can see the seeds in rising poll numbers, with one Rasmussen poll last year placing the president’s approval rating among black Americans at 36 percent. It was quickly dismissed as an outlier, but other polls since have confirmed a smaller upward trajectory.

The NAACP’s own poll in August showed Trump’s approval rating at 21 percent.

At rallies, Trump waxes lyrical about all he’s done for the black community: a record low black unemployment rate, “opportunity zones” bringing investment to poor cities, criminal-justice reform and his tough stance on illegal immigration.

But the red-pill phenomenon in black America is most visible in the rise of charismatic cultural leaders such as the conservative firebrand Candace Owens.

This Sunday, at a rally in Atlanta, you will see the power of the movement Owens has founded, Blexit.

Blexit means the exit by black Americans from a Democratic Party that takes their vote for granted.

“It’s an exit from political orthodoxy and from the left, which bases your worth on your skin color, sex and sexual orientation,” she says.

Her goal is to turn Blexit into a grass-roots political force. “Twenty points by 2020 is the dream.”

If the left is the Titanic, “I like to view myself as a little iceberg.” Owens says. “Blexit sits underneath that, with thousands of black people sick of being lied to by Democrats.”

Just four years ago, Owens was a liberal. Her awakening began in 2016 when she heard then-candidate Trump at a rally in Michigan asking black America: “What the hell do you have to lose?” by voting for him.

Owens realized the answer was: absolutely nothing.

“What do we have to show for 60 years of commitment to the Democratic Party?” she asks?

November 07, 2019 10:09 AM  
Anonymous Merrick Garland......LOL!! said...

Her Blexit rallies feature the stories of ordinary people “who were on the left and woke up.”

“I tell them I support the president, but I’m not telling you to vote for him, just to vote your values,” she says. “It’s not a call to leave the left and run to the right. It’s a call to people to think independently.”

It’s a call to black people to break free from the “victim narrative” that the Democratic Party has spun for them.

Owens chose Atlanta for this weekend’s rally because it is the birthplace of Martin Luther King Jr., who she says would be a Blexiteer if he were alive today.

“He wanted a society where his children could grow up and not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character,” she says.

“We now live in a society where the left says people should only be judged by the color of skin. If you’re black, you must be underprivileged. If you’re white, you must have white privilege.”

You can gauge the extent of the threat she poses to the left by the ferocity of the libelous smears deployed against her. She’s been depicted in the media as a Hitler sympathizer and enabler of white supremacy.

The source of her courage and her inspiration is her 79-year-old grandfather, Robert Owens Sr., who raised her.

“He grew on a sharecropping farm picking tobacco in the segregated South, where there was real systematic racism,” she says. “He believed in faith, family and hard work. There were chores and there were rules. There are no handouts . . . That was the secret sauce.

“That will be my grandfather’s legacy. I fight so people don’t think I’m living through what he lived through.”

By far the greatest scourge for the black community is “fatherlessness, the breakdown of the family,” and she blames Democrats as the “author of that epidemic” through passive welfare.

Democrats have presided over a “systematic breakdown of family, as they did when we were on the plantation and it made it easier to sell us,” Owens claims.

“If they like to come on board with us, it will have to be with policy rather than emotion. Calling Trump a racist won’t work.”

Blexit is a ticking time bomb for the left because while half of white Democrats say they are “very liberal” or “liberal,” according to a Pew poll, only 26 percent of black people describe themselves that way.

Owens is not telling Blexiteers to elect Trump, who she understands is a pragmatic businessman who just wants votes, but she is offering an opportunity for the Republican Party to remake itself.

Who knows, she may even run for president one day. She doesn’t rule it out.

What a rebuke to Democrats if the first black woman president is a Republican. Bring it on.

November 07, 2019 10:09 AM  
Anonymous Some like it hot -- Namely our Pussy Grabber in Chief said...

JMA: Five Warmest Years (Anomalies)

1st. 2016(+0.45°C), 2nd. 2015(+0.42°C), 3rd. 2017(+0.38°C), 4th. 2018(+0.31°C), 5th. 2014(+0.27°C)


JMA: Five Warmest Months of September (Anomalies)

1st. 2015(+0.51°C), 2nd. 2019(+0.45°C), 3rd. 2016(+0.42°C), 4th. 2017,2014(+0.35°C)


Category 5 Super Typhoon Halong among strongest storms ever observed by satellite: On Saturday, it was a tropical depression with little prospect for development. Now it’s rivaling the strength of Dorian

Super Typhoon Halong is raging in the open waters of the western tropical Pacific Ocean right now, with satellite imagery estimating its peak winds at close to 190 mph. It’s every bit a Category 5 storm and then some, its extreme strength coming three days after it drifted lazily as a tropical depression...

Is the United States Really Leaving the Paris Climate Agreement?
Yes, but the process takes a long time. Final withdrawal will occur one day after the 2020 election—but Washington may still be able to get back in.


President Donald Trump has formally announced his intention to withdraw the United States from the Paris climate agreement, which will leave America as the only country on Earth outside the accord, which aims to reduce greenhouse gas emissions enough to keep temperatures from rising to dangerous levels. Formal notice of the U.S. withdrawal comes just as global emissions keep rising, climate ambitions keep falling short, and climate scientists warn of increasingly dire consequences including drought, extreme weather, and rising sea levels...

November 07, 2019 10:14 AM  
Anonymous Look at that said...

Yesterday's big blue wave swept out more GOPers and the TTF troll is spinning like a ballerina!

Watch your toes!

November 07, 2019 10:16 AM  
Anonymous I just love our current Supreme Court said...

"President Donald Trump has formally announced his intention to withdraw the United States from the Paris climate agreement, which will leave America as the only country on Earth outside the accord, which aims to reduce greenhouse gas emissions enough to keep temperatures from rising to dangerous levels."

laughable spin

what you don't mention is that the accord aims to greenhouse mainly by American sacrifice and that, currently, the US is the only country to be incompliance with its goals

it will continue to be, regardless, because our reduction is the result of free enterprise and innovation freed from regulatory burden

"Formal notice of the U.S. withdrawal comes just as global emissions keep rising, climate ambitions keep falling short, and climate scientists warn of increasingly dire consequences including drought, extreme weather, and rising sea levels..."

if global warming is such a threat to the species, why aren't warming alarmists supporting massive investment in nuclear energy and fracking for natural gas?

"Yesterday's big blue wave swept out more GOPers"

you call that "big"?

how many states were involved?

you call that a "wave"?

liberal fringe lunatics sure have trouble with the English language

Kentucky, for example. elected all Republicans to statewide offices except the governor and he was a rogue that angered the Republican establishment there

wouldn't a wave cover all the offices?

"and the TTF troll is spinning like a ballerina!"

yes, I'm another Baryshnikov but yesterday didn't change anything

you just have to keep moving to counter TTF lies

November 07, 2019 12:02 PM  
Anonymous ha-ha said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

November 07, 2019 12:42 PM  
Anonymous GOP = Party in full support of most dishonest president ever. said...

LMAO

Rump is up over 13,000 lies

This is today's headline "State Department official says Giuliani was engaged in a campaign ‘full of lies and incorrect information’ about former ambassador"

And you think TTF lies!

Keep pirouetting darling but be careful darling.

Your tutu is bound to slip!

You should probably check the view in the mirror from time to time.

November 07, 2019 3:28 PM  
Anonymous TRUMP ORDERED TO PAY $2 MIL FOR CHARITY GRIFT! said...

A New York judge has ordered President Donald Trump to personally pay $2 million to settle the state attorney general’s civil lawsuit against his now-defunct charitable organization, The Donald J. Trump Foundation.

New York State Supreme Court Judge Saliann Scarpulla’s order directs Trump’s damage payment to several legitimate nonprofit organizations.

Her decision is not the outcome desired by the president, who declared in a tweet last year: “I won’t settle this case!”

The lawsuit, filed in June 2018 by then-state Attorney General Barbara Underwood, alleged that Trump and three of his children ― Ivanka Trump, Donald Trump Jr. and Eric Trump ― repeatedly took advantage of the foundation’s tax-exempt status to fund their political and business interests.

Trump, during his 2016 bid for the presidency, allowed his campaign to handle money raised by the Trump Foundation, effectively using his charity to help finance his candidacy, Underwood’s suit said. She said the foundation engaged in a “shocking pattern” of “repeated and willful self-dealing,” including buying a $10,000 portrait of Trump to hang at one of his golf courses.

“This amounted to the Trump Foundation functioning as little more than a checkbook to serve Mr. Trump’s business and political interests,” Underwood said in a statement late last year.

The Trump family was ordered to dissolve the foundation in December 2018.

Attorneys for Trump and his family had argued that a “sitting president may not be sued” and attempted to have the case dismissed. Scarapulla rejected their request.

November 07, 2019 3:54 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"And you think TTF lies!"

yes, I do!!

November 07, 2019 10:06 PM  
Anonymous no one is above the law, including the Bidens said...

If impeaching President Donald Trump is truly about arriving at the truth, then the Democrats who have obsequiously lectured about this for the past several weeks should have no problem including Joe and Hunter Biden in the impeachment proceedings. Forcing the Bidens to testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee would provide an opportunity for Americans to learn to what extent, if at all, former Vice President Joe Biden used his position to financially benefit several of his family members, most notably his son Hunter.

Less than a month ago, there were murmurs that the Senate Judiciary Committee, under the auspices of Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., was considering having the Bidens testify before the committee on their actions in Ukraine. Graham received some pushback for considering this move, Sen. Chuck Grassley declaring that he would support such a endeavor only if there were a certain level of precision in the line of questioning. “I’d want to know what he wants to accomplish by bringing [Joe Biden] before the committee,” Grassley stated, when asked about Graham’s potential plans.

Others, such as Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, expressed skepticism at the thought of having Joe Biden testify before the committee. “It wouldn’t be my highest priority. We need limited bandwidth if we need to try to focus on getting things done, not contributing to the sideshow,” Cornyn stated back in October.

Now, GOP senators are once again considering including the Bidens in Trump’s impeachment trial. There’s a legitimate (and arguably, well-founded) fear that involving the Bidens in the impeachment process is a “risky political ploy.” However, it’s more damaging to our democratic republic to have a class of politicians immunized from investigation because they happen to be running for president.

At one point, the Democratic field had 30 contenders. Did each of these individuals become vaccinated against possible accusations of corruption because they were in the running to become Donald Trump’s chief contender? Phrased differently, is there enough hatred of Trump swirling around Washington that we are not interested in determining whether the individual who held the second-highest office in the land for eight years allows his son to sell access to foreign governments?

November 07, 2019 10:13 PM  
Anonymous no one is above the law, especially the Bidens said...

Despite the media’s attempts to portray the accusations against Hunter Biden as mere “nothing burgers,” Hunter Biden unequivocally established relationships with foreign actors interested in shaping U.S. policy at critical junctures in his father’s career. The question at the base of these accusations is how aware then-Vice President Joe Biden was of such arrangements and whether the line between crony capitalism and sheer corruption was ever crossed. Although neither is particularly desirable, one is legal, while the other is not.

Hunter received a position on the board of the Ukrainian natural gas company of Burisma with a salary of $50,000 per month, despite having no experience in the energy sector and at a time his father was the point-man on the United States’ Ukraine policy. His father eventually pushed to have the Ukrainian prosecutor investigating Burisma fired under the banner of waging an “anti-corruption” campaign in the country.

On a 2013 diplomatic trip to China, then-Vice President Joe Biden permitted his son Hunter to join him on Air Force Two. At the time, Hunter had recently teamed up with Chinese businessman Johnathan Li to start a Chinese-backed private equity firm, and during the Bidens’ time in China, Hunter eventually introduced Li to his father. It’s worth noting that prior to the trip, Hunter had been awaiting approval for a business license from the Chinese government. Within two weeks of the trip’s end, he had received it.

The strangeness does not end there. Less than two weeks ago, it was revealed that Joe Biden, while a prominent U.S. senator, had consulted various government agencies to advocate for specific agenda items that his son’s lobbying firm then happened to be pushing—a coincidence that miraculously occurred several times. Individually, each incident might seem benign or excusable; however, taken together, they paint a far more complex and alarming picture.

Based on recent testimonies, the question at the center of the impeachment inquiry is now whether, when President Trump withheld aid on the basis of encouraging Ukraine to fight corruption, he did so under the auspices of the correct authority. Answering this question will likely require ascertaining the legitimacy of the corruption accusations against the Bidens.

I penned the following reflection back in September, and it largely still holds true, whether you believe a quid pro quo took place or not.

…Much of the discussion of the whistleblower complaint has centered on amplifying and condemning Trump’s behavior without much mention of what Joe Biden’s son was doing in Ukraine. There’s a pervasive attitude among those in the media and on the left that if Trump improperly requested an investigation into Biden’s son Hunter, the impropriety of the request somehow makes the potential behavior of Hunter Biden and his father acceptable. This reaction is incoherent and bizarre.

It’s unfortunate that because President Trump is asking the questions, the behavior of those he seeks to investigate suddenly becomes palatable or eligible to be shoved under the rug. There are some disturbing coincidences that deserved to be investigated, whether it is Trump seeking to investigate them or not.

If it has to be under the banner of Trump impeachment, so be it. I, for one, would like to know if our executive branch was for sale from 2008 to 2016, and although Trump may present his own concerns, him asking the question doesn’t undermine the American public’s need to know the answer.


November 07, 2019 10:20 PM  
Anonymous Giuliani’s involvement and 'campaign of lies' said...

Throughout the testimony, top State Department official George Kent describes Rudy Giuliani’s active involvement in Ukraine relations, noting that Giuliani was "unmissable" starting in March of 2019.

He laid out that Giuliani was extensively involved in pushing a narrative surrounding Ukraine and Burisma, the Ukrainian energy company where former vice president Joe Biden's son sat on the board, as well as the recalling of Yovanovitch from her position. She testified in October to lawmakers that she felt threatened by Trump.

Yovanovitch was damaged by a narrative pushed by former Ukrainian general prosecutor Yuriy Lutsenko, who Kent testified wanted “revenge” for Yovanovitch's anti-corruption efforts in Ukraine. That narrative was buoyed by Giuliani's media presence.

“Mr. Giuliani, at that point, had been carrying on a campaign for several months full of lies and incorrect information about Ambassador Yovanovitch, so this was a continuation of his campaign of lies,” Kent testified.

Kent reinforced that Yovanovitch was recalled because Giuliani and his associates, Lev Parnas and Igor Fruman, “started reaching out actively to undermine” her and “were engaged in an effort to undermine her standing by claiming that she was disloyal.”

“So that's the early roots of people following their own agendas and using her as an instrument to fulfill those agendas,” Kent continued.

Additionally, Lutsenko traveled privately to New York City to meet Giuliani, according to Kent, who testified that during that meeting, Giuliani continued to “throw mud” toward Ambassador Yovanovitch, Kent and others.

Kent agreed with lawmakers that Ukrainian officials don’t typically meet with private citizens and that Giuliani wasn’t a “regular private citizen,” explaining that Ukrainian officials “understood that Mr. Giuliani asserted he represented Mr. Trump in his private capacity.”

Kent detailed four "story lines" that he said Giuliani pushed through the media. These started emerging after Lutsenko did an interview with The Hill in March 2019, according to Kent.

1. The first story line regarded attacks on anti-corruption efforts by the U.S. embassy in Ukraine, and others in Ukraine
2. The next was a theory pushed that Ukrainians or people at the U.S. embassy in Ukraine had "animus" toward Paul Manafort, Trump's 2016 campaign chair
3. The third story line was about an alleged relationship between Biden's pressure on Ukraine to fire its former top prosecutor and Hunter Biden's presence on the board of Burisma
4. The last, according to Kent, was about a claim that civil society organizations, such as the Anti-corruption Action Center, were funded by Democratic donor George Soros

Kent said the information given by Lutsenko was "if not entirely made up in full cloth, it was primarily non-truths and non-sequiturs."

November 08, 2019 7:49 AM  
Anonymous Looking forward to the public Congressional testimony under oath --- Zelensky Was Set To Announce Biden Probe On CNN, Then Congress Pressed For Aid: Report said...

Ukraine’s president was preparing to announce a groundless investigation into Joe Biden on CNN — against his better judgment — but managed to duck out of it when Congress pressed Donald Trump to release military aid he was withholding, The New York Times reported.

The last thing President Volodymyr Zelensky wanted to do was become entangled in U.S. politics, the Times reported, but he was convinced that the only way he could finally get the appropriated $400 million in U.S. aid was to follow the president’s instructions for announcing an investigation of Biden and his son, according to interviews with Kyiv government officials.

If the money wasn’t released by the end of the fiscal year in September, Ukraine risked losing it for good. Zelensky was determined to do what he had to do for the money, even though avoiding partisan U.S. politics was the “first rule of Ukrainian foreign policy,” the Times reported.

Aides were arguing in favor of “bowing to what was demanded,” said Petro Burkovskiy, a senior fellow at the Democratic Initiatives Foundation with ties to Ukraine’s government, according to the Times. But the “cost was high,” he added.

Trump reportedly expected Zelensky to make a high-profile statement about launching an investigation of his 2020 presidential rival. A top U.S. ambassador to Ukraine, William Taylor, testified before House members that Gordon Sondland, Trump’s appointed ambassador to the European Union, told him the military aid was dependent on Zelensky making a “public statement” about initiating an investigation of Biden.

Sondland said that “President Trump wanted President Zelensky ‘in a public box’ by making a public statement about ordering such investigations,” Taylor testified.

Zelensky agreed to an interview on CNN during which he was to reveal “investigations that would have played into domestic political affairs,” Taylor told lawmakers. But the military funds were released Sept. 11 after a congressional uproar, just two days before Zelensky was scheduled to appear on CNN. He quickly canceled, the Times reported.

The Times story, as well as Taylor’s — and others’ — testimony sharply undercuts Trump’s argument that there was no quid pro quo in his withholding of funds and his July 25 phone call pressing Zelensky for an investigation into Biden and his son. The president, however, is now saying there’s nothing wrong with a quid pro quo using military aid to press Zelensky to investigate his political rival, which would predictably affect the 2020 U.S. presidential election.

“The Zelensky team was ready to make this quid quo pro,” Burkovskiy told the Times. “They were ready to do this.”

November 08, 2019 8:15 AM  
Anonymous homosexuality doesn't yield life and two of 'em ain't ever a marriage said...

Despite Dems' demonization of him as a racist, President Donald Trump’s approval ratings have drifted upward among nonwhites in the last two years. While it’s impossible to say exactly why, one reasonable explanation is that the U.S.’s long economic expansion has been particularly beneficial for minority workers.

In the latest Gallup poll of presidential job approval, Trump stands at 20% among nonwhites, up from a low of 14% in January. For comparison, the president’s approval ratings among self-identified liberals and moderates are 6% and 29%, respectively.

The economy is no doubt helping. As the president is fond of pointing out, unemployment rates among African Americans, Hispanics and Asians are all at historic lows (though it should be noted that data on Asian unemployment rates dates to only 2000).

Just as important, the unemployment gaps between both blacks and whites as well as Hispanics and whites have reached all-time lows. It’s not just that the job market has been good: For minorities, it has been historically good.

This pattern is not uncommon during economic expansions. The longer a tight labor market persists, the more willing employers become to consider applicants they once would have passed over. Social networks between employers and marginalized communities strengthen, and companies get better at attracting and retaining minority workers.

As opportunities for racial minorities grow, wages rise faster as well. Over the past 12 months, wage gains for nonwhites have been not only substantially higher than those of whites, but also higher than economists’ estimates of inflation plus productivity. That implies that minority workers are getting a greater share of GDP.

It is ironic, of course, that this is all occurring under a president who supposedly ran on a not-so-subtle campaign to revive the white working class. Trump’s policies, however, have worked against those goals. The effects of the administration’s tax cuts — and the strong consumer spending they spurred — have been felt most in metropolitan areas with a high proportion of wealthier households. The spending has gone largely to services, which are provided by local workers.

Rural areas and the industrial heartland, by contrast, are far more dependent on exports of agricultural and manufacturing products — and as such have been hurt by the president’s trade war.

Rhetoric tends to dominate the political narrative. Yet policy is far more important in determining outcomes for workers. Trump’s policy has been more favorable to minority workers than they expected — and less favorable to the white working class than he promised.

November 08, 2019 9:05 AM  
Anonymous Merrick Garland......LOL!! said...

An attorney for the anonymous member of the intelligence community whose complaint about a call between President Trump and the president of Ukraine kick-started the unhinged partisan impeachment witch hunt now underway has been unmasked as a rabid Trump-hater who predicted a “coup” against the president.

As a result, attorney Mark Zaid – who represents the anonymous person now commonly described only as “the whistleblower” – has just become a witness in the case, which is really a Democratic coup attempt to overturn the results of the 2016 presidential election.

Reports Wednesday exposed Zaid’s furious Twitter tirade against Trump that began just days after Trump’s inauguration in 2017. Zaid tweeted that a “coup has started” against Trump and that “impeachment will follow ultimately.”

Zaid tweeted in response to Obama holdover Acting Attorney General Sally Yates’ defiance of a presidential order over the new administration’s travel ban on people wanting to enter the United States from countries that are incubators for terrorism. The president imposed the ban as a national security measure.

Months after his original January tweet about an anti-Trump coup, Zaid tweeted the prediction that “@CNN will play a key role in @realDonaldTrump not finishing out his full term as president.” As if we needed more proof that CNN is nothing more than an arm of the Democratic National Committee.

In response to these new revelations, President Trump confronted the situation head-on Wednesday by repeating his mantra that the left’s sick obsession with trying to remove him from office is “all a hoax.”

The president is right and has been right all along. The left has been trying to destroy him for three years and will never stop, because they hate him more than they love our country.

On Thursday the president tweeted to call for an end to the impeachment inquiry, writing: “Based on the information released last night about the Fake Whistleblowers attorney, the Impeachment Hoax should be ended IMMEDIATELY!”

The president’s hard shot caused Zaid to issue a weak and defensive statement that read in part: “The coup comment referred to those working inside the Administration who were already, just a week into office, already standing up to him to enforce recognized rules of law.”

Zaid is so impeachment-crazed that he confirmed the existence of a coup in a statement that was designed to deny it.

If House Democrats are going to force the president’s attorney, Rudy Giuliani, to testify in their farcical impeachment investigation, then Zaid is fair game as well.

The American people must hear from Zaid about who he’s been conspiring with on this coup attempt, as well as who is financing the coup attempt and who authorized it to move forward in the first place.

November 08, 2019 9:14 AM  
Anonymous Merrick Garland......LOL!! said...

The revelation of Zaid’s tweets comes at a time when the credibility and motives of his client – the anonymous so-called whistleblower – are being justifiably questioned as well.

Allegations have been published that this informant is an anti-Trump partisan who used to work with former Vice President Joe Biden and with Trump-hating former CIA Director John Brennan. This has caused impeachment leader Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif. – chairman of the House Intelligence Committee – to backpedal and now claim this all-important figure does not need to testify before his committee.

Every day, it’s becoming more and more apparent that this fraudulent impeachment scam is just a political effort by the Democrats to meddle in the 2020 election because they know they can’t defeat President Trump at the ballot box based on his outstanding record of achievements for the American people.

So instead of simply campaigning to overturn Trump polices, the Democrats are engaging in a dishonest smear campaign against the president with false accusations claiming misconduct that doesn’t really exist.

The impeachment of a president is one of the most serious undertakings our country should be confronted with outside of war.

The American people witnessed how President Trump was attacked by the left over the past three years with the fake Russia collusion story that turned out to be a complete lie. Now they have the right to know if the current impeachment inquiry was born from a political act by bad political actors.

Impeachment must not be a political campaign stunt. Questions suggesting political motivations must be answered in a thorough and transparent way – not swept under the rug.

The American people have had the chance to read the transcript of the call between President Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky. But it’s quite remarkable that in the midst of this impeachment inquiry over a routine telephone call we still don’t know everyone who listened in on the call.

The people listening to the Trump-Zelensky call are all fact witnesses and their names must be known if there’s going to be a thorough investigation. This is critical information that must be made public without delay.

Perhaps Schiff doesn’t want to reveal this information – just like he doesn’t want the whistleblower to testify.

Let’s remember, the whistleblower wasn’t on the Trump-Zelensky call. He received the information to file his political complaint from someone (or more than one person) who was listening in on the call.

It’s important that Schiff understand that his investigation will never gain any legitimacy without the American people learning about the whistleblower and his motivations, as well as the identity of the person (or persons) on the call who leaked to the whistleblower.

Is it possible that the whistleblower’s informant on the call was from the Ukrainian side?

Of course, the Democrats in Congress want to make everyone believe we must protect the identity of the whistleblower from public disclosure. However, this is not a typical whistleblower case.

This whistleblower is attempting to spark the impeachment of a president who was chosen by 63 million American voters to lead our nation. The accuser’s identity must be made available for public scrutiny.

It’s becoming more and more obvious that the reason Schiff’s fake whistleblower hasn’t testified yet is because he doesn’t pass the smell test. If the whistleblower is an anti-Trump political operative, the American people deserve to know the truth about his background. Schiff must allow the whistleblower to testify so the American people can decide if his yarn is to be believed.

November 08, 2019 9:15 AM  
Anonymous IF GLOBAL WARMING THREATENS LIFE ON OUR PLANET, WHY DO DEMS OPOSE NUCLEAR ENERGY AND FRACKING? said...

what a world we live in. A confidential asset of a hyper-political CIA director, likely handpicked by the director to spy on the Trump White House, is now called a “whistleblower.” The son of a former vice-president and a current Democrat nominee was apparently eyeball-deep in corruption in Ukraine, and the Left screams that the president—for daring to broach the issue with Ukraine—should be impeached. Political pygmies, otherwise known as the Democrat 2020 field, prance about the country offering up program ideas tallying up to over $200 trillion in the first ten years of operation (against the roughly $44 trillion the government would bring in over the same time). Such programs would cost us millions of jobs, among other bad consequences. Yet we are expected to believe these are serious people.

All the while the mainstream propagandists gaslight us by shrieking that Trump is the corrupt one, that Trump’s ideas are destructive as the economy soars and unemployment remains at 50 year lows. When the Washington Post intones that “Democracy dies in darkness” they evince no apparent awareness of irony. They’re knifing democracy to death every single day.

In the meantime, as our constitutional republic faces the wrecking balls of the Left and is asked to endure as they smash away at every norm that has made this country great, many Republicans find themselves conveniently absent from the action. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), for example, sure does love himself a TV hit—and I have to tell you, his super-duper “enthusiasms” while on TV almost make me want to believe him when he says he is serious about being effective. But then another day goes by and it’s clear he lacks the stones actually to hold hearings and subpoena the corrupt cabal that has massively abused our surveillance state and law enforcement regime.

Richard Burr (R-N.C.)? Well, he’s been off in “la-la land” for quite some time. At some point, for decency’s sake, he should just give the title of chairman of Senate Intel to Mark Warner (D-Va.) so as actually to reflect reality. One would think confronting injustice and illegal behavior should be pretty standard, common sense sort of stuff. But then again, Swamp Creatures are hardly paragons of truth and justice. So let’s assume until things change that Graham and Burr have zero problem with what has happened over the last few years; heck, they might be implicated in what could be uncovered.

November 08, 2019 9:41 AM  
Anonymous IF GLOBAL WARMING THREATENS LIFE ON OUR PLANET, WHY DO DEMS OPOSE NUCLEAR ENERGY AND FRACKING? said...

This all leads us to a serious problem that we as a country are facing: we’ve been losing trust in our institutions for quite some time. All that the last few years have done is to reinforce that kind of thinking.

Seriously.

Ask yourself:

Do you really trust the FBI? I don’t. With the recent reports from Michael Flynn’s attorney, Sidney Powell, apparently senior FBI agents tampered with 302s, falsifying information to get the results they wanted which had nothing to do with the truth. This was the FBI—supposedly the world’s greatest law enforcement agency. I don’t think so. Until those senior officials go to jail for their abuse of power my distrust of the FBI will continue.

Do you really trust the Justice Department? Maybe. I’ll see what Attorney General Barr and John Durham pursue and actually accomplish. I can assure you, however, if there are not prosecutions with jail time, scratch that institution off the list. The CIA? Forget about it. Congress? You mean the inept worthless institution that sits on its hands and has ceded massive control of the lawmaking function of government to the administrative state? I have to tell you: is there really a point to Congress in its current form? Serious question. It gets slapped around every single day by the administrative state and the courts. Then they have the gall to tell the people, “By golly, we’re out here working so hard you gotta send us back to Congress so re-elect us.” Why precisely? So they can rubber-stamp more spending, tack on a few more cool trillions to our exploding debt?

Ask yourself: do you really think the halls of Congress are mostly populated with intelligent people? Or just functioning idiots? I’m kinda leaning towards the majority of them being functioning idiots. Prove me wrong.

What about the values Americans are supposed to believe in? Rule of law is a farce. And at this point, the idea of Lady Justice being blind and meeting out justice even-handedly borders on the absurd. Quite frankly, speaking of Lady Justice, I haven’t seen her lately. I assume she got mugged in some seamy back alley of the Swamp or offed herself, Epstein-style. Until I actually see the equal application of the law I’m just going to safely assume the current bifurcated legal system has us on a fast track to Banana Republic USA.

So what are we to do? When faith is gone, both of the spiritual and the political variety, what remains? People seek peace and prosperity, and will happily live with an untold number of illusions so long as they have those two things. Perhaps we’ve been doing that for a while.

But what happens when those are gone?

History shows us that when the ruling class and elites refuse to do what they should and instead do what they can, creating a government rigged in their favor, destroying the rule of law, and papering over corruption and injustice, the peasants pick up pitchforks and torches and they come for those who have behaved so abominably. Perhaps our elites should read more of that history.

November 08, 2019 9:43 AM  
Anonymous Because MATH said...

"IF GLOBAL WARMING THREATENS LIFE ON OUR PLANET, WHY DO DEMS OPOSE (sic) NUCLEAR ENERGY AND FRACKING?"

https://www.tri-cityherald.com/news/local/hanford/article225229730.html

Because nuclear is too damn expensive:

RICHLAND, WA
A $110 billion increase in the estimated Department of Energy cleanup costs across the nation is being blamed largely on the Hanford nuclear reservation.

A new DOE estimate increases the cost of remaining environmental cleanup at Hanford by $82 billion, bringing it to $242 billion, according to unaudited information in DOE’s fiscal year 2018 financial report.

“When we see numbers like this it forces us to take a hard look at what we can reasonably expect Congress to appropriate every year, and where that leaves us if we don’t get all the funding that’s required,” said David Reeploeg, Tri-City Development Council vice president for federal programs.

The increase is not surprising, given the challenges and complexity of Hanford cleanup, but “we are concerned by the very large number,” he said.

“We’re not sure what appetite the administration and Congress will have to fund Hanford at the necessary levels for decades to come,” he said.

The issue is Hanford’s underground tanks holding 56 million gallons of radioactive waste.

New estimates refine the costs of retrieving waste from the tanks, closing or otherwise disposing of the tanks, completing construction of the $17 billion vitrification plant and then decades of plant operations to turn much of the tank waste into a stable glass form for disposal.

Cleanup and maintenance work is being done this year at Hanford with $2.5 billion from the federal budget.

At $2.5 billion per year, that $242 billion dollar price tag is 96.8 YEARS of bills - assuming the costs never go up again. (LOL)

And that doesn't account for ANY of the costs of remediating and storing the (many tons) of nuclear waste at dozens of plants all across the country. Of course, none of that expenditure actually goes to generating electricity.

$242 billion would by BOATLOADS of wind turbines and solar panels. And Uncle Sam wouldn't have to keep pulling taxes away from workers to clean up nuclear messes.

As for fracking, while it releases less CO2 than coal, it still doesn't address the problem that we're putting WAY too much CO2 into the atmosphere.

November 08, 2019 10:21 AM  
Anonymous the Bidens are corrupt said...

"Because nuclear is too damn expensive"

damn it all, the future of life on our planet is at stake!!!!

technology will increase the safety and reduce the cost of the damn clean-up

but, even as is, it's a bargain compared to the cost of the damn New Green Deal

"$242 billion would by BOATLOADS of wind turbines and solar panels."

damn it all, it wouldn't buy anywhere near enough of those to generate the electricity o one nuclear plant

"And Uncle Sam wouldn't have to keep pulling taxes away from workers to clean up nuclear messes."

right now, solar is only vaguely feasible because it's heavily subsidized by pulling the damn taxes of workers!

"As for fracking, while it releases less CO2 than coal, it still doesn't address the problem that we're putting WAY too much CO2 into the atmosphere."

what damn world do you live in, where using less doesn't address too much?

truth is the US is the only nation meeting the goals of the damn Paris accord and it is doing so solely because of fracking

you do favor the goals of the damn Paris accord, don't you?

because that's what the hell we were discussing?

DAGNABIT!!!!!!

November 08, 2019 12:03 PM  
Anonymous Because MATH said...

"technology will increase the safety and reduce the cost of the damn clean-up"

They have been working to clean up the mess at Hanford for decades, seeing multiple generations of new computer systems, better material science, new advances in chemistry, and the costs to clean up the mess have only INCREASED over the years. Don't believe me. There are news articles all over the web documenting how costs at Hanford keep going UP.

"damn it all, it wouldn't buy anywhere near enough of those to generate the electricity o one nuclear plant"

In 2019, the average national solar panel cost is $2.99/watt - before tax credits.

(https://news.energysage.com/how-much-does-the-average-solar-panel-installation-cost-in-the-u-s/)

$242 Billion would buy 80.94GW of solar panels.

In 2018, the average annual electricity consumption for a U.S. residential utility customer was 10,972 kilowatthours (kWh).

(https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=97&t=3)

Assuming an average of 4.75 peak sun hours per day (the middle of the range from: https://www.wholesalesolar.com/solar-information/sun-hours-us-map )

Those solar panels would produce about 80.94GW * 4.75H/day * 365 days/year = 140.33x10^12 WattHours/year.

To put that in perspective, we can divide that by the average 10,972 KWH/year usage of US households, (140.33e12 / 10.972e6) and find that is enough to run 12.79 Million households - for the life time of the solar panels - expected to be 25 years on the low end:

https://www.sunrun.com/go-solar-center/solar-articles/how-long-do-solar-panels-really-last

Assuming an average of 2.63 people per household: (https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/10/01/the-number-of-people-in-the-average-u-s-household-is-going-up-for-the-first-time-in-over-160-years/)

That's 12.79e6housholds * 2.63people/household = 33.64 Million people.

The estimated population for Texas is 29.2 million people (https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_population)

So the expected expenditure to clean up at JUST HANFORD, is enough to buy electricity for the entire state of Texas for the next 25 to 30 years.

"There are 60 commercially operating nuclear power plants with 98 nuclear reactors in 30 U.S. states (the Indian Point Energy Center in New York has two nuclear reactors that the U.S. Energy Information Administration counts as two separate nuclear plants)."

(https://www.americangeosciences.org/critical-issues/faq/what-status-us-nuclear-industry)

There are only 50 states, 98 reactors that will need to be cleaned up, and cleaning up Hanford alone will cost as much as solar as it would take to run Texas (the second most populous state) for 25 years.

November 08, 2019 1:24 PM  
Anonymous Because MATH said...

"right now, solar is only vaguely feasible because it's heavily subsidized by pulling the damn taxes of workers!"

Stop parroting right-wing talking points and do some research yourself:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/energyinnovation/2018/12/03/plunging-prices-mean-building-new-renewable-energy-is-cheaper-than-running-existing-coal/#7fa11e5831f3

Dec 3, 2018, 07:40am
Plunging Prices Mean Building New Renewable Energy Is Cheaper Than Running Existing Coal

A new report reveals 42% of global coal capacity is currently unprofitable, and the United States could save $78 billion by closing coal-fired power plants in line with the Paris Climate Accord’s climate goals. This industry-disrupting trend comes down to dollars and cents, as the cost of renewable energy dips below fossil fuel generation.

Across the U.S., renewable energy is beating coal on cost: The price to build new wind and solar has fallen below the cost of running existing coal-fired power plants in Red and Blue states. For example, Colorado’s Xcel will retire 660 megawatts (MW) of coal capacity ahead of schedule in favor of renewable sources and battery storage, and reduce costs in the process. Midwestern utility MidAmerican will be the first utility to reach 100% renewable energy by 2020 without increasing customer rates, and Indiana’s NIPSCO will replace 1.8 gigawatts (GW) of coal with wind and solar.

Lazard’s annual Levelized Cost of Energy (LCOE) analysis reports solar photovoltaic (PV) and wind costs have dropped an extraordinary 88% and 69% since 2009, respectively. Meanwhile, coal and nuclear costs have decreased by 9% and increased by 23%, respectively. Even without accounting for current subsidies, renewable energy costs can be considerably lower than the marginal cost of conventional energy technologies.

In other words, customers save money when utilities replace existing coal with wind or solar.

And clean energy generation costs will only continue to fall. The National Renewable Energy Laboratory projects utility solar PV costs will decline 60% by 2050 under mid-level forecasts assuming continued industry growth, and technological breakthroughs could cut costs up to 80% by 2050. Similarly, its onshore wind analysis forecasts a 30% cost decline by 2050, which could be up to 58%-64% with breakthroughs.

Did you notice that part about the cost of nuclear INCREASING by 23%?

Coal and nuclear plants struggle to remain economic

While declining wind and solar prices have caused renewable energy capacity to surge, they are also dimming the prospects for struggling coal and nuclear plants. The U.S. is on pace for a record 15.4 GW of coal closures in 2018, could close an additional 24.1 GW of coal capacity by 2024, and the U.S. Energy Information Administration projects a 65 GW decline through 2030. Carbon Tracker forecasts that by that time, 100% of U.S. coal capacity will have higher long-run operating costs than renewables.

In light of these changing economics, the Trump administration proposed a bailout for certain coal and nuclear plants. The plan was dropped after intense scrutiny from multiple fronts due to billions in estimated new annual costs, but it represents a backward-looking approach to keep dirty and expensive energy sources online instead of embracing clean and cheap energy sources.

Several states are also grappling with uneconomic nuclear plants. Two federal appeals courts have upheld state nuclear subsidies in New York and Illinois, while New Jersey and Connecticut are currently considering how to keep unprofitable nuclear plants open. While the court decisions help prop up uneconomic nuclear, they also set an important precedent for states looking to put a value on carbon emission reductions through subsidies.

November 08, 2019 1:31 PM  
Anonymous Because MATH said...

"truth is the US is the only nation meeting the goals of the damn Paris accord and it is doing so solely because of fracking"

Still steeped in right-wing media I see...

We, as the 2nd largest current emitter (historically the largest) we are currently at the bottom of the list:

https://www.axios.com/paris-agreement-countries-meeting-pledges-1261f497-3ec7-4192-ba21-83ae339762be.html

https://www.wri.org/blog/2017/04/interactive-chart-explains-worlds-top-10-emitters-and-how-theyve-changed


The data here is old, (2016) but sobering: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_electricity_production_from_renewable_sources

Country % Renewable electricity generation
Iceland: 100%
Guatemala: 51.7%
Italy: 37.3%
Kenya: 90.7%
Kyrgyzstan: 86.7%
New Zealand: 83.9%
Norway: 97.2%
Panama: 66.6%
Uruguay: 96.5%
Sweden: 57.1%
Switzerland: 59.8%
USA: 14.7%
China: 24.5%
India: 16.9%

November 08, 2019 1:52 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Good anonymous, thanks for your great work debunking Wyatt and Regina's constant flood of lies. I really appreciate it!

November 08, 2019 2:12 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

UKrainian President Was Set To Announce Biden Probe On CNN, Then Congress Pressed For Aid: Report

Ukraine’s president was preparing to announce a groundless investigation into Joe Biden on CNN — against his better judgment — but managed to duck out of it when Congress pressed Donald Trump to release military aid he was withholding, The New York Times reported.

The last thing President Volodymyr Zelensky wanted to do was become entangled in U.S. politics, the Times reported, but he was convinced that the only way he could finally get the appropriated $400 million in U.S. aid was to follow the president’s instructions for announcing an investigation of Biden and his son, according to interviews with Kyiv government officials.

If the money wasn’t released by the end of the fiscal year in September, Ukraine risked losing it for good. Zelensky was determined to do what he had to do for the money, even though avoiding partisan U.S. politics was the “first rule of Ukrainian foreign policy,” the Times reported.

Aides were arguing in favor of “bowing to what was demanded,” said Petro Burkovskiy, a senior fellow at the Democratic Initiatives Foundation with ties to Ukraine’s government, according to the Times. But the “cost was high,” he added.

Trump reportedly expected Zelensky to make a high-profile statement about launching an investigation of his 2020 presidential rival. A top U.S. ambassador to Ukraine, William Taylor, testified before House members that Gordon Sondland, Trump’s appointed ambassador to the European Union, told him the military aid was dependent on Zelensky making a “public statement” about initiating an investigation of Biden.

Sondland said that “President Trump wanted President Zelensky ‘in a public box’ by making a public statement about ordering such investigations,” Taylor testified.

Zelensky agreed to an interview on CNN during which he was to reveal “investigations that would have played into domestic political affairs,” Taylor told lawmakers. But the military funds were released Sept. 11 after a congressional uproar, just two days before Zelensky was scheduled to appear on CNN. He quickly canceled, the Times reported.

The Times story, as well as Taylor’s — and others’ — testimony sharply undercuts Trump’s argument that there was no quid pro quo in his withholding of funds and his July 25 phone call pressing Zelensky for an investigation into Biden and his son. The president, however, is now saying there’s nothing wrong with a quid pro quo using military aid to press Zelensky to investigate his political rival, which would predictably affect the 2020 U.S. presidential election.

“The Zelensky team was ready to make this quid quo pro,” Burkovskiy told the Times. “They were ready to do this.”

November 08, 2019 2:13 PM  
Anonymous heterosexuality is how life is perpetuated and it has a privileged status said...

It’s three full years since President Trump was elected.

Among those who predicted he could never win the election — or that he might have been conspiring with Hillary Clinton all along, worked for Russia’s President Vladimir Putin, would crash the U.S. stock market his first week in office, would ban all Muslims, would send illegal immigrants home en masse on buses and trains, and would start a nuclear war — there have been real concerns.

But to others, there are different concerns that have borne out. We continue to get evidence of an orchestrated effort among government insiders and the well-connected to take down President Trump at all costs. The public evidence indicates that the effort was hatched even before he took office.

Trump critics would argue that there was good reason to devise plots against him before he was inaugurated. His supporters would argue that the opposition has crossed the line into unlawful actions involving wiretapping and attempts to frame Trump and his associates.

November 08, 2019 4:34 PM  
Anonymous heterosexuality is how life is perpetuated and it has a privileged status said...

In any event, we can build an oversimplified timeline to make the point:

Aug. 15, 2016: After FBI counterespionage chief Peter Strzok and FBI attorney Lisa Page met with Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe, Strzok texts Page that they couldn’t take the risk of Trump getting elected without having “an insurance policy” in place.

October 2016: Benjamin Wittes, founder of a left-wing liberal blog called “Lawfare” — as in the “use of law as a weapon of conflict” — writes, “What if Trump wins? We need an insurance policy against the unthinkable: Donald Trump’s actually winning the Presidency.” Wittes writes that his vision of an “insurance policy” would rely on a “Coalition of All Democratic Forces” to challenge and obstruct Trump, using the courts as a “tool” and Congress as “a partner or tool.” He even mentions impeachment — two weeks before Trump is elected.

Wittes has acknowledged being a good friend of fired FBI Director James Comey. He spoke to a New York Times reporter about Comey’s interactions with President Trump right after Robert Mueller's appointment as special counsel.

October 2016: The FBI begins a yearlong secret wiretap on Trump campaign adviser Carter Page, which would have allowed intel officials access to information and conversations involving other Trump associates and possibly Trump himself. Page was never charged with any offense. The FBI never apologized for the unwarranted privacy intrusions. The lawfulness of the wiretap has been questioned.

Jan. 3, 2017: Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) publicly warns Trump that if he took on the intelligence community, it has “six ways from Sunday to get back at you.”

Jan. 11, 2017: A Politico investigation concludes that Ukrainian government officials tried to help Hillary Clinton and undermine Trump in the 2016 election with help from a Ukrainian American operative who was consulting for the Democratic National Committee.

Jan. 30, 2017: Days after President Trump takes office, attorney Mark Zaid tweets that a “coup has started” and “impeachment will follow ultimately.” Zaid often deals with government investigations and clients in the intelligence community.

A few months later, still in 2017, Zaid tweets: “I predict @CNN will play a key role in @realDonaldTrump not finishing out his full term as president” and “We will get rid of him, and this country is strong enough to survive even him and his supporters.” Zaid also tweets that “as one falls, two more will take their place” and the “coup” would occur in “many steps.”

Zaid went on to represent the alleged whistleblower in the Trump impeachment effort. (Zaid has stated, in his own defense, that his mention of a “coup” simply referred to what he saw as a lawful attempt by attorneys to remove an unlawful president from office.)

May 17, 2017: Special counsel Robert Mueller begins investigating Trump.

August 2017: Trump critic and former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper is hired as an analyst at CNN. He attacks Trump regularly, at times with incorrect information.

Jan. 23, 2018: Former Vice President Joe Biden publicly brags that he got Ukraine to fire its top prosecutor by threatening to withhold U.S. aid. The prosecutor was investigating Burisma, an energy company where Biden’s son had served on the board since 2014, when his father was vice president.

Feb. 1, 2018: Trump critic and former CIA Director John Brennan is hired as an analyst for NBC and MSNBC, where he attacks Trump regularly, at times with incorrect information.

November 08, 2019 4:35 PM  
Anonymous heterosexuality is how life is perpetuated and it has a privileged status said...

March 22, 2019: The special counsel’s probe ends without concluding that Trump or his associates conspired with Russia, despite what critics such as Brennan and Clapper long had claimed. Democrats are unable to unite on an impeachment push over the findings.

April 2019: Ukraine elects a new president. Former Vice President Biden’s son Hunter Biden steps down from the board of the Ukrainian energy company Burisma.

July 25, 2019: President Trump calls the newly elected president of Ukraine and asks for cooperation in a probe involving long-standing corruption in Ukraine along with alleged ties to U.S. Democrats and the 2016 campaign.

Aug. 12, 2019: Someone alleging to be a whistleblower files a complaint about the phone call with the intelligence community’s inspector general. The anonymous person alleges President Trump sought political dirt to use against Biden in 2020 as part of a “quid pro quo.” Quids pro quo aren’t inherently illegal or improper and are, in fact, a key component of most foreign aid. However, the whistleblower claims Trump is improperly withholding military aid from Ukraine for his own political purposes.

Sept. 9, 2019: The inspector general notifies the House Intelligence Committee about the complaint. Although Committee Chairman Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) initially denies doing so, it turns out that he and his staff already had met with — or conspired with, depending on your view — the alleged whistleblower.

Sept. 24, 2019: House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) announces an impeachment inquiry based on the alleged whistleblower’s claims.

On the same date, President Trump releases the transcript of his call with Ukraine’s president. There is no mention of a quid pro quo, political dirt, withholding aid or campaign 2020. Trump’s critics counter that these things were implicit. There is no evidence, however, that Ukraine provided Trump with "dirt” on Biden — a necessary component of an alleged quid pro quo.

Sept. 25, 2019: The president of Ukraine says he did not feel pushed by President Trump to investigate Biden or to take other action.

Oct. 31, 2019: The House approves impeachment process rules. The vote is largely along party lines, with two Democrats siding with Republicans.

It could be a coincidence that so many key names in this timeline — from John Brennan and James Comey, to Ukraine and CNN — factor into the Trump impeachment push. And, further, it could be a coincidence that we have ended up where some Trump critics said they hoped to be, even before he was sworn in.

On the other hand, in retrospect, the biggest surprise might be that, all things considered, it took them so long to get to this point

November 08, 2019 4:36 PM  
Anonymous Rump, the leading liar said...

Would you look at all those right wing BS pirouettes?

I sure won't read a word of any of them.

Judges don't like BS either.

WHEN THE Trump administration announced a new rule to give greater protection to health-care workers who refuse to be involved in certain procedures for religious or moral reasons, it cited a reason: The number of people complaining that they had been pressured to act against their faith had increased dramatically, officials said. For a decade, there had been on average just one complaint a year, so the administration’s assertion of a jump in complaints last year to 343 was startling.

And, as it turns out, bogus.

Given how President Trump and his administration regularly traffic in deceptions and untruths, maybe this shouldn’t be a surprise. Nonetheless, it remains shocking to see an administration submitting such falsehoods in court. A federal judge called it out this week as he voided a rule set to go into effect later this month. The broadly written rule, challenged by New York and nearly two dozen other, mostly Democratic states and municipalities, would have allowed medical providers to decline to participate in services to which they morally object, such as abortion or assisted death. In a 147-page decision, U.S. District Judge Paul Engelmayer in Manhattan declared the regulation unconstitutional, ruling that the Department of Health and Human Services had exceeded its authority and “acted arbitrarily and capriciously.”
AD

“Flatly untrue” is the label he applied to the administration’s central justification of a supposed “significant increase” in complaints related to conscience violations. Nearly 80 percent of the complaints provided to the court were about vaccinations and would not have been affected by the regulation in question.

This is not the first time the Trump administration has relied on fiction in judicial proceedings. Notoriously, Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross and the Justice Department fudged the motivation for a new citizenship question on the 2020 Census. Thankfully, the courts saw through that lie as well, albeit by a 5-to-4 majority, with four conservative justices willing to overlook the falsehood.

Lies helped Mr. Trump get elected, and in 993 days since taking office, he had made more than 13,000 false and misleading claims, according to the latest count by The Post’s Fact Checker. So frequent are the lies, there is the danger of becoming inured to them, treating them just as business as usual and forgetting the real harm they can cause. Since Republicans in Congress refuse to be any kind of check on Mr. Trump and his dishonesty, let’s hope the courts continue to do their job.

November 08, 2019 4:52 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Lies helped Mr. Trump get elected"

"if you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor"

"Obamacare will reduce the deficit"

November 08, 2019 4:59 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Obamacare DID reduce the deficit. By some 300 million if I recall correctly.

Wyatt/Regina/bad anonymous said "heterosexuality is how life is perpetuated and it has a privileged status"

Human population growth is exponential. If we continue this way there will be a massive collapse of resources which will result in most of the population dying.

Its time to stop "privileging" heterosexuality and start privileging those who refrain from having more than 2.1 children.

November 08, 2019 5:06 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Hillarious how once I show up Wyatt/Regina/bad anonymous start posting under the various "I hate gays and we should destroy them" pseudonyms :)

Those two really hate me.

Its because the can't refute that the way for us to have the best possible society is for our highest priority to be maximizing the happiness for all in an equal and fair way.

Its destructive to put your religion before that.

November 08, 2019 5:09 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Dear Wyatt/Regina, if Republicans had a shred of evidence of any wrongdoing by the Bidens the American Justice Department under Trump'S henchman Bill Barr would be investigating it.

Republicans are trying to do to Biden what they did to Hillary - 6 years of Benghazi investigations, 8 committee hearings where she (unlike Trump) answered hour after hour of questions under oath. And of course after spending millions and millions of dollars of taxpayer money they found NOTHING.

Because there was nothing to find, Hillary is squeaky clean, just like Biden.

The truth is not on the side of Republicans so the entire team is gaslighting the American public.

Trump on the other hand, used 400 million in taxpayer funds to try to strongarm the Ukranian president into lying and committing a crime to help Trump personally at the expense of America.

November 08, 2019 5:13 PM  
Anonymous Second man accuses Rep. Jim Jordan of ignoring OSU abuse said...

A professional referee says in a lawsuit filed Thursday that disgraced doctor Richard Strauss masturbated in front of him in a shower after a wrestling match at Ohio State University, and he reported the encounter directly to Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, who was then the assistant coach.

“Yeah, that’s Strauss,” Jordan and then-head coach Russ Hellickson replied, according to the lawsuit, when the referee, identified in court papers as John Doe 42, told them about the incident. The lawsuit, filed in federal court in Ohio, implies that Jordan's response to the incident, which the referee said happened in 1994, was essentially a shrug.

John Doe 42 is the second person to say he told Jordan directly about either being approached or molested by Strauss, who was found by independent investigators to have sexually abused 177 male students over two decades.

Jordan, a powerful Republican congressman and a top defender of President Donald Trump in the ongoing impeachment inquiry, has repeatedly denied knowing anything about what Strauss did to the wrestlers he helped coach from 1986 to 1994. He has said the allegations against him were politically motivated.

John Doe 42 said that when he informed Jordan and Hellickson about what happened, their response was, “Yeah, yeah, we know.”

“It was common knowledge what Strauss was doing so the attitude was it is what it is,” he told NBC News. “I wish Jim, and Russ, too, would stand up and do the right thing and admit they knew what Strauss was doing, because everybody knew what he was doing to the wrestlers. What was a shock to me is that Strauss tried to do that to me. He was breaking new ground by going after a ref.”

Former Ohio State wrestler Dunyasha Yetts was the first person to say he spoke to Jordan directly about Strauss. He previously described how he went to see Strauss for a thumb injury, and when the doctor tried to pull down his pants, he stormed out and complained to Jordan and Hellickson.

“It’s good that people are starting to come forward and say the truth, which is that Jordan and the other coaches knew what was going on and they blew it off,” Yetts told NBC News.

Other former Ohio State wrestlers have said Jordan had to know about Strauss because he shared a locker room with them and took part in discussions about the doctor, who died in 2005.

Jordan’s spokesman, Ian Fury, did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

November 08, 2019 5:18 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

A year or two back a couple of guys in the Corvette Forum asked me to post a picture of me and my car which I was reluctant to do. I did decide to post it recently, so if you want to put a face to my name, here I am.


A year ago I started trying to adjust the position of the passenger side rear bumper on my car. It took me a year to get it ideally positioned. This is my victory picture after the year long struggle to get the rear bumpers right.

November 08, 2019 5:22 PM  
Anonymous Former Trump adviser who testified to Ukraine pressure campaign said she was victim of harassment said...

Fiona Hill, President Donald Trump's former top adviser on Russia and Europe, told House investigators that her time in the Trump administration was marked by death threats, “hateful calls” and “conspiracy theories,” a harassment campaign she said was revived after it was learned she would cooperate with the impeachment inquiry, according to a transcript of her deposition released Friday.

"I received, I just have to tell you, death threats, calls at my home. My neighbors reported somebody coming and hammering on my door," she told investigators in closed-door testimony of her time in the White House. "Now, I'm not easily intimidated, but that made me mad."

The transcript confirmed NBC News’ reporting that Hill told Congress that Rudy Giuliani, Trump's personal attorney, and Gordon Sondland, the U.S. Ambassador to the European Union, sidestepped the National Security Council and typical White House process to advocate for a shadow policy on Ukraine, while revealing new details about how Giuliani's work undercut and derailed the diplomats charged with overseeing Ukrainian-U.S. relations.

Hill, who transitioned out of her role in July before officially leaving her job in early September, testified that the ousting of U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch was a turning point for her. Yovanovitch, she said, was subject to a similar campaign of harassment and "defamation," which she credited to Giuliani.

Asked about her conversations with Ambassador John Bolton about Yovanovitch, Hill testified that Bolton's "reaction was pained."

"And he basically said, in fact he directly said: Rudy Giuliani is a hand grenade that is going to blow everyone up," she told congressional investigators.

The transcript of her deposition was released alongside the transcript of testimony from Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman, the top Ukraine expert on the National Security Council. It's the latest in a series of witness transcripts House Democrats have made public as the impeachment inquiry into Trump enters a new phase.

Transcripts of testimony from other key figures released this week have largely established a narrative that suggests Trump directed officials to tie nearly $400 million in military and security aid to Ukraine to demands that Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy announce probes that could benefit Trump.

Text messages obtained as part of the impeachment inquiry into Trump showed Sondland, Giuliani and former U.S. envoy for Ukraine Kurt Volker working to facilitate Trump’s goal of getting Zelenskiy to commit to investigate the president’s political opponents including former Vice President Joe Biden — and making a White House visit for Zelenskiy contingent on such a commitment. Official notes from Trump’s July call with Zelenskiy released by the White House showed Trump asking the Ukrainians to work directly with Giuliani, and NBC News has reported that Sondland was also in direct contact with Trump about Ukraine.

The White House sought to limit how much Hill could say, according to letters between the White House and her attorney obtained by NBC News last month. The White House did not tell her not to testify, but said she was responsible for guarding against unauthorized disclosures and outlined areas where her testimony might run up against executive privilege, like direct communications with the president or meetings with other heads of state.

Hill’s lawyers argued that executive privilege did not apply, in part because some of the information has already come into the public sphere and thus was no longer confidential. They also argued that executive privilege disappears when there’s reason to believe there was government misconduct.

November 08, 2019 5:39 PM  
Anonymous I see two beauties there said...

Thanks for sharing Priya Lynn.

That looks like a difficult job and you are making great progress!

Congratulations!

November 08, 2019 5:43 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Ahhh, gee, thanks Good anonymous!

November 08, 2019 5:44 PM  
Anonymous I reeeeeeeeally like our Supreme Court.and the best is yet to come!!!!!!! said...

During the 2016 campaign, candidate Donald Trump stood in front of largely white crowds and asked black voters to consider, “What the hell do you have to lose?”

Four years later, the president has a new message for black voters: Look what I’ve delivered.

Trump and his campaign launched a new “Black Voices for Trump” outreach initiative in Atlanta on Friday dedicated to “recruiting and activating Black Americans in support of President Trump,” according to the campaign. Much of that effort will focus on highlighting ways that African Americans have benefited from the Trump economy.

“The support we’re getting from the African American community has been overwhelming,” Trump told the crowd, which included supporters wearing red “BLACK LIVES MAGA” hats.

He predicted victory in 2020, and said, “We’re going to do it with a groundswell of support from hardworking African American patriots.”

Shortly after landing in Georgia on Friday, Trump retweeted a call from one black supporter for submissions for a ”#MAGACHALLENGE” competition featuring Trump-friendly rap songs. Trump said he would be announcing the winners and inviting them to the White House to meet with him and perform.

Before launching the new effort, Trump met with supporters at a fundraiser that was expected to raise about $3.5 million for a joint committee benefiting the Republican National Committee, the Trump campaign and the campaign of Sen. David Perdue, R-Ga.

The campaign has launched similar coalitions for women, Latinos and veterans.

Darrell Scott, a black Ohio pastor and a longtime supporter of the president who is co-chair of the new coalition and spoke at Friday’s event, said that in 2015 and 2016, supporters trying to sell Trump to black voters could only point forward to share things they anticipated from Trump.

“Now that it’s 2020, we’re able to point backwards and to some very definitive accomplishments that the president has done,” Scott said.

The campaign and White House point to a list of achievements, including passage of bipartisan criminal justice reform legislation, which Trump signed into law last year, along with his ongoing support for opportunity zones in urban areas and new investments in historically black colleges.

“I don’t know anyone who’s done that kind of work outside of the president on attacking those big issues or trying to stop drugs from coming into the neighborhood and, at the same time, giving people second chances,” said Ja’Ron Smith, deputy assistant to the president and one of the White House’s few minority high-ranked officials.

Some analysts have pointed to a precipitous drop in black turnout in 2016 as one of the reasons Trump beat his Democratic rival Hillary Clinton, who was far less popular — especially among black men —than former President Barack Obama.

November 08, 2019 5:47 PM  
Anonymous someone around here puts the ugh in ugly said...

history of Biden using the influence of his office to get special favors for friends and family:

https://www.thenation.com/article/biden-delaware-way-graft/

November 08, 2019 6:47 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Trump blocked congressionally approved taxpayer funds intended to help Ukraine defend itself against Russia and he did it to benefit himself personally to the detriment of the United States.

This kind of corruption cannot stand if American democracy is to survive.

November 08, 2019 6:54 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

When you've got nothing to hide, you testify at investigations into your behaviour. Hillary testified, Trump refused to.

November 08, 2019 6:56 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Careful Wyatt/Regina, or I'll post a picture of you two and let everyone see who's ugly.

November 08, 2019 7:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Blacks for Trump

November 08, 2019 11:20 PM  
Anonymous IF GLOBAL WARMING THREATENS LIFE ON THE PLANET WHY DO DEMS OPPOSE NUCLEAR ENERGY AND FRACKING?!? said...

President Trump launched an initiative called Black Voices for Trump with a speech in Atlanta Friday to recruit and engage the black community.

“The Democrats have let you down,” the president said to the hundreds of people in attendance. “They’ve dismissed you. They’ve hurt you. They’ve sabotaged you for far too long.”

Our coalition of black leaders discussed the unique challenges faced by the black community with the president. Urban areas with large black populations have suffered from historically high levels of unemployment, poverty, and dependency.

Crime is higher and the quality of education is lower. Black students – young men in particular – have lower high school graduation rates than the general population.

Progressive policies have failed the black community.

It’s painful to watch Democrats use and abuse the black community every four years. They make promises to help black Americans overcome generational poverty and strengthen our communities, then disappear the day after Election Day.

Our black forefathers did not go through all that they went through simply so that we could be black. They paid the price so that we could be free. And thanks in part to President Trump’s accomplishments, we want to keep it that way.

November 09, 2019 9:11 AM  
Anonymous IF GLOBAL WARMING THREATENS LIFE ON THE PLANET WHY DO DEMS OPPOSE NUCLEAR ENERGY AND FRACKING?!? said...

When President Trump made several promises to the black community in 2016, the strangest thing happened – he kept them.

President Trump promised jobs.

Since 2016, the economy has added more than 6.7 million jobs. As the White House pointed out, that is more than the populations of Wyoming, Vermont, Alaska, North Dakota, South Dakota, Delaware, Rhode Island, and Montana combined.

Black unemployment has fallen to 5.4 percent, which is about one-third lower than when President Trump took office.

President Trump promised opportunity.

In the historic 2017 tax cuts, President Trump fought to include Qualified Opportunity Zones to incentivize companies to bring jobs and economic development to distressed communities.

The program has been a life preserver for people like Roy James, the plant manager of the Vicksburg Forest Products lumber facility. Roy was notified the facility would close its doors after working at the sawmill for almost three decades.

Workers believed all hope was lost – until Vicksburg was designated an Opportunity Zone. Thanks to this Trump administration initiative, the plant reopened, and jobs were saved.

President Trump promised justice reform.

Perhaps the most impactful reform of President Trump’s first term was the First Step Act, the most significant criminal justice reform America has achieved in a generation.

The legislation reformed overly harsh federal sentencing laws enacted during the Clinton years that disproportionately harmed back families and communities. It also provided nonviolent offenders with a second chance to rejoin society as productive citizens.

Since President Trump signed the First Step Act, thousands of inmates have returned to their families, including nearly 1,700 people convicted of crack cocaine offenses. The first inmate released was Matthew Charles, who was sentenced to 35 years in prison for selling crack cocaine in the 1990s.

Matthew dedicated his time in prison to serving others. He studied the Bible, taught GED classes, and mentored fellow inmates. Every day, Matthew took steps toward redemption. And thanks to President Trump, he now walks free.

The Democratic Party has invested decades into organizing the support of black voters. But what have we gotten in return? They have taken us for granted, and we deserve better representation in Washington.

President Trump offers something new to black families, business owners, and communities. He is a leader who keeps his promises. He accomplished more for the black community in four years than the Democratic Party could deliver in the last 40 years.

The Black Voices for Trump coalition is committed to spreading this message far and wide in the black community. Our best days are ahead – but only if we can recognize who is really fighting for us in Washington, and who isn’t

November 09, 2019 9:13 AM  
Anonymous government is not the solution to our problems, government is the problem said...

As House Democrats begin the public phase of their impeachment hearings into President Donald Trump this week — over a presidential phone call to Ukraine — I’m forced to use a dirty word.

If you melt easily, please cover your eyes and ears, or clutch your pearls and gird yourself. Here comes that dirty word:

Fairness.

To a politician, “fairness” is nothing more than a shiv, to be slipped between the ribs with a smile. Politics is never fair. It’s not about who deserves what. Politics is the hand, and government is the club in that hand.

Americans are realists. What keeps us going isn’t belief in the fairness of Washington media or Washington politicians. What keeps us going is our belief in the ultimate fairness of our fellow Americans. If we lose that, we’re done.

So, I propose that, if nothing else, fairness should rule the televised impeachment hearings run by the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, U.S. Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif.

He wants to call diplomats to testify about the phone call, to give their impressions of the call, though the transcripts have been released and anyone can read them. Calling the diplomats in isn’t about beginning at the beginning. Calling the diplomats is about not beginning at the beginning.

It begins with the “whistleblower.”

If the Democrats want to be fair about this, two witnesses must be called and sworn in under oath to testify and be questioned by Democrats and Republicans so that Americans, now focused, can also begin at the beginning.

The first witness should be the so-called “whistleblower,” the government employee who brought the complaint to Schiff about that phone call to Ukraine.

And the second witness should be Schiff himself.

There is no way, really, around this. To do otherwise is to admit that all this is about, really, is overturning Trump’s 2016 election, which caused the bipartisan Washington establishment to break out into hives and TV news anchors to cry on air.

Politicians and media play a role, but there’s more to it. The American people play a role too. This is their country. They voted. And Trump was elected.

The impeachment of a president a year out from a presidential election, with all the animosity and chaos that would bring, is serious business.

The worry for Democrats is that if it is just a partisan exercise, Trump Impeachment Theater will be seen as a lame addendum to the Mueller Russia Collusion investigation, which failed to find evidence that Trump or anyone else colluded with Russia over the 2016 election.

November 09, 2019 9:19 AM  
Anonymous government is not the solution to our problems, government is the problem said...

This week’s first witnesses shouldn’t be diplomats.

The first witness, ideally, would be the “whistleblower” himself.

It was the “whistleblower” who brought the complaint to Schiff and his committee staff, alleging that Trump had committed an outrage during that phone call to the president of Ukraine.

Is the whistleblower a heroic patriot fighting against overwhelming odds to save the republic, as Democrats insist?

Or is he a Democratic operative and pajama-boy tool of former CIA boss and Trump loather John Brennan, as Republicans have alleged?

Who is he? What’s his name? Does he have allies on Schiff’s committee? Why is he doing this?

When you hold hearings to take out a president, you want to know how it all began, don’t you?

You might want to read the fascinating and important piece in RealClearInvestigations by Paul Sperry. It discusses the “whistleblower” in detail.

If you don’t want to read it, then please just admit that all you want is just another steaming platter of “Orange Man Bad” analysis.

After the whistleblower is questioned about Brennan and who he met in Schiff’s committee and whether he was indeed booted out of the White House for partisan leaking, as alleged in the RealClearInvestigations story, then Schiff should take the stand.

And Schiff should testify, under oath, about how all this was orchestrated and what he did and whether he told the whole truth.

If the whistleblower is not compelled to testify under oath, Democrats risk a self-inflicted wound. And wounds become dangerous when infected in a swamp.

Trump’s call to Ukraine was clumsy, and it gave his opponents an opportunity. I don’t think it was impeachable, but then, you might differ with me. That’s OK. I won’t shun you.

It’s still OK to have different views in this country, isn’t it?

Democrats insist Trump was involved in an illicit effort to use American foreign aid to get Ukraine to dig up dirt about Democratic presidential candidate former Vice President Joe Biden and his son, Hunter. They shout “quid pro quo.”

Republicans insist there is nothing impeachable in the call and that all foreign aid, by definition, is about a this for a that.

They note, correctly, that Democrats were playing in Ukraine in 2016, and that Joe Biden was America’s diplomatic point man in that country, even as son Hunter cashed in with a $50,000-a-month gig with a Ukrainian natural gas company.

That’s quid pro quo too, isn’t it?

But all that will come at us from Washington begins with the whistleblower and Schiff pulling the strings. To pretend otherwise is an insult.

Some of you will think that America doesn’t deserve what’s happening. But think again.

In the great western “Unforgiven,” Clint Eastwood’s character explained the facts of life this way:

“Deserve’s got nothing to do with it.”

The impeachment hearings aren’t about what America deserves. This is about what it’s always been about: power.

November 09, 2019 9:22 AM  
Anonymous Even being snitched on by someone in jail can land you in prison said...

"The first witness, ideally, would be the “whistleblower” himself."

The only reason Republicans want to know the whistleblower's identity is so that they can smear him, and provide another distraction from Rump's crimes.

The whistleblower's allegations have been corroborated by multiple sources now, and it is clear that people were acting on Rump and Giuliani's illegal scheme.

Rudy Giuliani’s scheme to open a shadowy back channel with the new Ukrainian government in order to damage Joe Biden was so ham-handed that even John Bolton, the mustachioed former national security adviser to President Trump, reportedly called it a “drug deal” and Giuliani himself “a hand grenade who’s going to blow everybody up.”

Rump's apologists are now desperately trying to throw that hand grenade onto someone else and hope it doesn't blow up in Rump's face.

Too late. Trashing the whistle blower isn't going to help you.

November 09, 2019 9:37 AM  
Anonymous LGBTQ candidates sweep the polls with 80 wins said...

Tuesday’s election was a night of dramatic upsets, with Democrats winning the Kentucky Governor’s race and claiming control of the Virginia legislature. It also marked a wave of openly queer candidates winning public office. The LGBTQ Victory Fund, an organization that provides fundraising support for queer candidates at each level of government, had endorsed 111 candidates this election cycle. Eighty of those candidates won in Tuesday night's election.

While 46 of the candidates were cisgender gay men, there were also candidates who identified as lesbian, bisexual, pansexual, or queer. Five of the winning candidates were transgender women, and one openly identified as nonbinary.

One of those transgender candidates was Danica Roem, who became the first openly transgender person to be reelected to a state legislature. Roem made waves when she was elected to represent Virginia’s 13th House District back in 2017, beating an incumbent GOP delegate who was known for his anti-trans policies. While she was widely reported to be the first transgender person elected to a state legislature at the time, Snopes reports that the claim isn’t completely true—but of the two trans women elected before her, one wasn’t out as trans during her candidacy, and the other resigned before taking office.

It’s easy to understand why so many queer people are now running for office. Under Donald Trump’s presidency, the LGBTQ community has faced dozens of attacks on their rights to access healthcare, receive protection from workplace and housing discrimination, adopt children, and much more. The majority of these new candidates are running for local offices, where they will be able to implement inclusive policies and enact protections for other queer members of their communities.

This year’s victories follow the “rainbow wave” of 2018, when a whopping 610 queer candidates ran for office across the US at all levels of government, with 164 of them winning. Last year brought eight LGBTQ leaders to the House and two to the Senate. The incoming freshman class of House Democrats was nearly 10% LGBTQ—much more in line with the proportion of queer people in the general population, which has been estimated at anywhere from 4.5% to 12%. The race also saw Jared Polis of Colorado become the second openly queer governor ever elected in the U.S. Kate Brown of Oregon was the first, in 2015.

There are now 765 openly LGBTQ elected officials serving nationwide. While this may seem like an encouraging number, only 0.15% of elected officials in the US are LGBTQ, showing that there is still work to be done before our government truly reflects the diversity of gender and sexual identity within our country.

November 09, 2019 10:34 AM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Wyatt/Regina/bad anonymous said "government is not the solution to our problems, government is the problem"

When Republicans say this, what they mean is that they want to eliminate Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and to take away people's right to health insurance even if they have pre-existing health conditions.

November 09, 2019 11:07 AM  
Anonymous Captain Obvious said...

Republicans make sure to turn "government is the problem" into a self-fulfilling prophecy at every opportunity.

November 09, 2019 12:45 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

During the 2016 election Republicans tried to gaslight Americans by falsely claiming the Clinton Foundation was corrupt.

The truth is it was the Trump foundation that was corrupt. Trump was recently convicted of using his allegedly charitable foundation for his own personal benefit and fined $2 million while his children have been required to enter into study into the legal requirements for running a charity.

Imagine a country where its president is fined $2 million for stealing money from a charity and nobody cares?

Okay, Wyatt/Regina, tell us how Trump stealing money from his charity is all fine and "everyone does it".

November 09, 2019 1:11 PM  
Anonymous Merrick Garland ... LOL said...

"The only reason Republicans want to know the whistleblower's identity is so that they can smear him,"

actually, what needs to be unveiled is repeated attempts to start false stories to undo the 2016 election

it's a threat to our democracy

we need to know who's behind to consider if they've done anything illegal or, conversely, if we need laws against what they've done

the whistleblower law is to protect those who witness something illegal or unethical

this individual didn't

"and provide another distraction from Rump's crimes."

Dems have yet to demonstrate that Trump committed any crimes

"The whistleblower's allegations have been corroborated by multiple sources now, and it is clear that people were acting on Rump and Giuliani's illegal scheme."

actually, all that's been corroborated is that certain people interpreted the language of Trump's phone call the same way that the whistleblower did

so what?

other people, who, as opposed to the whistleblower, actually listened to the call, didn't agree with the whistleblower's interpretation

"Rudy Giuliani’s scheme to open a shadowy back channel with the new Ukrainian government"

everything about international relations is shadowy

the world would be a much more dangerous place without "shadowy back channels", you imbecile

"in order to damage Joe Biden"

Biden damaged himself. Did he really think that he should serve as American's main point person in Ukraine while his son took a huge salary from interests under investigation for corruption there?

That misjudgment alone is disqualifying for presidential nomination

We also need to consider some legislation forbidding presidential children from selling their parent's influence

"Rump's apologists are now desperately trying to throw that hand grenade onto someone else and hope it doesn't blow up in Rump's face."

Need I remind you that Trump is in no danger of removal from office.

When this is all over, voters will be reminded that Dems wasted the last three years in dubious attempts to overturn the 2016 election rather than solve the problems of their country.

Meanwhile, Trump's policies have helped the disadvantaged and restored justice.

"Too late. Trashing the whistle blower isn't going to help you."

Thanks for the advice but you know what they call people who take advice from imbeciles: imbeciles...

"Tuesday’s election was a night of dramatic upsets, with Democrats winning the Kentucky Governor’s race and claiming control of the Virginia legislature."

neither of those could be called an upset, certainly not dramatic ones

"It also marked a wave of openly queer candidates winning public office"

the GOP doesn't oppose queers from serving in public office

"It’s easy to understand why so many queer people are now running for office."

There are probably no more than there ever were. They're just known because gays have become so exhibitionist

"Under Donald Trump’s presidency, the LGBTQ community has faced dozens of attacks on their rights to access healthcare, receive protection from workplace and housing discrimination, adopt children, and much more. The majority of these new candidates are running for local offices, where they will be able to implement inclusive policies and enact protections for other queer members of their communities."

well, I would oppose those queer candidates that are looking to provide special benefits and protections for queers

are there any polls showing queer public officials favor such inane policies?

November 09, 2019 1:20 PM  
Anonymous global warming debunked for good said...

Judicial Watch has released White House logs from the Obama administration, raising questions about Obama, Biden, Ukraine, the origins of the impeachment farce, and Eric Ciaramella, a CIA analyst who worked with Biden on Ukraine policy and who is the whistleblower. Liberal social media sites, like Facebook, are currently trying to erase Ciaramella's name from the internet.

Too late

https://www.judicialwatch.org/press-releases/judicial-watch-white-house-visitor-logs-detail-meetings-of-eric-ciaramella/

November 09, 2019 1:35 PM  
Anonymous If you can't do the time, don't do the crime said...

"actually, what needs to be unveiled is repeated attempts to start false stories to undo the 2016 election

it's a threat to our democracy"

Where were you in 2008 when people were saying Obama was born in Kenya and secretly a Muslim?

And what has been released about Rump's phone call has been proven false?

Just because the Cult of Trump doesn't believe he committed a crime, doesn't mean that he didn't - no matter how many times you try and fill up this blog with your lame excuses.

"When this is all over, voters will be reminded that Dems wasted the last three years in dubious attempts to overturn the 2016 election rather than solve the problems of their country."

It seems you need reminded that all the conspiracy theories and slander against Obama, and even Moscow Mitch's promise to undermine the will of the American voters with "The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president" didn't manage to overturn Obama's first or second election.

Obama was born in Hawaii, which isn't a crime, and he wasn't a Muslim - which isn't a crime either.

If the Rumpster wants to stay in office, he should stop doing things that look like, and probably are, crimes.

Republicans like to try and spin this as "Democrats trying to overturn the last election," but Republican behavior during Obama's tenure is the very definition of that.

Legally investigating and prosecuting elected officials for crimes while in office is part and parcel for keeping our democracy safe.

November 09, 2019 1:41 PM  
Anonymous I'll take 3 million hamberders please, I promised them to all the illegal voters said...

"Judicial Watch has released White House logs from the Obama administration, raising questions about Obama, Biden, Ukraine, the origins of the impeachment farce"

Government employees signing the log book before entering the White House isn't a crime.

But obviously, if you throw the names of enough Dems in there along with George Soros, you've got all the threads you need to weave a whole new conspiracy theory.

Go ahead, investigate another nothing "hamberder."

What about those 3 million illegal voters that voted for Hillary? Didn't Rump set up an investigative committee for that?

How many did they find?
3 million?
3 thousand?
3?

November 09, 2019 1:55 PM  
Anonymous homosexuality never produces life, two of 'em ain't ever a marriage said...

"Where were you in 2008 when people were saying Obama was born in Kenya and secretly a Muslim?"

I was withholding judgment

you should try it

most of the Republicans in Congress at the time didn't support the theory

"And what has been released about Rump's phone call has been proven false?"

well, how about the quid pro quo

not in that call

that's why Dems are frantically trying to find some other intance

the call didn't show what the whistleblower claimed it did

"Just because the Cult of Trump doesn't believe he committed a crime, doesn't mean that he didn't - no matter how many times you try and fill up this blog with your lame excuses."

I hate to break it to you but the American justice system, where one is innocent until proven guilty, is not a cult

the whole "Just because you don't believe he committed a crime, doesn't mean that he didn't" line is scary to think there are people who actually think that way

it's a rationale of banana republics and medieval witch trials

let's try it:

just because the commmenter who calls himself "If you can't do the time, don't do the crime" says he's not a monkey, doesn't mean he isn't one

"It seems you need reminded that all the conspiracy theories and slander against Obama, and even Moscow Mitch's promise to undermine the will of the American voters with "The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president" didn't manage to overturn Obama's first or second election."

well, if your characterization is true, the fact that Obama won re-election anyway would indicate that the same will happen with Trump

"If the Rumpster wants to stay in office, he should stop doing things that look like, and probably are, crimes."

your only hope of removing Trump from office is to drop the impeachment farce and, quick, find a centrist who is not corrupt and not the wife of a sexual predator former President, to run against him

but, thanks so much for telling us what Trump should do if he "wants to stay in office"

ROFL!! LOL!!!!!!!

"Legally investigating and prosecuting elected officials for crimes while in office is part and parcel for keeping our democracy safe."

well, it should be rare and there should actually be a feasible case of a crime committed

"Government employees signing the log book before entering the White House isn't a crime."

no one said it was

November 09, 2019 2:52 PM  
Anonymous It's not the monkey you should be worried about, it's the orangutan said...

"it's a rationale of banana republics and medieval witch trials"

It's also the rationale of petty criminals who find themselves in prison who think they shouldn't be there even though they did the crime.

"well, if your characterization is true, the fact that Obama won re-election anyway would indicate that the same will happen with Trump"

Well, you don't believe anything the TTFers say here is true, so by your "logic," that would indicate Trump isn't going to win reelection.

Past history is not a guarantee of future performance.

Republican's only hope of winning the next election is putting someone forward who can behave like an adult and not continuously put his own interests above the country.

But it's fun watching you believe your own twisted "rationalizations" for all of Rump's bad behavior.

Keep 'em comin! It's good for a laugh at least.

"no one said it was" (a crime)

Yeah, it was just another right-wing conspiracy theory. Call us when someone finds evidence of an actual crime.

Republicans have been saying Obama's investigation of the Rumpster was a crime for years now. It seems that 3 years is plenty of time for Republicans to find some evidence and charge somebody for some crimes by now. What are they waiting for?

Don't tell us this is another episode where Republicans spend millions of dollars of taxpayer money slandering Democrats and finding nothing criminal to charge them with.

"your only hope of removing Trump from office is to drop the impeachment farce and, quick, find a centrist who is not corrupt and not the wife of a sexual predator former President, to run against him"

I didn't have anything to with starting the impeachment investigation, and I'm sure I won't have anything to do with stopping it.

That's above my pay grade.

But thanks so much for telling us how to defeat the Rumpster. It will be dutifully ignored.

November 09, 2019 3:52 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

This is not a presidency.

This is a crime spree by a con artist who is repaying his Russian debts and lining his own pockets.

November 09, 2019 4:45 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Nikki Haley "This is a decision for the American people."

Jon Favreau "The President extorted a foreign goverment in order to influence that decision, which is why he should be impeached."

People, for god's sake, don't forget this when you hear that Republican bullsh*t.

November 09, 2019 5:01 PM  
Anonymous BobSF_94117 said...

The last time unconstitutional moves were up to the people, we got the Third Reich.

November 09, 2019 5:02 PM  
Anonymous government is not the solution to our problems, government is the problem said...

"It's also the rationale of petty criminals who find themselves in prison who think they shouldn't be there even though they did the crime."

a complete non sequitur

if you don't believe in the concept of innocent until proven guilty, you don't believe in American values

"Well, you don't believe anything the TTFers say here is true, so by your "logic," that would indicate Trump isn't going to win reelection."

he is going to win because he has demonstrated that he can promote the peace and prosperity of the country and Dems have demonstrated they believe in an economic framework that has failed, every time it's been tried, everywhere around the globe

the Dems focus on overturning the 2016 election rather than trying to win the 2020 election will be a factor in their downfall but, ultimately, it's that capitalism is superior to socialism

"Republican's only hope of winning the next election is putting someone forward who can behave like an adult and not continuously put his own interests above the country."

no one is going to vote based "adult behavior", you fool

and we are a country of aspiration, not envy

so, no one begrudges Trump capitalizing on his office if he takes care of the country

which he's done

repeat after me: lowest minority unemployment in history, economic growth a point about Obama's new normal, minorities unjustly imprisoned by our sexual predator former President have been released, inner city opportunity zones are flourishing, black colleges are getting grants, 85% of jobs created since Trump took over have gone to minorities, China is on the run, illegal immigrants are no longer taking jobs from our poorest citizens

"But it's fun watching you believe your own twisted "rationalizations" for all of Rump's bad behavior.

Keep 'em comin! It's good for a laugh at least."

well, stop complaining then

and please keep laughing and feeling confident until November 2020

hope Elizabeth won't take until the next day to come out of her hotel room, like Hillary did

"Republicans have been saying Obama's investigation of the Rumpster was a crime for years now. It seems that 3 years is plenty of time for Republicans to find some evidence and charge somebody for some crimes by now. What are they waiting for?"

actually, the investigation has been going on a few months

until Mueller issued his report, Trump was careful to cooperate with his investigation and this would have complicated it

Dems are trying for a sequel to protect themselves right now

"That's above my pay grade."

well I, for one, am in favor of fast food workers getting higher pay

"This is not a presidency.

This is a crime spree by a con artist who is repaying his Russian debts and lining his own pockets."

read Mueller's report

you must have been on vacation when it came out

November 09, 2019 7:25 PM  
Anonymous Republicans should stop making government the problem said...

"if you don't believe in the concept of innocent until proven guilty, you don't believe in American values"

I do believe in innocent until proven guilty, and many other American values. What has come out of the impeachment investigation has shown that multiple people in Rump's own administration corroborates the whistle blower's report that the Rumpster tried to get a foreign entity to interfere with our election process... again.

That is a crime. Only fools would deny that, but those are a dime a dozen in the Republican party.

"he is going to win because he has demonstrated that he can promote the peace and prosperity of the country"

Rump has promoted the rise of white nationalists, whether he did it intentionally or not may be up for debate, but he has not been promoting peace. The prosperity he has supposedly promoted has only been a continuation of the forward moving Obama economy, and would be even better if he hadn't started an unnecessary trade war.

"and Dems have demonstrated they believe in an economic framework that has failed, every time it's been tried, everywhere around the globe"

Ahh... complaining about the whole "socialism" thing again, as if every democrat wants to go full Russia or full Venezuela into the socialism regime. You never mention the fact that the socialism Democrats are advocating is the kind that has provided health care, decent wages, child care, and even decent vacation times for all of Western Europe for decades. God forbid we have the best education system in the world like Finland. Instead, we're down at number 20, and Russia is number 5.

https://www.edsys.in/best-education-system-in-the-world/

The "socialism" practiced by our NATO allies in Europe and Canada has served them quite well over the decades, and they show no signs of turning into a collapsed socialist empire.

"no one is going to vote based "adult behavior", you fool

and we are a country of aspiration, not envy"

Well, given your posts, I'm not surprised that acting like an adult is not high on your priority list for a president. But for the adults in the room, it is.

And I don't know any Democrat that envies Rump. They are sickened by his behavior.

"so, no one begrudges Trump capitalizing on his office if he takes care of the country

which he's done"

One word: Emoluments.

"repeat after me:"

No. Just No.

Mindless repetition is how children are indoctrinated into religion and adults are expected to behave as Republicans. I'll take my own analytical thinking skills over right-wing brainwashing any day.

"and please keep laughing and feeling confident until November 2020"

Same to you buddy, same to you.

"until Mueller issued his report, Trump was careful to cooperate with his investigation and this would have complicated it"

If this were a sitcom, that's where the laugh track would kick in.

"well I, for one, am in favor of fast food workers getting higher pay"

Funny, I don't ever recall you advocating for the $15 or $22 minimum wage - I seem to recall Republicans insisting that the market should decide their wages. But if I missed that somewhere, please let me know.

November 10, 2019 12:45 AM  
Anonymous Amid flooding and rising sea levels, residents of one barrier island wonder if it’s time to retreat said...

OCRACOKE, N.C. — On any normal late-fall day, the ferries that ply the 30 miles between Swan Quarter and this barrier island might carry vacationing retirees, sports fishermen and residents enjoying mainland getaways after the busy summer tourist season.

But two months ago, Hurricane Dorian washed away all signs of normalcy here. After buzz-cutting the Bahamas, the giant storm rolled overhead, raising a seven-foot wall of water in its wake that sloshed back through the harbor, invading century-old homes that have never before taken in water and sending islanders such as post office head Celeste Brooks and her two grandchildren scrambling into their attics.

Ocracoke has been closed to visitors ever since. Island-bound ferries carry yawning container trucks to haul back the sodden detritus of destroyed homes. And O’cockers — proud descendants of the pilots and pirates who navigated these treacherous shores — are faced with a reckoning: whether this sliver of sand, crouched three feet above sea level between the Atlantic Ocean and Pamlico Sound, can survive the threats of extreme weather and rising sea levels. And if it can’t, why rebuild?

“That’s the unspoken question. That’s what nobody wants to say,” said Erin Baker, the only doctor to serve this community of 1,000. “It’s a question of how do we continue to have life here.”

Scientists have long warned that Ocracoke’s days are numbered, that this treasured island is a bellwether for vast stretches of the U.S. coast.

“Virtually everyone from Virginia Beach south to the U.S./Mexico border is going to be in the same situation in the next 50 years,” said Michael Orbach, professor emeritus of marine affairs at Duke University. “And it’s only going to get worse after that.”

If Ocracoke’s ultimate prognosis is grim, Tom Pahl, the township’s county commissioner, remains committed to its recovery.

“Is this really sustainable? The answer is pretty clearly no,” he said. “But what’s the timeline? No one has been able to say, ‘You’ve got 15 years, 40 years, 100 years.’ The clear-eyed vision is resiliency then retreat.”

The disaster has in some ways shortened people’s outlook.

“I don’t think we’re thinking that far ahead right now,” said Monroe Gaskill, 64, echoing in the distinctive island brogue the immediate concerns of many “ol’ toimers”: whether the island will be open in time for duck-hunting season later this month; where students will study next semester when they have to relinquish their temporary classrooms in the old Coast Guard Station; and what will become of all the displaced residents, who are holed up in rental units, once the tourists return next Easter.

Even as some houses are being bulldozed, neighbors are working together to raise others.

“Now I know there is no such thing as high enough,” said Janet Spencer behind the counter of the hardware store, which reopened without power right after the storm. She and her husband jacked up their home 18 years ago — just one cinder block too few to keep out Dorian. Still, she said, long-term residents won’t leave.

“It’s the only thing we know,” she said...

November 10, 2019 11:28 AM  
Anonymous New details severely undercut major Rump claim said...

President Donald Trump says he lifted his freeze on aid to Ukraine on Sept. 11, but the State Department had quietly authorized releasing $141 million of the money several days earlier, according to five people familiar with the matter.

The State Department decision, which hasn’t been reported previously, stemmed from a legal finding made earlier in the year, and conveyed in a classified memorandum to Secretary of State Michael Pompeo. State Department lawyers found the White House Office of Management and Budget, and thus the president, had no legal standing to block spending of the Ukraine aid.

The White House freeze on assistance to Ukraine -- including a separate $250 million package of military aid from the Defense Department -- has become a central issue in House impeachment hearings, where witnesses say Trump ordered the assistance halted to force Ukraine to announce investigations into Joe Biden and other Democrats.

The words “investigation, Biden and Clinton” were to be required elements in a public announcement by Volodymyr Zelenskiy, the new Ukrainian president, to get the aid, State Department official George Kent testified in the Democratic-led impeachment probe. Ukraine ultimately didn’t make the announcement, and Trump says there was never a quid pro quo.

The freeze on funds Ukraine sought for its continuing war against Russia-backed separatists was opposed by many in the administration. Alexander Vindman, director of European affairs on the National Security Council, has testified that he understood Pompeo, then-National Security Advisor John Bolton and Defense Secretary Mark Esper all recommended releasing the funds in an Aug. 15 meeting with Trump.

The OMB has argued all along that the congressional notification by the State Department was only one step and it still had the power to hold the money after it was sent because of its authority to apportion -- or distribute -- the funds.

“At no point was this pause inappropriate, let alone illegal,” OMB spokeswoman Rachel Semmel said Saturday in an email.

But the State Department disagreed. Taylor, the envoy to Ukraine, said in his testimony that it was remarkable that the legal offices at the State and Defense departments had decided “they were going to move forward with this assistance anyway, OMB notwithstanding.”

November 10, 2019 2:39 PM  
Anonymous democracy dies in the Post darkness said...

This article was originally sent to The Washington Post for publication, but for reasons that will become obvious as you read on, they rejected it.

Here’s the back story. Several weeks ago, non-liberal media sources reported on the very large increase in median household incomes under Donald Trump. Based on Census Bureau monthly data, from January 2017, when President Trump entered office, through August 2019 middle-class household incomes had risen from $61,000 to an all-time high $66,000. These numbers are in 2019 dollars — that is, they are adjusted for inflation. Mr. Trump has repeatedly cited these numbers.

The left freaked out for understandable reasons. They are especially agitated because median household incomes have risen by $5,000 under Mr. Trump, compared to $1,100 in seven years under President Obama. The data also undermines the case against Mr. Trump — which as Elizabeth Warren likes to say in every speech: “the middle class has been left behind by Trump’s policies.” That’s flat out wrong.

The self-proclaimed “fact checkers” on the left went to work to try to discredit the numbers. This includes The Washington Post, PolitiFact and others. As an aside, we have a big problem in America when the “fact checkers” are all playing for the liberal team. A case in point is the liberal PolitiFact, which declared in a screaming headline: “Trump’s Shaky $5,000 Boast.” The Washington Post gave Mr. Trump two Pinochhio for claiming these income gains and said “Trump Inflates His Economic Record.”

A standard complaint is that these numbers are assembled by a private organization called Sentier Research. But the two Sentier statisticians who analyzed this monthly Census Current Population Survey data — the gold mine of economic information — are probably the most knowledgeable people in the country on this survey data.

The two of them worked on the income division of Census Bureau for a combined 40 years. They are scrupulously nonpartisan and no one has ever challenged their integrity. “We just report the data,” says Gordon Green of Sentier.

The Washington Post challenged the reliability of this data even though on numerous occasions The Post (and The New York Times) have cited Sentier’s research. So apparently, Sentier is reliable when it tells the Trump haters what they want to hear, and wholly unreliable when the data supports Mr. Trump.

November 10, 2019 3:40 PM  
Anonymous democracy dies in the Post darkness said...

Admittedly, these monthly numbers are a first estimate of what is happening with incomes over time and up to the moment. They catch the trends over time. In the absence of this data, the latest income data is far lagged by at least a year and so this tells us with about 90 percent accuracy what is going on in real time.

Next, The Post complained that the income data needs to be adjusted for inflation. Actually, all the Sentier data is inflation-adjusted.

Next, they quoted Lou Jacobson of PolitiFact, who claimed that “even taking the expected 2019 statistics into account, the increase under Trump in the official data … should be smaller than the increase Sentier’s data shows.” Sorry, Lou, we already know this was a fumble in your own end zone. The latest data that has come out just last week shows the income numbers rising to $5,200, not falling.

Then, the skeptics whine that we shouldn’t compare Mr. Trump’s record with Mr. Obama’s because Mr. Obama inherited a deep recession. That’s true, of course, but incomes continued to plummet for two years after the Bush recession ended. Moreover, it was The Washington Post which editorialized before the 2016 election that a Trump presidency risked ruining the U.S. economy and causing a “global financial calamity.”

So it is more than a little hypocritical for The Post to now claim the Trump boom that they never saw coming is simply a continuation of the Obama recovery. Every fair-minded person knows that if the economy were in recession now, liberals would be shouting, “aha, Trump’s policies failed.”

Here’s one of my favorite ridiculous claims by The Post. In attacking Mr. Trump’s “rumbling distortions” on income gains, the reporter noted that the middle class isn’t doing that well because: “On an inflation-adjusted basis, Americans families are earning just 2.7% more (in 2016) than they did in 1999.”

But the flat family income between 1999 and 2016 is exactly what makes the Trump surge in incomes so impressive. Yes, it is true, incomes barely budged during the Bush and Obama years — up less than $1,200. Does Mr. Trump get the blame for that lousy record too?

If The Post and others in the liberal media really cared about middle-class families, they would be cheering these gains for scores of millions of households. But the left hates Mr. Trump, and so they feverishly root against the economy. It’s not that these facts aren’t true. It is that the left doesn’t want the good news to be true.

This is why The Post refused to allow anyone to correct the record. The grand irony of all of this is these are the people who assign Trump Pinochhio noses. But he isn’t the one guilty of rambling distortions.

November 10, 2019 3:40 PM  
Anonymous heterosexuality is how life is perpetuated and it has a privileged status said...

"That is a crime. Only fools would deny that,"

yeah, fools like Alan Dershowitz, Harvard legal professor and life-long Democrat

also, here's some thoughts from a former independent counsel, from back when the independent counsel statute was still in effect:

As the U.S. House of Representatives hurtles toward impeachment ahead of the holidays, it is appropriate to consider, in as dispassionate a way as possible, what really is at issue for the country to decide. One must begin with the words of the Constitution. The removal of the President from office necessarily proceeds only with a determination, through House impeachment and upon conviction by a two-thirds majority in the Senate following trial, that “treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors” have been proved. What constitutes a “high” crime? Alexander Hamilton provided the answer in the Federalist papers: only those offenses within Congress’s appropriate jurisdiction that constitute “the abuse or violation of some public trust.”

So while it is fashionable at the moment for some to argue that President Trump is removable from office simply if it is proved that he abused the power of his office during his July 25 call with Ukrainian President Zelensky, the Constitution requires more. To ignore the requirement of proving that a crime was committed is to sidestep the constitutional design as well as the lessons of history. A well-founded article of impeachment therefore must allege both that a crime has been committed and that such crime constitutes an abuse of the President’s office.

The problem for those pushing impeachment is that there appears to be insufficient evidence to prove that Trump committed a crime. Half the country at present does seem prepared to conclude, on the basis of the summary of the Trump-Zelensky call released by the White House on Sept. 25, that Trump at least raised the prospect of an unlawful quid pro quo. The theory seems to be that Trump proposed an exchange of something of personal benefit to himself in return for an official act by the U.S. government. On one side of that alleged quid pro quo would be the public announcement of an investigation by Ukraine into a rival presidential candidate, former Vice President Joe Biden, and a member of Biden’s family. On the other: the release of temporarily withheld foreign aid, including military assistance.

The problem with this legal theory is that an unlawful quid pro quo is limited to those arrangements that are “corrupt”–that is to say, only those that are clearly and unmistakably improper and therefore illegal. But in the eyes of the law, the specific, measurable benefit that an investigation against the Bidens might bring Trump is nebulous. There is a serious question as to whether it could ever constitute a criminally illegal foreign campaign contribution of personal benefit to President Trump. Indeed, the Office of Legal Counsel and the Criminal Division at the Justice Department apparently have already concluded it couldn’t. Just as important, the U.S. Supreme Court and lower federal courts have struggled since at least the early 1990s with application of the federal anticorruption laws to situations like this, where an “in kind” benefit in the form of campaign interference or assistance is alleged to be illegal.

November 10, 2019 4:25 PM  
Anonymous heterosexuality is how life is perpetuated and it has a privileged status said...

A fair and better legal argument can be made in this context that only an explicit, as opposed to an implied, quid pro quo would be sufficient to find criminal illegality as the result of President Trump’s words on the call with President Zelensky. What’s the difference? Instead of President Trump saying to his counterpart in Ukraine in words or substance, “Do me a favor …” he would have to have said, “Here’s the deal …” and followed up by explicitly linking an investigation of the Bidens to the provision of U.S. military assistance. None of that, of course, is what was said.

Importantly, we have also learned in a little-noted aside to the widely reported Oct. 17 press conference by acting White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney that the Administration recognized that it had no authority through the Office of Management and Budget to permanently withhold congressional appropriation of aid to Ukraine beyond the 2019 fiscal year, which ended Sept. 30.

Taken together, these facts mean that whatever your view of whether the President’s call was, in his words, “perfect” or not, the race to impeachment is moving forward on an arguably flawed legal theory of an implied quid pro quo of temporarily withholding foreign aid. It doesn’t help those arguing that the implied and temporary attempt at a quid quo pro necessitates impeachment that the aid was eventually released and disbursed on Sept. 11. Nor does it help them that Ukraine never publicly announced an investigation of the Bidens.

An investigation into the origins of the probe into Russia’s 2016 election meddling, including any Ukrainian matters relating to it, is under way. It is being handled through appropriate channels and with built-in independence by a career prosecutor, John Durham, the U.S. Attorney in Connecticut, and presumably outside of political interference at Main Justice in Washington. If Durham finds actual evidence warranting investigation of the Bidens, that would be entirely appropriate, unless one is prepared to argue, speciously, that a presidential candidate enjoys absolute immunity from investigation during the course of a campaign. So things are finally in the right hands.

That is not to say that the “no harm, no foul” argument excuses the evident lack of judgment exhibited by the White House in attempting to spur action by a foreign government outside of proper channels to investigate a political rival. But it is another thing altogether to claim that such conduct is clearly and unmistakably impeachable. If recent polls are any guide, many fair-minded Americans seem prepared to accept that even if such conduct was wrong, it was not so seriously wrong as to warrant removal from office.

At this point nothing appears to stand in the way of the House’s intemperate and unreasonable vote to impeach. In Hamilton’s words, events are proceeding “more by the comparative strength of parties than by the real demonstrations of innocence or guilt.” It will be left instead to the U.S. Senate sitting as a court of impeachment with the “requisite neutrality” and the nation’s best interests in mind to render judgment and put a stop to what is an undeniably, and all but exclusively, partisan effort to remove this President from office. Only then can the country return to the business at hand, which is the fast-approaching 2020 election, now less than a year away, and the other important and pressing matters before the nation.

November 10, 2019 4:25 PM  
Anonymous IF GLOBAL WARMING THREATENS LIFE ON THE PLANET WHY DO DEMS OPPOSE NUCLEAR ENERGY AND FRACKING?!? said...

"Rump has promoted the rise of white nationalists, whether he did it intentionally or not may be up for debate, but he has not been promoting peace."

actually, Trump never did any such thing

the media has pushed this line which emboldened certain psychos to make them think they won the election

it's worth noting that the media made the same accusations against both John McCain and George W Bush, who are both now revered by the media

"The prosperity he has supposedly promoted has only been a continuation of the forward moving Obama economy,"

three years down the road, that's a pretty ridiculous statement, especially since Obama and his legion of lunatics predicted that Trump would destroy the economy

"and would be even better if he hadn't started an unnecessary trade war."

Trump has had the guts to take on what other Presidents feared

China is a threat much graver than the Third Reich, since they have the tools of technology to assist their totalitarianism

if they became the dominant world power, freedom would disappear around the world

imagine if Americans chose not to fight the Nazis because of the effect on the economy

you should find another country

this is the land of the free and the home of the brave

"Ahh... complaining about the whole "socialism" thing again, as if every democrat wants to go full Russia or full Venezuela into the socialism regime. You never mention the fact that the socialism Democrats are advocating is the kind that has provided health care, decent wages, child care, and even decent vacation times for all of Western Europe for decades."

Europe is not healthy

"Well, given your posts, I'm not surprised that acting like an adult is not high on your priority list for a president. But for the adults in the room, it is."

"One word: Emoluments."

Trump has never a bribe or received compensation from a foreign government

"I'll take my own analytical thinking skills over right-wing brainwashing any day."

oh, the thinking that pants for an economic collapse instead of celebrating that our historically disadvantaged citizens are finding jobs, experiencing wage growth, and opportunity

"analytical thinking" without a moral basis is how the Nazis came up with their eugenic theory horrors

"Funny, I don't ever recall you advocating for the $15 or $22 minimum wage - I seem to recall Republicans insisting that the market should decide their wages."

here is the Dem fallacy epitomized

if you favor something, you must favor government enforcing it

try to think outside your cage

November 10, 2019 5:03 PM  
Anonymous Republicans admit they have no fact witnesses — and Trump did it said...

Nice right wing spin.

Here's the simple truth:

House Republicans acknowledged that they have no witnesses and no documents to dispute the main facts concerning President Trump’s impeachable conduct: a demand from Ukraine for dirt on a political rival; withholding of aid vital to Ukraine’s defense against Russia; concealing evidence of the scheme by moving a transcript to a secret server; and threatening the tipster who alerted Congress to gross malfeasance. They admitted all that? Well, in a manner of speaking they did.

House Republicans sent Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam B. Schiff (D-Calif.) a list of witnesses they want to testify in the impeachment inquiry, including former vice president Joe Biden’s son Hunter Biden and the anonymous whistleblower who filed the initial complaint against President Trump. ...

Schiff is likely to reject many, if not all, of the witnesses from the Republicans’ wish list.


Hunter Biden lacks any direct knowledge of anything that occurred in the Trump White House, and hence he cannot rebut evidence of Trump’s demand that Ukraine interfere with our election. By Republicans’ own admission, the whistleblower lacks first-hand knowledge of events. (“Witnesses who testified out of public view have corroborated the crux of the case against Trump — that he pressured Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to investigate his political rivals — so the Democrats see no need for the whistleblower, who heard the story secondhand, to testify. Three career State Department officials are returning next week for the public hearings.”)

All Republicans have are distractions, stunts to generate claims of unfairness, and gimmicks to threaten the life and career of the whistleblower. It’s remarkable, really, that they could stipulate to every fact about which the witnesses testified under oath.

Republicans implicitly admit that there is no disputing Army Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman’s testimony. Vindman testified that, in the July 25 call, “there was no doubt” Trump made a demand of the Ukrainian president to initiate an investigation of a U.S. citizen, a “deliverable” to help his presidential reelection. “When the president of the United States makes a request for a favor, it certainly seems — I would take it as a demand,” Vindman testified. There are apparently no witnesses to contradict his testimony and none to dispute it was of such concern that Vindman went to John Eisenberg, the top national security lawyer in the White House.

Republicans apparently have no evidence to contradict the testimony of Fiona Hill, who served as a top Russia adviser to the White House. She testified that former national security adviser John Bolton, in a meeting following an exchange between U.S. Ambassador to the European Union Gordon Sondland and Ukrainian officials that made explicit that any White House meeting was conditioned on an announcement of an investigation into the Bidens, “basically said — in fact, he directly said: Rudy Giuliani is a hand grenade that is going to blow everybody up. He did make it clear that he didn’t feel that there was anything that he could personally do about this.” In other words, the national security adviser knew hijacking foreign policy for Trump’s political gain was wrong and likely illegal.

Likewise, there is nothing to undermine Vindman’s testimony that the Office of Management and Budget put a hold on funds appropriated by Congress to Ukraine, an action contrary to U.S. policy, injurious to Ukraine and a function of the Trump-Giuliani campaign smear operation. (“Basically we were trying to get to the bottom of why this hold was in place, why OMB was applying this hold. There were multiple memos that were transmitted from my directorate to Ambassador Bolton on, you know, keeping him abreast of this particular development.”) Republicans have no evidence to dispute that...

November 10, 2019 5:27 PM  
Anonymous Republicans admit they have no fact witnesses — and Trump did it said...

Republicans have no evidence to dispute Hill’s complete debunking of the nutty conspiracy theory that Ukraine interfered in the 2016 U.S. presidential election. Republicans have no evidence to dispute that Giuliani and his cronies obtained the removal of Marie Yovanovitch, the competent and respected U.S. envoy to Kyiv. Republicans have yet to disprove evidence that Sondland, Giuliani and acting chief of staff Mick Mulvaney were acting as agents of the president.

Republicans cannot dispute the testimony of George Kent that “POTUS wanted nothing less than President Zelensky to go to microphone and say investigations, Biden, and Clinton.” Republicans cannot produce evidence to contradict Kent’s conclusion that “Mr. Giuliani, at that point, had been carrying on a campaign for several months full of lies and incorrect information” against Yovanovitch, or was dispatched by Trump to obtain dirt on Biden.

Sure, in demanding irrelevant witnesses and continuing their campaign of intimidation against the whistleblower, Republicans threaten to make the entire proceeding a three-ring circus, something Schiff will try to prevent. However, it is a helpful reminder that Republicans should be able to stipulate to all of the facts presented by all of the witnesses Schiff has summoned. There is no factual defense to articles of impeachment that would include bribery, extortion and obstruction of justice.

Good to know, and good to know that the Republican Party stands foursquare behind a president soliciting a bribe, endangering U.S. national security and attempting to intimidate witnesses and cover his tracks.

November 10, 2019 5:27 PM  
Anonymous Pay no attention to the man behind the orange curtain said...

"and would be even better if he hadn't started an unnecessary trade war."

Trump has had the guts to take on what other Presidents feared

China is a threat much graver than the Third Reich, since they have the tools of technology to assist their totalitarianism"

China got to their place in the world by providing extremely cheap labor and no environmental laws for American companies (and others) to exploit. Rather than keep paying decent wages to American workers, corporations took their jobs and moved them into the most populous socialist country on the planet. No one forced them to do that, in fact American workers frequently protested the shutting down of their factories only to have the owners build new ones in China.

The American public then bought all those products that cheap Chinese labor was producing, thinking it was a good deal because it was so cheap.

China took all the money that American corporations and people sent to them, and pulled 300 million Chinese poor up into the middle class. Apparently that's what socialists do.

No one forced American companies to move their operations to China, Taiwan, or even Mexico. Corporations did it to pay their CEOs and stockholders more, and their workers less.

No one forced American citizens to start buying most of their manufactured products from China, but now, you can't find an RCA radio or a Zenith television anywhere but museums or in dusty old attics.

All that money that Americans have been sending to China for the past 4 decades has built China into a world power, and hollowed out the American middle class. That money would have been better spent here building a better America, and we could have left China a rural backwater struggling to feed itself.

What did you expect the largest socialist country on the planet to do with all that money? Give it back to us?

China didn't create this problem - they played the global capitalism game to its fullest, making sure to put China first, and make China great again.

China didn't create this problem, American corporations did. If you want to solve it, they need to bring those jobs back here, and give them to American workers at decent wages. It will mean their CEO and boards won't make as many millions of dollars, and they may have to reduce some dividends.

But more American workers will have more dollars in their pockets to spend on more American products.

Trump blaming the problem on China is a distraction to keep idiots busy looking over there while American wages drop to be on par with cheap Chinese labor. Just where American corporations would like it to be to maximize their profits.

That's the way capitalism works.

November 10, 2019 8:25 PM  
Anonymous Think again said...

"oh, the thinking that pants for an economic collapse instead of celebrating that our historically disadvantaged citizens are finding jobs, experiencing wage growth, and opportunity"

I have never panted for the collapse of the economy. That idea comes from your astoundingly limited mindset that apparently sees every "liberal" (here at least) as some kind of evil that must be expunged, rather than citizens who have a different and yet perfectly valid viewpoint. No one was panting for Bush's collapse of the economy in 2008 either, but Voodoo economics (what Bush 1 called Reagan's plan) has a history of causing boom and bust cycles that could be avoided, if conservatives didn't keep deregulating the banking industry and sending ever more tax cut money into stock markets without enough real tangible capital to justify the monetary influx - setting the stage for yet another bust.

"analytical thinking" without a moral basis is how the Nazis came up with their eugenic theory horrors"

You obviously have no idea what analytical thinking is, but that didn't stop you from trying to paint me as some kind of immoral Nazi.

How moral is that?

But I'm used to that kind of treatment from Christians.

I have never promoted eugenics, but I must admit, the more I learn about conservatives from their posts here, the more I understand why people would be tempted to use it.

Here are some references so you can understand what analytical thinking is all about:

https://www.thebalancecareers.com/analytical-skills-list-2063729

https://www.job-interview-site.com/analytical-skills-example-what-are-analytical-skills-and-how-to-improve-them.html

https://www.indeed.com/career-advice/resumes-cover-letters/analytical-skills

What the Nazis did was NOT analytical thinking. It was a hateful ideology that was spread by propaganda to develop a fully indoctrinated society willing to bend to the will of their leader.

Analytical thinking is the antidote to indoctrination. That's why people who disagreed with the propaganda were marginalized and / or executed.

So I have to ask. Were you indoctrinated to slander liberals with veiled accusations of Nazism, or did you come to that all by yourself?

November 10, 2019 9:01 PM  
Anonymous Donald Trump Jr. went to UCLA to decry ‘triggered’ liberals. He was heckled off stage by the far right. said...

Donald Trump Jr. and Trump campaign senior adviser Kimberly Guilfoyle came prepared with snappy rejoinders for liberal protesters who might taunt them on Sunday at the University of California at Los Angeles, where they promoted Trump Jr.'s new book, “Triggered: How the Left Thrives on Hate and Wants to Silence Us.”

But when unruly heckling drowned out the couple’s answers, leading the pair to walk offstage, it wasn’t leftists who cut the event short. Instead, the rebukes came from a crowd of young people who rank among the most ardent and extreme supporters of President Trump.

As first reported by the Guardian, a number of conservatives — some in telltale “Make America Great Again” caps and pro-Trump attire — began to shout at the president’s son and political adviser 20 minutes into an event moderated by Turning Point USA founder Charlie Kirk, after learning a question-and-answer session had been canceled.

Video from the event showed a chant that started out as “U-S-A! U-S-A!” turning quickly into angry cries of “Q-and-A! Q-and-A!” Minutes later, Trump Jr. and Guilfoyle stormed off the stage.

The chaotic scene contradicted Trump Jr.'s central thesis that liberals have grown so intolerant of dissenting voices, conservative politicians can no longer engage in civil discourse. It also exposed an increasingly hostile fissure between conservative student groups like Turning Point USA and a hard-right faction of young Trump devotees who have flocked to self-professed “American Nationalist” Nicholas Fuentes and his “America First” movement...

“Name a time when conservatives have disrupted even the furthest leftist on a college campus,” he said to the crowd. “It doesn’t happen that way. We’re willing to listen.”

A member of the audience interrupted with a shout: “Then open the Q&A!”

“See what I mean?” Trump Jr. answered. “And that is the problem. And the reason oftentimes it doesn’t make sense to do the Q&A is not because we’re not willing to talk about the questions, cause we do. No. It’s because people hijack it with nonsense looking to go for some sort of sound bite. You have people spreading nonsense, spreading hate, trying to take over the room.”

The roar of the crowd shouting “Q&A!” grew louder, threatening to completely overpower Trump Jr. and Guilfoyle inside Moore Hall on UCLA’s campus.

Guilfoyle lost her composure. She shouted back at the young men, insulting their appearances and manners.

“No, it’s because you’re not making your parents proud by being rude and disruptive and discourteous,” she responded. “We are happy to answer a question. Respect the people around you so that they can hear.”

When the crowd continued to demand a chance to ask questions, Guilfoyle snapped, “Let me tell you something, I bet you engage and go on online dating because you’re impressing no one here to get a date in person.”

That response only inflamed the protesters, whose loud chants soon led the pair to leave the stage....


November 11, 2019 7:58 AM  
Anonymous Another GOPer quits said...

Longtime GOP Rep. Pete King (N.Y.) will not seek reelection in 2020 after more than 25 years in Congress, he announced Monday.

King has long dominated his Long Island district, which leans Republican. But in 2018, he won reelection by his narrowest margin since his 1992 election, defeating Democratic challenger Liuba Grechen Shirley by just 6 percentage points.



https://www.huffpost.com/entry/pete-king-retiring-gop-congress_n_5dc9510fe4b0fcfb7f69d077

November 11, 2019 9:03 AM  
Anonymous I don't care too much for money, Money can't buy big-business love said...

SEATTLE (Reuters) - Seattle voters, in a rebuke to heavy corporate campaign spending by Amazon.com, have kept progressives firmly in control of their city council, reviving chances for a tax on big businesses that the tech giant helped fend off last year.

Amazon poured a record $1.5 million into a Super PAC run by the Seattle Metropolitan Chamber of Commerce to back a slate of candidates in the Nov. 5 council elections viewed as pro-business, or at least more corporate friendly than the incumbent council majority.

Amazon, the world’s leading online retailer whose chief executive is billionaire entrepreneur Jeff Bezos, accounted for more than half of nearly $2.7 million raised by the Super PAC, a group allowed to accept unlimited sums from wealthy donors in support of their favorite candidates. Four years ago, Amazon donated $25,000.

By comparison, labor unions spent more than $1 million on the council race.

The unprecedented level of spending in a Seattle municipal race drew national attention, with Democratic presidential candidates Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders accusing Amazon of trying to buy the council.

The outcome for most of the seven council seats at stake in Tuesday’s election was too close to call until Friday night, when a tally of 97 percent of votes cast showed that progressive candidates had won five of the seats, including two incumbents.

One of them was Kshama Sawant, a self-described socialist and Amazon’s fiercest critic on the council, whose re-election bid was seen as the bellwether contest.

Just two of the seven candidates endorsed by Amazon and other companies through the chamber’s Super Pac emerged winners, one of them an incumbent.

The overall progressive balance of the nine-seat council was little changed. Two other seats come up for re-election in 2021.

“The election results are a repudiation of the billionaire class, corporate real estate, and the establishment,” Sawant said at a press conference on Saturday, flanked by supporters holding a “Tax Amazon” banner.

November 11, 2019 4:05 PM  
Anonymous I don't care too much for money, Money can't buy big-business love said...

Sawant led the council in May 2018 in approving a new per-employee “head tax” on 500 of the city’s largest companies, aimed at combating a housing crisis attributed in part to a local economic boom that has driven up real estate costs.

The tax was designed to raise at least $45 million a year to build more affordable housing and help support a homeless population that is the third-largest of any U.S. metropolitan area.

The measure passed the council unanimously, despite threats from Amazon, Seattle’s largest employer, to freeze planned expansions in the city.

But just four weeks later, the council repealed the tax altogether in the face of a well-financed campaign by Amazon and other businesses to mount a referendum drive against the measure.

On Saturday, Sawant characterized the latest election as a referendum on the head tax and pledged to pursue the policy with the new council.

Its backers argue that Seattle’s biggest businesses should contribute to easing a shortage of low-cost housing they helped create through an over-heated real estate market that left many working poor and middle-class families unable to afford to live in the city.

Opponents have branded the measure a “tax on jobs” that would spark an economic backlash.

Corporate reaction to the election outcome was muted.

“The business community stands ready to work with the new Seattle City Council,” the PAC’s director, Markham McIntyre, said in a statement on Friday. “How our local government chooses to partner – or create division – matters.”

On Wednesday, before the outcome was known, Amazon said it was “pleased with the direction” of the election and looked forward “to working with the new city council, which we believe will be considerably more open to constructive dialogue.”

Amazon has since not responded to further requests for comment.

November 11, 2019 4:05 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

WASHINGTON, Nov 12 (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday dealt a blow to the firearms industry, rejecting Remington Arms Co's bid to escape a lawsuit by families of victims aiming to hold the gun maker liable for its marketing of the assault-style rifle used in the 2012 Sandy Hook school massacre that killed 20 children and six adults.

The justices turned away Remington's appeal of a ruling by Connecticut's top court to let the lawsuit proceed despite a federal law that broadly shields firearms manufacturers from liability when their weapons are used in crimes. The lawsuit will move forward at a time of high passions in the United States over the issue of gun control.

The family members of nine people slain and one survivor of the Sandy Hook massacre filed the lawsuit in 2014. Remington was backed in the case by a number of gun rights groups and lobbying organizations including the powerful National Rifle Association, which is closely aligned with Republicans including President Donald Trump. The NRA called the lawsuit "company-killing."

November 12, 2019 12:38 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

“A sitting president secretly tried to get a foreign government to announce an investigation into his chief political rival. In essence, Trump was using the awesome powers our Constitution gives presidents not to benefit the nation, but to benefit him personally.”

“It doesn’t matter whether the plot succeeded. It was a grave offense (and one that opened the president up to blackmail). The other questions, like whether or not there was a quid pro quo (there was) and whether or not there was a coverup (there was), are gravy. They are important questions, but the case for impeachment is even more straightforward. Asking us to wait until the election to remove him from office is like asking to resolve a dispute based on who wins a game of Monopoly — when the very crime you’ve been accused of is cheating on Monopoly.”

"Placing himself above the law and jeopardizing national security, Trump withheld an ally’s military aid to demand foreign interference in the 2020 election on his behalf, then he and aides tried to cover up these illegal actions."


Watch today's public impeachment hearing on PBS (WETA) from 10AM-2PM or tonight from 8PM-Midnight.

November 13, 2019 7:36 AM  
Anonymous for millennia, society has known that two genders are necessary to make a marriage said...

No one is going to confuse President Trump’s remarks Tuesday at the Economic Club of New York with anything approaching eloquence. He is at his worst when he stiffly reads the teleprompter or flies widely off script.

Worse: His insistence that the Federal Reserve is to blame for any economic turbulence the country faces. Sorry, Mr. President, that award goes to how you’re conducting your trade wars, particularly with China, through tit-for-tat tariffs.

But his delivery and trade quirks aside, the speech was a strong argument as to why Americans may well believe that the president deserves a second term — particularly when they consider the alternative: a cast of lefty candidates vowing to destroy an economy that’s actually working for most people.

The speech was delivered against the backdrop of the strongest economy in years, and not just for the rich. Trump rightly pointed out how, through tax cuts and regulatory rollbacks, jobs are growing, and so are wages.

He’s done much better than his predecessor. Yes, President Barack Obama inherited a financial meltdown in 2009, but he also produced an economy that had middle-class incomes plummeting to levels not seen in years.

Wall Street flourished under Obama, while the wealth and wages of average Americans stagnated. Trump has delivered what Obama couldn’t on the economy.

As Trump pointed out, the Congressional Budget Office projected that fewer than 2 million jobs would be created by this time in 2019. He delivered 7 million. People aren’t leaving the workforce in droves as they did in years past; they’re coming back in.

Trump was most impressive when he explained how excess regulation has contributed to the hollowing out of Middle America. My guess: He was influenced here by his economic aide, the free-market guru Larry Kudlow, who was sitting at his side during the speech and has made a career exposing how nanny-state regulators have stifled the animal spirits of our economy in ways that hurt ordinary ­Americans.

Trump called it an “unethical regulatory assault on American people,” carried out in large part by “bureaucrats” who would gain new strength under any of the Democrats running for the 2020 nomination.

Environmental regulations sound good on paper — until you see the human cost. Family farms are shut down because puddles in central California are deemed protected marsh lands. Towns in West Virginia are ravaged by unemployment and the opioid epidemic because the war on coal has devastated the local economy.

Trump sounded a not-so-subtle warning that his economic progress can easily be reversed by the Democratic Party’s new front-runner, Sen. Elizabeth Warren, who is running on economic and social policies — Medicare for All, massive tax increases and lots more regulation — that are far to the left of even Obama’s.

The good news is she probably won’t win, because she can’t make the logical case that Trump’s economic plans aren’t working. People may not like Trump — despite the strong economy, his unfavorable ratings remains high. This leaves an opening for a moderate like former New York City Mayor Mike Bloomberg, which is why he’s moving toward entering the race on a platform that, while he’s not like Trump, he’s also not going to nuke the system.

Bloomberg knows what the ­progressives in the Democratic Party either don’t know or won’t admit: that most Americans are probably not going to change what’s working just because the president can’t stop tweeting.

Trump’s speech on Tuesday made that case, so look for him to make it again and again.

November 14, 2019 5:47 AM  
Anonymous Trump has given us a Supreme Court of constitutional experts!! said...

Is that it? Is that all they got?

Day One of impeachment was not exactly must see TV. Sure, it was interesting and substantive at times, which would be compliments if this were a graduate school seminar about the lonely lives and confusing experiences of far-flung diplomats.

But this was a congressional hearing to determine whether to file charges against and ultimately remove the president of the United States. By that standard, the Adam Schiff show was a flop.

I would call it a sensational flop, except that would suggest a sense of drama the day never produced. A five-hour slog that doesn’t hit pay dirt or end up anywhere meaningful can’t be sensational.

The Schiff show was more of a quiet, methodical flop. Imagine a slow leak in a big balloon and you’ll get the picture.

Still, the impact is significant. At the start of the day, impeachment was a one-party fever, and so it remains.

Nothing that happened Wednesday changes that critical dynamic. At this point, time and public patience are not the impeachers’ friends.

The lack of surprising or even new developments are major strikes against them. They have the burden of proving their hatred for President Trump is based on something other than resentment over his election or his tweets. That should be a fairly low bar, but they couldn’t get over it.

Although the hearing wasn’t as deadly as special counsel Robert Mueller’s hapless final appearance, it certainly didn’t move the Dems closer to their goal of running Trump out of town.

November 14, 2019 8:19 AM  
Anonymous Trump has given us a Supreme Court of constitutional experts!! said...

If Schiff, the zealously crazed California chair of the intelligence panel, has a compelling vision about how to persuade the public that the president committed crimes or anything approaching crimes involving Ukraine, it escapes me. The first day of hearings and the first witnesses should have at least been able to produce facts and tantalizing hints that would leave viewers wanting more.

Instead, the performances of acting Ukraine Ambassador William Taylor and State Department official George Kent left the impression there is little or nothing more to want. Everything to come likely will offer only more detail about the things we already know.

As several GOP members argued, it is impossible to prove the allegations of a quid pro quo when Ukraine got the American aid even though it never promised to investigate that country’s role in the 2016 election or the hiring of Hunter Biden by an energy company for $50,000 a month when his father was vice president.

That idea was captured best when Ohio Republican Jim Jordan got Taylor to acknowledge he had three meetings with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky over a 55-day period after the Trump phone call. Not once, Jordan said and Taylor agreed, did Zelensky complain that Trump was pressuring him to do the investigation or that there had been a holdup in aid.

“And you’re the star witnesses,” Jordan said, which got a laugh out of Taylor and many in the room.

It was a compelling moment that underscored the difficulty — and maybe the insanity — of what Democrats are trying to do. Moreover, even if they could prove a quid pro quo, would the American people find it impeachable just 11 months before an election? Would the Senate convict and remove Trump on such thin gruel?

Schiff seemed to sense the problems with his case and tried to argue that Zelensky had to fear retribution from Trump. It was a clear suggestion that the Ukrainian president was lying when he repeatedly said publicly he felt no pressure from Trump.

As Republican John Ratcliffe of Texas put it, if Dems believe that, they would have to impeach two presidents — Trump and Zelensky.

Rep. Joaquin Castro (D-Texas) trotted out the most ridiculous argument of the day, saying the fact that the investigations into the Bidens and 2016 didn’t happen doesn’t really matter.

“Is attempted murder a crime,” he asked the witnesses. Perhaps he was joking, but I’m afraid he was serious.

Unfortunately, Schiff is also serious about not wanting to hear the other side of the story. He refuses to summon the so-called whistleblower and his party shows absolutely no interest in learning why Hunter Biden got rich while his father was visiting Ukraine repeatedly.

Republicans kept bringing up both topics and Kent acknowledged that he had raised concerns nearly four years ago about the “perception of a conflict of interest” with the State Department and Biden’s office, but got no ­response.

Similarly, Dems and their media handmaidens mock Trump’s interest in what role Ukraine played in 2016, deriding it as a wild conspiracy theory.

But in fact, it is well established that Ukraine’s Washington embassy helped spread dirt on Paul Manafort when he was Trump campaign chairman and that some Ukraine officials met with Hillary Clinton aides and other Democrats in 2016. Among them was Alexandra Chalupa, a former Democratic National Committee contractor who worked with Ukrainians to get dirt on Trump.

According to Rep. Devin Nunes, the top Republican at Wednesday’s hearing, Dems took her name out of the testimony transcripts before releasing them. That’s ­curious.

All of which points to the biggest problem with the Schiff show. Dems obviously fear a fair and complete investigation of all the facts, one that reveals their contacts with the whistleblower, his political connections and all the events involving Ukraine and the Bidens.

What are they hiding?

November 14, 2019 8:24 AM  
Anonymous it's amazing: the Dems say life is about go extinct by global warming and they still oppose nuclear energy and fracking!! said...

In his fine book Impeachment: A Citizen’s Guide (2017), Harvard Law School Professor Cass R. Sunstein, a prominent Democrat who served in the Obama White House, stresses a key point about impeachment: grounds for impeachment should be neutral in the sense that we would be willing to apply them equally to politicians with whom we agree as well as those whom we despise.

A general principle of law, enshrined among other places in the 14th Amendment, is that norms are valid only if we are willing to apply them to everyone; that’s why the statue of Justice is blind. Professor Sunstein is right, however, that the neutrality test is particularly important for impeachment, because the constitutional standard is necessarily vague and turns on judgments such as whether or not misdeeds are sufficiently serious to justify removal from office.

If we would not be willing to apply the same rule to someone with whom we agree politically, we should doubt whether it is a valid basis to kick someone out of office with whom we disagree. Or, in the immortal words of Vinny, the homespun legal philosopher in the movie My Cousin Vinny, “It won’t hold water” to say that something is an impeachable offense when the other side’s guy does it but it is perfectly okay when our own guy does essentially the same thing.

Joe Biden has admitted to doing almost exactly what the House Democrats accuse President Trump of doing in their impeachment inquiry: using his position in government to obtain private political benefit from a foreign government. We should all be asking, “Why isn’t Biden also the target of a second impeachment inquiry?”

Some people might think that is because Biden has left office, but according to both William Murphy, professor of American History at the State University of New York, and every other expert I know who has addressed the issue, former officials like Biden may also be impeached after they leave office. Impeaching a former official is not a meaningless gesture because impeachment may prohibit someone from holding office in the future, including the presidency in Biden’s case; in the words of the Constitution, impeachment may disqualify a person “to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States.”

As vice president, Joe Biden threatened to hold up a billion dollars in aid to Ukraine unless that country fired a prosecutor who was investigating Burisma, the energy company that was paying his son $600,000 a year to serve on its board of directors. All these facts are detailed here and don’t need to be repeated. There is no dispute about them. You can even watch Biden on YouTube bragging to the Council on Foreign Relations that he did it: “I looked at them and said, ‘I’m leaving in six hours. If the prosecutor [Shokin] is not fired, you’re not getting the money [a $1 billion loan guarantee].’ Well, son of a b-tch.… He got fired.”

As a result, the investigation of Burisma was suspended, at least until Trump tried to get it restarted, a move for which the Dems want to impeach him.

November 14, 2019 12:06 PM  
Anonymous it's amazing: the Dems say life is about go extinct by global warming and they still oppose nuclear energy and fracking!! said...

Despite the eerie similarity of Biden’s actions to those that are supposed to constitute “high crimes and misdemeanors” warranting the impeachment of President Trump, Biden and his supporters dare anyone to find anything illegal in his use of his official position to threaten to withhold aid to Ukraine unless it stifled a criminal investigation of his son’s company.

I think I have solved that riddle. An Office of Government Ethics regulation prohibits all government employees from using their offices “for the private gain of friends, relatives, or persons with whom the employee is affiliated in a nongovernmental capacity.” That would seem to be directly on point, but alas, the definition of government “employees” to which the regulation applies specifically excludes the president and vice president. That exclusion is apparently because the president and vice president are subject to impeachment, which is likely the exclusive constitutional remedy for their misdeeds while in office.

Unless a majority of the House is willing to investigate impeaching former Vice President Biden for doing something very similar to what they want to impeach President Trump for doing, we should all question the legitimacy of the impeachment inquiry against President Trump as partisan and one-sided.

Admittedly, there are distinctions between what Biden did and what Trump did. Trump was trying to restart an investigation by a foreign government into plausible violations of its laws, but what Trump asked for never actually happened. Biden, on the other hand, successfully killed an investigation into possible violations of Ukrainian and U.S. laws against bribery by Burisma. Biden appears to have misused his government position to obstruct the criminal justice system of another country so that an ongoing investigation would not embarrass him politically, whereas Trump is accused of trying to induce a foreign country to interfere in our elections by making information about those misdeeds by his rival public.

Arguably what Biden did was worse, but both come within the same theory that abusing governmental power for private political gain is an impeachable offense. The Democrats base their impeachment inquiry against Trump on the legal theory that threatening to withhold aid as a quid pro quo to get a foreign government to investigate a political rival is an illegal campaign contribution and an abuse of power. Why wouldn’t Biden using his official position to withhold aid as a quid pro quo for obstructing an ongoing criminal investigation that might embarrass him as a political candidate in the future also satisfy the same test?

November 14, 2019 12:07 PM  
Anonymous Nice load of right-wing manure said...

Too bad it's too early for spring planting.

November 14, 2019 1:01 PM  
Anonymous Fall 2020 is coming said...

Yeah, facetious comments won't rescue Dems. If you don't like Trump, you need to find a reasonable alternative. And quickly. Things are going to well for the working class and minorities for them to risk it all on liberal PC BS.

November 14, 2019 1:38 PM  
Anonymous Yet another fag hater turns out to have a thing for children said...

WINCHESTER, Ky. (AP) — A Kentucky principal who once made headlines for trying to ban books with what he deemed inappropriate content has been indicted on child pornography charges.

News outlets reported Tuesday that a grand jury charged 54-year-old Phillip Todd Wilson, principal of the Clark County Area Technology Center, with 17 child pornography possession and distribution charges. Kentucky State police filed 15 counts each of the charges against Wilson in August.

Clark County Schools officials told news outlets they were “shocked and dismayed” at the accusations. WKYT-TV reports the education department no longer employs Wilson.

The Lexington Herald-Leader says that when Wilson was the principal of Montgomery County High School in 2009, he fought to ban books with what he labeled “homosexual” or otherwise inappropriate material, including sex, abuse and drugs.

November 14, 2019 1:51 PM  
Anonymous Can't wait for 2020 said...

It's not to late yet for Republicans to come up with a candidate who hasn't engaged in serial sexual assaults, isn't a pathological liar, and hasn't tried to get foreign governments to interfere in our election process.

If you want a Republican to stay in the White House, you need to come up with a reasonable alternative, and quickly.

Most Americans can see right through all the conservative attempts at spin, and it simply doesn't hold water.

November 14, 2019 1:55 PM  
Anonymous why do Dems want minorities to be poor? said...

"It's not to late yet for Republicans to come up with a candidate who hasn't engaged in serial sexual assaults, isn't a pathological liar, and hasn't tried to get foreign governments to interfere in our election process."

you're confused

the GOP won't nominate Bill Clinton

"If you want a Republican to stay in the White House, you need to come up with a reasonable alternative, and quickly."

tell that to the working poor and minorities that things are finally looking up for

there is nothing about Trump that makes him unacceptable

you'd think we could do better but his management of the economy makes up for any personal failings

"Most Americans can see right through all the conservative attempts at spin"

and by most Americans, you mean the coastlands

the vast sweep of Middle America and the South don't support the impeachment coup attempt

November 14, 2019 2:38 PM  
Anonymous Our stable genius said "I moved on her like a bitch. But I couldn't get there. And she was married. Then all of a sudden I see her, she's now got the big phony tits" said...

The editorial page of the Wall Street Journal wrote (apparently not joking): “Many people in the Administration opposed the Giuliani effort, including some in senior positions at the White House. This matters because it may turn out that while Mr. Trump wanted a quid-pro-quo policy ultimatum toward Ukraine, he was too inept to execute it.”

House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.), for instance, said: “Name me one thing that Ukraine did to release the money. Nothing.”

In an interview with The Washington Post, Nikki Haley reasoned: “There was no heavy demand insisting that something had to happen. So it’s hard for me to understand where the whole impeachment situation is coming from, because what everybody’s up in arms about didn’t happen.” In the end, “the aid flowed.”



Yep, GOPers are now relying on the Sideshow Bob defense of his conviction for attempted murder:

“Attempted murder,” now honestly, what is that? Do they give a Nobel Prize for “attempted chemistry”?

November 14, 2019 4:53 PM  
Anonymous Brett Kavanaugh...LOL!! We got something to laugh about! said...

"GOPers are now relying on the Sideshow Bob defense of his conviction for attempted murder"

what you jackasses fail to understand, in your crazed desperation for an explanation for your 2016 loss, is that the call transcript doesn't show any clear quid pro quo, so the fact that nothing happened is further indication, that was no serious attempt at anything

yes, attempted murder is a crime but saying "I want to kill you" isn't

November 14, 2019 5:06 PM  
Anonymous Dems want the poor to get living wages for their work said...

"the vast sweep of Middle America and the South don't support the impeachment coup attempt"

"and by most Americans, you mean the coastlands"

No I don't.

The Rumpster had nearly 3 million less people vote for him than Hillary. Hillary won over more people. The Rumpster won over more dirt.

This is why Republican work so hard to push people off voter registrations - they know they can't win over hearts and minds, but thanks to the electoral college, they don't have to. Dirt doesn't care about your moral character.

Why don't you tell us again about McCain and Romney's "inevitable" wins.

"you're confused

the GOP won't nominate Bill Clinton"

"there is nothing about Trump that makes him unacceptable"

You undermine your own argument. If Rump didn't do anything unacceptable, then neither did Clinton, and he deserves the same obsequious defense of his behavior that you give to the Rumpster.

But we've never, ever seen that. Both Clinton and Obama improved the economies they inherited. It remains to be seen whether it will take less than 4 years for Rump to drive the economy down again, or if he gets reelected, less than 8.

He's pushing farmers into bankruptcy, and Iran into concentrating uranium. What could possibly go wrong?



November 14, 2019 5:23 PM  
Anonymous AP FACT CHECK: Trump’s flawed ‘read the transcript’ defense said...

WASHINGTON (AP) — It’s been his drumbeating demand: “Read the transcript!”

“Just read the transcript.”

“Can’t we read English?”

“Just read the Transcript, everything else is made up garbage.”

“READ THE TRANSCRIPT!”

Heading into public hearings this week, people have read the transcript , and that’s why President Donald Trump has an impeachment problem.

The whistleblower, the rough transcript of the July 25 phone call between Trump and Ukraine’s leader, and the words of a succession of career civil servants and Trump political appointees brought before Congress are largely in sync.

Together they have stitched an account that shows Trump pressing for a political favor from a foreign leader and, as key testimony has it, conditioning military aid on getting what he wanted.

Trump’s defense, as the House prepares to open its hearings Wednesday on the matter, has been to point to his own problematic words in the Ukraine phone call, declare them to be exonerating, and repeat.

In the face of abundant evidence that the whistleblower remains engaged, Trump suggests the whistleblower has skulked away. Political loyalists who tried to do Trump’s bidding with Ukraine are lumped with career diplomats as “Never Trumpers.”

He assails the whistleblower’s account of the phone call as “sooo wrong, not even close,” even though the official White House account of the call that came out afterward showed the whistleblower got the details right.

“Once I released the actual call, their entire case fell apart,” Trump said of Democrats. The rough transcript actually helped fuel the inquiry because it affirmed and fleshed out the whistleblower’s account.

Trump has approached the spectacle of public hearings in the impeachment inquiry with understandable frustration but also a flawed account of the circumstances behind them.

A look at recent remarks by the president and his allies on this and other matters:

IMPEACHMENT

TRUMP: “It was just explained to me that for next weeks Fake Hearing (trial) in the House, as they interview Never Trumpers and others, I get NO LAWYER & NO DUE PROCESS.” — tweet Thursday.

THE FACTS: The hearing is a hearing, not a trial, and it is unfolding according to the usual process.

Trump is correct that he and his legal team are excluded from public hearings that begin Wednesday, but he hasn’t been charged with anything and has no constitutional right to be represented by a lawyer in this proceeding.

In that sense, his position is not much different from criminal suspects who are being investigated but haven’t been charged, or from past presidents at this stage of impeachment proceedings.

The coming public hearings led by the House Intelligence Committee are akin to the investigative phase of criminal cases, generally conducted in private and without the participation of the person under investigation.

But in future House Judiciary Committee hearings that presumably would result in the drafting of impeachment articles, Trump would be invited to attend and his lawyers could question witnesses and object to testimony and evidence, similar to the process in the impeachment proceedings against Presidents Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton.

If there is a Senate trial, Trump’s legal team would defend the president against impeachment articles approved by the House in an environment that would look like a typical trial in some respects...

November 14, 2019 5:23 PM  
Anonymous AP FACT CHECK: Trump’s flawed ‘read the transcript’ defense said...

TRUMP: “The whistleblower disappeared.” — Louisiana rally on Wednesday.

TRUMP, speaking about the period after he released a rough transcript of his phone call with Ukraine’s president: “You haven’t heard about the whistleblower after that, have you?” — Kentucky rally on Nov. 4.

THE FACTS: The whistleblower did not disappear after the White House, in late September, released a rough transcript of Trump’s call with Ukraine’s president. In fact, the whistleblower is offering to answer written questions by GOP lawmakers, but so far Republicans have rebuffed him.

Trump’s suggestion is that the whistleblower’s account is false, and so the person has vanished, but key details have been corroborated by people with firsthand knowledge of the events who have appeared on Capitol Hill.

The rough transcript of the July 25 phone call also showed that the whistleblower had accurately summarized the conversation in the complaint sent to the acting director of national intelligence.

The whistleblower has offered through his or her lawyers to answer questions directly from Republicans on the House Intelligence Committee “in writing, under oath & penalty of perjury.” But House Republicans, who are interested in exposing the whistleblower’s identity, want that official to appear at the public hearings .

U.S. whistleblower laws exist to protect the identity and careers of people who bring forward accusations of wrongdoing by government officials. Lawmakers in both parties have historically backed those protections.
___

TRUMP, on the whistleblower: “He must be brought forward to testify. Written answers not acceptable!” — tweet on Nov. 4.

THE FACTS: Trump’s stance on providing written answers in a federal investigation is a turnabout from a few months ago.

Trump himself refused to provide anything but written answers in response to limited questions during the special counsel’s investigation into Russian interference during the 2016 election.

___

TRUMP, on Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., chairman of the House Intelligence Committee: “How about Schiff? He makes up a conversation, he gets up before the United States Congress, he repeats my conversation with the head of the Ukraine ... it was a total lie, and then I actually went and released the actual conversation.” — Kentucky rally on Nov. 4.

THE FACTS: He’s exaggerating the episode and botching the timeline.

Schiff delivered what he called a parody of Trump’s remarks in the president’s July 25 phone call with Ukraine’s leader.

Schiff did so after the White House released a rough transcript of the call, not before, as Trump states. So people who read the official account knew Schiff was riffing from it, not quoting from it.


___

SEN. RAND PAUL, R-Ky., arguing the whistleblower should be made to come forward so Trump can engage with that official: “Enshrined in the 6th Amendment is the right to confront your accuser.” — tweet Tuesday.

THE FACTS: Paul omits key words from the start of the Sixth Amendment: “In all criminal prosecutions.”

Trump is not facing an accuser in a criminal proceeding. The hearings are a political proceeding.

Moreover, the whistleblower’s account has been substantiated by multiple on-the-record accounts of government officials and the rough transcript of Trump’s phone call with Ukraine’s president that the White House released.

The Sixth Amendment guarantees a lawyer for criminal defendants and the right to confront their accusers. As it happens, the impeachment process also is outlined in the Constitution and it gives the House the sole power to impeach and the Senate the sole power to remove an official, including the president, from office.

November 14, 2019 5:24 PM  
Anonymous homosexuality never produces life, two of 'em ain't ever a marriage said...

you know, a lot of imbeciles have made comments here, by there's a new one who really takes home the crap cake

he pouted:

"Most Americans can see right through all the conservative attempts at spin"

so, I gently tried to help him see what a fool he was making of himself and I said:

"and by most Americans, you mean the coastlands"

failing to reflect on the error of his ways, the imbecile ranted:

"No I don't.

The Rumpster had nearly 3 million less people vote for him than Hillary. Hillary won over more people. The Rumpster won over more dirt."

apparently, the imbecile doesn't read too widely, or he would know that Hillary won California by 4.2 million

meaning, if you take California away, Trump won the "popular" vote by 1.2 million

meaning my comment about the coastlands, that sent the imbecile into spasms, was completely correct and supported by cold hard facts!

the founding fathers cleverly designed our election process so one populous state couldn't trash the rest of the country

as for Hillary, it's amazing what you get when you drag a dollar bill through a trailer park

"You undermine your own argument. If Rump didn't do anything unacceptable, then neither did Clinton, and he deserves the same obsequious defense of his behavior that you give to the Rumpster."

actually, my imbecile pal, you undermine yours

I didn't attack Clinton. You attacked Trump and I pointed out that you could say the same about Clinton

then, you say I'm undermining my argument?

you realize everything thinks you're an imbecile?

"Both Clinton and Obama improved the economies they inherited."

let's take Clinton first

he had a disastrous first two years and the GOP took over Congress

give Clinton credit for realizing he had to follow the lead of the GOP but don't act like he was the driving force

he didn't exactly win the Nobel Prize for economics

now, Obama

he inherited a recession that was exacerbated by the Dems for electoral gain at the expense of their suffering fellow citizens

our economy always bounces back

Obama presided over the weakest recovery since Ronald Reagan ended the Dems' Jimmy Carter economic horror

"It remains to be seen"

that pretty much sums up all Dem theories

their predictions always remain to be seen

The stage is set for a “high stakes hearing.” Washington braces for “dramatic testimony.” Local bars are opening early with happy-hour specials for “blockbuster congressional hearings.”

If this all sounds familiar, it should. It’s sweeps for the swamp. Think your favorite reality show, just with lower ratings. It’s the same formula to maximize drama, but with “new characters and plot twists,” as NPR recently headlined the Democrats’ latest impeachment ploy.

November 14, 2019 8:04 PM  
Anonymous for millennia, society has known that two genders are necessary to make a marriage said...

For Democrats, it is always narrative over substance. Instead of facts, we get poorly written scripts from wannabe screenwriters who couldn’t make it in Hollywood, trying their best to bring their (alternate) reality series to Washington. Democrats’ first star was Robert Mueller, until he and his team of anti-Trump attorneys and FBI agents came up empty.

“The Mueller report renders thousands of T-shirts irrelevant,” lamented Vox.com after the Mueller operation against President Trump ended in a bust. If only we could get our 22 months and $32 million back.

Of course, it wasn’t just T-shirts. Sales of Mueller prayer candles have plummeted. But the Resistance would soon have a team of brand new folk heroes to put their faith in: un-elected bureaucrats, some whom the media refuses to name, working in and outside the government to overturn the results of an election less than a year before the next one.

In fact, the latest impeachment sham marched from Russia into Ukraine (as Putin did during the Obama years) only one day after Mueller’s woeful performance on Capitol Hill, which was the last, as The New York Times put it, “blockbuster that wasn’t.”

“Democrats argued that hearing from Robert S. Mueller III on television could transform the impeachment debate,” the Times noted.

Democrats have been working hard to “transform the impeachment debate,” since 12:19 p.m. on Inauguration Day. Democrats are working so hard they retreated behind closed doors for six weeks into a hot, crowded room in the basement of the Capitol. Adam Schiff annexed the SCIF (the Sensitive Compartmented Information Facility) to hold his unclassified inquisition, where the few members of Congress who are allowed to participate describe it as “excruciating” and smelling like a “locker room.” If only Democrats were that dedicated to working for the country.

Schiff is the new star of the Resistance. “His Ukraine investigation has now been invested with all the hopes and dreams that Democrats once placed in the special prosecutor Robert Mueller’s Russia probe,” the Times reported in a glowing magazine profile eerily reminiscent of other ghosts of Resistance past (Michael Cohen and Michael Avenatti). “In Schiff … Democrats believe they have found a more reliable vessel than the cipherlike Mueller and an opportunity for a do-over of sorts.”

Ah, the do-over. Only this time Schiff is no Mueller-like figurehead, but fully in command of a team of even angrier Democrats who have spearheaded this operation from the beginning.

But no matter how many times Democrats try to re-do 2016 -- this time based on what an unelected bureaucrat told an unelected bureaucrat who heard it from an unelected bureaucrat staffer -- they will never accept the result. The longer voters witness Democrats working tirelessly against the president, instead of for the people they represent, the sooner this will become yet another Resistance flop.

"Dems want the poor to get living wages for their work"

the catch is they only get it if they have a job

under Trump, more of them have jobs than ever before

and wages are rising

it's kind of like the US being the only country in accordance with the Paris accords even though we aren't in it

it's a lot like that!

November 14, 2019 8:11 PM  
Anonymous California is the world's 5th largest economy by itself - it pays for and builds a lot of military equipment said...

"apparently, the imbecile doesn't read too widely, or he would know that Hillary won California by 4.2 million

meaning, if you take California away, Trump won the "popular" vote by 1.2 million"

You've spouted that ridiculous trope multiple times here. Apparently it came up on the "Wheel of Conservative Talking Points" again tonight. If you selectively leave out states you can make any result you want. I previously pointed out that you could remove the 3 states that the Rumpster won the extra 77k votes in, and Hillary would have won the electoral college, you'd remove fewer people from the US, and the one you did remove from those 3 state produce less GDP combined and per capita than California. But that requires you to do math to get the result, and we no that's not conservatives' strong point.

It's called the UNITED STATES for a REASON. You just don't get to pull out the 5th largest economy in the world because it suits your twisted "logic." Your argument is a waste of precious electrons.

“The economy, stupid” is a phrase coined by James Carville in 1992. It is usually mistakenly rendered as “It’s the economy, stupid.” Carville was a strategist in Bill Clinton’s successful 1992 presidential campaign against incumbent George H. W. Bush. His phrase was directed at the campaign’s workers and intended as one of three messages for them to focus on. (The less-memorable others were “Change vs. more of the same” and “Don’t forget health care.”)

"let's take Clinton first

he had a disastrous first two years and the GOP took over Congress"

Let's look outside your selective memory for a moment, and remember why Clinton got into office in the first place:

"It's the economy, stupid"

Clinton's campaign advantageously used the then-prevailing recession in the United States as one of the campaign's means to successfully unseat George H. W. Bush. (Republicans held the White House for 12 straight years.) In March 1991, days after the ground war in Kuwait, 90% of polled Americans approved of President Bush's job performance.[1] Later the next year, Americans' opinions had turned sharply; 64% of polled Americans disapproved of Bush's job performance in August 1992.[1]

November 14, 2019 10:44 PM  
Anonymous The only reason to do sequestration in the middle of a recession is to tank the economy said...

"now, Obama

he inherited a recession that was exacerbated by the Dems for electoral gain at the expense of their suffering fellow citizens"

It was Republicans that made the economy take a back seat during Obama's term with:

"We need to say to everyone on Election Day, “Those of you who helped make this a good day, you need to go out and help us finish the job."

(National Journal): What’s the job?

The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president."

That included making sure none of Obama's jobs bills got passed, and purposely hobbled the economy to score cheap political points at the cost of millions of people's economic life.

The recovery was slow because Republicans kept dragging their feet to keep the country down, putting "sequestration" in place to limit spending because it would increase the budget deficit and lead to unsustainable debt. Without this extra spending, the economy was forced to limp along without any help from the Republicans.

Shortly after Obama left office though, suddenly sequestration wasn't necessary, and Republicans stepped on the economic gas pedal, and suddenly, magically even, all those Republican concerns about exploding the debt disappeared.

The big advantage Republicans have here is that most of their voters have bad memories and are easily distracted by trigger words like "socialism" and "Obama" and "e-mail" server and don't recognize that the Republican elites are playing them like the fools they are.

It's no surprise the economy is doing better - Republicans didn't have to put sequestration in place in 2013 and stifle the economy.

Republicans like to poo-poo Keynesian economics, but their behavior shows they are happy to use it to their advantage when they are in control, and wield it as a weapon when they are not.

You can't sit there and believe everyone is going to be fooled by this. But if you hang around a bunch of conservatives, I could see why you'd think a LOT of people would.

November 14, 2019 11:06 PM  
Anonymous Gaslighting doesn't work on everyone said...

"it's kind of like the US being the only country in accordance with the Paris accords even though we aren't in it

it's a lot like that!"

It doesn't take too much looking outside your bubble to see the US ISN'T meeting its Paris accord obligations.

Why do you think people believe anything you post?

November 14, 2019 11:15 PM  
Anonymous Christine Blassey Ford....LOL!! --- said...

"You've spouted that ridiculous trope multiple times here. Apparently it came up on the "Wheel of Conservative Talking Points" again tonight. If you selectively leave out states you can make any result you want. I previously pointed out that you could remove the 3 states that the Rumpster won the extra 77k votes in, and Hillary would have won the electoral college, you'd remove fewer people from the US, and the one you did remove from those 3 state produce less GDP combined and per capita than California. But that requires you to do math to get the result, and we no that's not conservatives' strong point."

you seem to have forgotten what we were discussing

you said Americans hold your point of view on the impeachment hoax

I said not in the heartland

you said I was wrong and cited the "popular" vote

rather than my usual (and correct) observation that we don't hold a popular vote, I pointed out why I was right

the facts aren't your friend

just be careful what you say in the future and you won't be embarrassed

"“The economy, stupid” is a phrase coined by James Carville in 1992. It is usually mistakenly rendered as “It’s the economy, stupid.” Carville was a strategist in Bill Clinton’s successful 1992 presidential campaign against incumbent George H. W. Bush. His phrase was directed at the campaign’s workers and intended as one of three messages for them to focus on. (The less-memorable others were “Change vs. more of the same” and “Don’t forget health care.”)"

Carville is a Dem version of Trump, without the charm

basically a nasty-acting redneck

he was actually wrong

HW lost because he raised taxes after promising not too

"Clinton's campaign advantageously used the then-prevailing recession in the United States as one of the campaign's means to successfully unseat George H. W. Bush. (Republicans held the White House for 12 straight years.) In March 1991, days after the ground war in Kuwait, 90% of polled Americans approved of President Bush's job performance.[1] Later the next year, Americans' opinions had turned sharply; 64% of polled Americans disapproved of Bush's job performance in August 1992.[1]"

so your defense of Clinton's economic record is that he promised, during his campaign, to do a great job?

the prosecution rests

"It was Republicans that made the economy take a back seat during Obama's term with:"

unbelievable

Obama borrowed more money than all other Presidents combined and he had zero interest rates

how much would he have borrowed without sequestration?

the economy should have boomed

it didn't because his anti-business attitude and hyper-regulatory regime destroyed confidence

much of the stimulus that passed when he first took office went to help overseas interests, not Americans

"The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president."

by defeating him in an election

Dems should try it

"Shortly after Obama left office though, suddenly sequestration wasn't necessary, and Republicans stepped on the economic gas pedal, and suddenly, magically even, all those Republican concerns about exploding the debt disappeared."

Obama borrowed more than the GOP has

"It's no surprise the economy is doing better"

it surprised Dems

they predicted economic collapse if Trump was elected

"Why do you think people believe anything you post?"

why else does my every word produce such rage at Teach the Faleshoods (TTF)?

you know I'm right and it infuriates you

November 14, 2019 11:45 PM  
Anonymous Don't you ever get dizzy? said...

"you said I was wrong and cited the "popular" vote"

No, you knuckle-dragging ignoramus, follow the thread, that citation was a quote, and it was in quotes, and the quote was by "homosexuality never produces life, two of 'em ain't ever a marriage," which I assume is you, or your sticky sock puppet. It was quoted to provide context for the response. I never referred to it as a "popular" vote - one of the conservatives did. I guess he didn't get the message about your playing semantic games.

For future reference, it is easy to tell what the 4th graders are posting here because they haven't learned how to use capital letters at the beginning of their sentences, or periods at the end.

"the facts aren't your friend"

(That was an example.)

"HW lost because he raised taxes after promising not too"

It should be "to" followed by a period, actually.

Maybe you should learn some more English before trying to argue about facts people can look up for themselves.

"Obama borrowed more money than all other Presidents combined and he had zero interest rates"

Technically true, but that comparison doesn't take into account the effects of inflation, (and as such the dollar amounts aren't equivalent from different presidents) or the fact that thanks to the Bush collapse, tax revenues dropped by 0.5 trillion dollars per year - so no matter who was in office the balance sheet was going to bleed red.

GWB went into office with a good economy, and nearly a budget surplus, and managed to increase the debt by 101%, and tank the world economy.

Regan went into office with a relatively weak US economy, little debt, and managed to increase the debt by 186%.

Obama went into office with the economy in freefall, tax revenues down by 50%, yet still managed to bring the economy back up with only a 74% increase in the debt.

https://www.thebalance.com/us-debt-by-president-by-dollar-and-percent-3306296

Trump may well exceed that - he's borrowing money at a rate comparable to that during the recession, and not paying enough of it to keep farmers going out of business because of his stupid trade war.

November 15, 2019 12:56 AM  
Anonymous Scientists say leaded gas can cause neurological damage. Guess who doesn't believe the scientists said...

"much of the stimulus that passed when he first took office went to help overseas interests, not Americans"

Indeed, but what did you expect when Hank Paulson, under GWB took over the failing banks and insurance companies? He wanted to make sure his Wall Street friends were protected from the ridiculous lack of regulations that had previously kept investment banks out of the home mortgage market, and also required banks and insurance companies to hold sufficient reserves to cover a reasonable portion of their liabilities.

Conservatives hate socialism - at least for American citizens - but if their banking buddies start taking too many losses, they're happy to jump in with taxpayer dollars to bail out those private corporations. That's why a lot of that money went overseas - to bail out rich investors playing in the credit default swap market. It would have been better to just pay off the mortgages. But then the rich guys would have suffered.

That's the America we live in today - cold cruel capitalism for the average Joe, and privatized gains and socialized losses for the corporations. Republicans have been voting for politicians that would do that for decades.

"they predicted economic collapse if Trump was elected"

Republicans did the same for Obama, despite the fact that GWB had actually just collapsed the economy.

"you know I'm right and it infuriates you"

You couldn't even recognize your own quote.

Maybe we should take a "popular" vote and see how many people think you're right.

November 15, 2019 1:14 AM  
Anonymous adam schiff: why we need psychological screening before one can be in Congress said...

"No, you knuckle-dragging ignoramus, follow the thread, that citation was a quote, and it was in quotes, and the quote was by "homosexuality never produces life, two of 'em ain't ever a marriage," which I assume is you, or your sticky sock puppet. It was quoted to provide context for the response. I never referred to it as a "popular" vote - one of the conservatives did. I guess he didn't get the message about your playing semantic games."

hmmm...the rage is becoming more and more evident

since you're saying I've misinterpreted you, let's try again

try no to let your anger get the best of you

I say that it is only in the bastions of liberalism on the coasts that most people think that the Dems impeachment charade has any merit

across the heartland, Americans want Dems to drop the investigation blitz of Donald Trump's entire life and work on solving our problems and running an honest campaign to make their case for their agenda

"For future reference, it is easy to tell what the 4th graders are posting here because they haven't learned how to use capital letters at the beginning of their sentences, or periods at the end."

man, you guys are really committed to Elements of Style

perhaps if you were as committed to the welfare of your fellow citizens, you'd realize that Donald Trump's economic policies have been a godsend for minorities and the working poor in our country

or you could accomplish something to deliver justice to the oppressed, like when Trump reformed the justice system that Bill Clinton had messed up so bad

next up: school choice to give poor children a hope of the same high-quality education that middle class liberal children benefit from

or you could get out of the way, if you can't lend a hand

the times they are a-changin'

""HW lost because he raised taxes after promising not too"

It should be "to" followed by a period, actually."

glad, for your sake, that you didn't try to argue that HW lost because of "the economy, stupid" again

he lost because he raised taxes after promising not too

"Maybe you should learn some more English before trying to argue about facts people can look up for themselves."

oh, I think I can play around with the King's English a bit and still talk facts to the folks at Teach the Falsehoods (TTF)

that's going just fine

"Technically true"

sorry, didn't mean to get to technical for you

here's another one, though:

everything that Obama said was the "new normal" has been blown to smithereens by Trump and Americans have confidence in our economy again

November 15, 2019 6:37 AM  
Anonymous adam schiff: why we need psychological screening before one can be in Congress said...

"GWB went into office with a good economy,"

not true

the economy was entering a recession at the time and economists cite Bush's tax cut for reversing the tide

"and nearly a budget surplus,"

the kind of surpluses Clinton was running were unhealthy

it means the government was taking more money than they need out of the economy

further, he did it partly by slashing military spending and leading hostile foreign powers to believe we could be attacked and costing us much more in the long run

"Regan went into office with a relatively weak US economy, little debt, and managed to increase the debt by 186%."

if you are talking about Ronald Reagan, the economy was more than "relatively weak" when he came into office and he managed to win the Cold War, a benefit to countless people across the globe, as well as Americans

that cost less than winning WWII, and was well worth it for a country that will pay any price and bear any burden to secure the blessings of liberty for all mankind

"Obama went into office with the economy in freefall, tax revenues down by 50%, yet still managed to bring the economy back up with only a 74% increase in the debt."

Obama's economy was so bad that four years later, Dems at their 2012 convention were still blaming it on George Bush

"Trump may well exceed that"

Dems spend a lot of time saying "may"

arguing by crystal ball is par for the course for those who don't want to get too "technical"

"Indeed, but what did you expect"

well, we the people expect our President to design economic stimulus to benefit Americans

it isn't a defense that he had no idea how to do that without sending most of taxpayer stimulus overseas

"Conservatives hate socialism"

it's actually more dispassionate than that

we have observed that socialism has brought economic ruin everywhere it's been tried

confiscating wealth, as proposed by the current crop of ascendant Dems, will destroy us

"Republicans did the same for Obama, despite the fact that GWB had actually just collapsed the economy."

unemployment rose and labor participation sank for most of Obama's first four years

we eventually experienced cyclical rebound because Congress restrained him and the Fed kept interest rates near zero

but there was much suffering from Obama's "new normal"

"Maybe we should take a "popular" vote and see how many people think you're right."

if you mean on this blog, no need

this is a fringe site, not representative of our country

November 15, 2019 6:39 AM  
Anonymous 2020 change will be based on the vote of the people said...

Republican Kentucky Gov. Matt Bevin finally conceded to Democrat Andy Beshear during a Thursday afternoon press conference, more than one week after the Nov. 5 election.

“We’re going to have a change in the governorship based on the vote of the people,” Bevin said in a press conference.

“I truly wish the attorney general well,” he added.

Last week, Kentucky voters elected Beshear to be the next governor by a roughly 5,000 vote margin. As allowed under Kentucky law, Bevin, who served just one term as the state’s governor, requested a recanvas, a process to ensure all votes were properly reported.

In his press conference Thursday, Bevin admitted that the recanvas, which was set to be completed Thursday afternoon, would not alter the outcome of the election.

“I’m not going to contest these numbers that have come in,” he said.


GREAT ADIVICE FOR RUMP IN 2020.

November 15, 2019 8:05 AM  
Anonymous Trump's D.C. hotel is for sale, and here's the pitch: Get rich off foreign money! said...

The Trump Organization is trying to sell the Trump International Hotel in Washington by pitching investors on the millions they can make from foreign governments, according to a copy of a sales brochure obtained by CNN.

The Trump Organization last month began exploring a sale of its hotel in the nation's capital, which has led to multiple lawsuits accusing President Trump of profiting from doing business with foreign governments. “People are objecting to us making so much money on the hotel, and therefore we may be willing to sell,” Eric Trump told The Wall Street Journal, which reported that the company was seeking $500 million to sell the lease to the hotel.

n an investor pitch obtained by CNN, the Trump Organization tells potential buyers that there are millions to be made from foreign government business at the hotel.

"Tremendous upside potential exists for a new owner to fully capitalize on government related business upon rebranding of the asset," the pitch says, according to the network.

November 15, 2019 8:11 AM  
Anonymous Witness intimidation, presidential style said...

Roger Stone guilty on charges of lying to Congress

WASHINGTON ― Roger Stone, a former Trump campaign official and longtime practitioner of the political dark arts, was found guilty on Friday of lying to Congress.

Stone was accused of intimidating a witness and lying to congressional investigators who were looking into Russian interference in the 2016 election. He was found guilty on all seven counts he was charged with, including witness tampering and giving numerous false statements to lawmakers about his communications with WikiLeaks.

Both publicly and in communications with Trump campaign officials, Stone purported to have connections to WikiLeaks, which released stolen information that was damaging to Democrat Hillary Clinton’s 2016 presidential campaign. WikiLeaks published emails hacked from the Democratic National Committee in July 2016 and published Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta’s emails in October 2016.

A federal prosecutor told jurors that Stone lied to Congress about his interactions with WikiLeaks intermediaries and Trump campaign officials “because the truth looked bad for Donald Trump.” Other members of the Trump campaign testified that they believed Stone had inside information on WikiLeaks, with one former official testifying that Trump indicated WikiLeaks would be releasing more information after he got off the phone with Stone in July 2016.

Prosecutors also said Stone tried to intimidate Randy Credico, a radio host he tried to convince not to cooperate with government investigations.


Trump attacks ambassador on Twitter as she testifies that his words in Ukraine call made her feel threatened

President Donald Trump lashed out at former U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch on Friday as she testified in a public impeachment hearing that his words about her in a phone call with the Ukraine president “sounded like a threat.”

...The time stamp on the tweet is 10 a.m., 30 minutes after Yovanovitch started her opening statement at the House Intelligence Committee’s impeachment hearing.

Yovanovitch, whose career of service to the U.S. spanned more than three decades, was asked at the hearing about the tweets.

“I actually think that where I served over the years I and others have demonstrably made things better for the U.S. as well as for the countries that I served in,” she said.

“It’s very intimidating,” she added when asked again about the president’s tweets.

“I want to let you know, ambassador, that some of us here take witness intimidation very, very seriously,” said House Intelligence Chairman Adam Schiff, D-Calif.

Yovanovitch had served the U.S. in Ukraine from August 2016 until May 2019, when Trump ousted her. She testified that she “had no agenda other than to pursue our stated foreign policy goals” during her tenure and said she was the victim of a “smear campaign” pushed in part by Trump’s personal lawyer, Rudy Giuliani...

November 15, 2019 2:12 PM  
Anonymous stop global whining, which is caused by lunatics said...

"The Trump Organization is trying to sell the Trump International Hotel in Washington by pitching investors on the millions they can make from foreign governments, according to a copy of a sales brochure obtained by CNN.

The Trump Organization last month began exploring a sale of its hotel in the nation's capital, which has led to multiple lawsuits accusing President Trump of profiting from doing business with foreign governments. “People are objecting to us making so much money on the hotel, and therefore we may be willing to sell,” Eric Trump told The Wall Street Journal, which reported that the company was seeking $500 million to sell the lease to the hotel.

In an investor pitch obtained by CNN, the Trump Organization tells potential buyers that there are millions to be made from foreign government business at the hotel.

"Tremendous upside potential exists for a new owner to fully capitalize on government related business upon rebranding of the asset," the pitch says, according to the network."

you guys are too much

after whining for years that Trump should divest getting rid of the hotel because when foreigners stay there, it's an emolument, he's considering getting rid of it

and now you're whining about it

"Roger Stone guilty on charges of lying to Congress"

well, yeah, he did that

but the real question is why Mueller didn't indict James Comey when he lied to Congress

November 16, 2019 1:08 PM  
Anonymous Merrick Garland ... LOL said...

I know, I know..

it's because they are deep state bromancers!

November 16, 2019 1:11 PM  
Anonymous gun control doesn't cure mental illness said...

Of all the supposedly shocking revelations that have emerged from the impeachment hearings this week, here’s one that the Democrats in Congress hope you don’t hear about: The Obama White House knew that Hunter Biden’s extremely lucrative appointment to the board of the Ukrainian gas company Burisma, which occurred the month after his father was named the administration’s “point person” on Ukraine, reeked of corruption — and they didn’t do anything about it.

In Congressional testimony Friday, former Ukraine ambassador Marie Yovanovitch confirmed for Rep. Elise Stefanik (R-NY), that in 2016 the Obama State Department privately ran her through a series of practice questions and answers to prepare Yovanovitch for her Senate confirmation hearing.

Stefanik confirmed that one specific question Yovanovitch was asked to prepare for was, “What can you tell us about Hunter Biden’s being named to the board of Burisma?” Incredibly, Yovanovitch later testified that the State Department told her to deflect any questions she might get about Hunter Biden and Burisma by referring Senators’ questions to the vice president’s office.

This admission regarding her senate confirmation prep session was startling, and it flatly contradicted a prior statement Yovanovitch had made in the hearing: “Although I have met former vice president several times over the course of our many years in government service, neither he nor the previous administration ever raised the issue of either Burisma or Hunter Biden with me.”

Rep. Stefanik proceeded to hammer this point. “For the millions of Americans watching, President Obama’s own State Department was so concerned about potential conflicts of interest from Hunter Biden’s role at Burisma that they raised it themselves while prepping this wonderful ambassador nominee before her confirmation,” Stefanik said. “And yet our Democratic colleagues and chairman of this committee cry foul when we dare ask the same question that the Obama State Department was so concerned about.”

This is not a trivial point. Central to the case for impeaching Trump is the assertion he was targeting a political rival and had no legitimate basis for investigating Biden’s potential corruption.

If the Obama administration thought the vice president’s son as much as a $1 million a year and, as the Wall Street Journal recently reported, dropping Hunter Biden’s name to get meetings at the State Department was a problem, well, the case for impeachment is much harder to make.

It also speaks to the circumstances which triggered the impeachment hearings. Various national security and State Department bureaucrats have emerged from the woodwork to condemn Trump’s alleged quid pro quo with the Ukrainian president. If the State Department was concerned about corruption in the vice president’s office in 2016, why were they directing bureaucrats to avoid answering questions about it? Where were the whistleblowers and patriotic truth-tellers then? One unavoidable conclusion is that congressional Democrats and federal bureaucrats developed their sudden interest in White House corruption only after Trump won an election.

November 16, 2019 2:50 PM  
Anonymous Another blue victory said...

Louisiana Gov. John Bel Edwards was elected to a second term on Saturday, overcoming opposition from President Trump and an increasingly polarized state electorate to hand Democrats their second major victory in a governor’s race over the past two weeks.

Edwards, 53, was running against Republican businessman Eddie Rispone, 70, in a runoff election after neither candidate won an outright majority of votes last month.

The Associated Press declared Edwards the winner at about 10 p.m. local time. He defeated Rispone with about 51 percent of the vote, leading by roughly 40,000 votes out of more than 1.5 million cast.

“How sweet it is,” Edwards told a crowd of cheering supporters at a victory rally late Saturday at the Renaissance Hotel in Baton Rouge.

Edwards said he had spoken with Rispone earlier in the evening. “We both agreed that the time for campaigning is over,” he said, “and now our shared love for Louisiana is always more important than the partisan differences that sometimes divide us.”

“And as for the president, God bless his heart,” Edwards added mockingly.

Edwards’s victory is another setback for Trump, who traveled to Louisiana twice over the past month to campaign for Rispone and sent a series of tweets urging Republicans to vote. The president’s popularity in the South has failed to prop up GOP candidates in two of the three states that held gubernatorial elections this year, allowing Democrats to gain governorships for the third consecutive year.

In Kentucky, Democratic Attorney General Andy Beshear unseated Republican Gov. Matt Bevin this month. In January, 24 of the nation’s governors will be Democrats, up from 15 at the end 2017.

November 17, 2019 9:07 AM  
Anonymous Back-to-back losses in key governors’ races send additional warning to Trump and GOP ahead of 2020 said...

When Kentucky’s Republican governor lost his bid for reelection two weeks ago despite President Trump’s active endorsement, the president and his allies brushed it off by declaring that Trump had nearly dragged an unpopular incumbent across the finish line.

On Sunday, a day after another Trump-backed GOP gubernatorial candidate fell in Louisiana, the president and his surrogates barely mounted a defense.

In a barrage of 40 tweets and retweets by Sunday evening, Trump didn’t mention Eddie Rispone’s loss to Gov. John Bel Edwards (D), even though the president had held two campaign rallies in the state in the 10 days before the election aimed at boosting his chances.

Republican National Committee Chairwoman Ronna McDaniel — who had publicly praised Trump after the Kentucky elections in which the GOP won five other statewide races — also was mum on Louisiana.

On Fox News Sunday, House Minority Whip Steve Scalise (R-La.) couldn’t avoid weighing in after host Chris Wallace asked him whether the loss made Trump look bad.

“What he said was he’d be made to look bad whether he came in the state or not,” Scalise responded, before crediting Trump with helping Rispone, a businessman, force a runoff election with Edwards after holding a rally in the state on the eve of the bipartisan primary last month.

For Trump, however, the back-to-back losses of GOP gubernatorial candidates in red Southern states is more than just a bad look. It’s a warning sign that the president’s strategy of focusing strictly on maintaining the strong support of his conservative base might not be enough to help fellow Republicans or even himself in 2020 amid the House Democrats’ impeachment probe, which has imperiled his presidency.

Trump campaigned hard for Rispone and Kentucky Gov. Matt Bevin (R), who lost to Democrat Andy Beshear, turning their races into something of a referendum on his own standing as he seeks to demonstrate strength amid a near-daily onslaught of disclosures that he sought to leverage the U.S. bilateral relationship with Ukraine for his own political gain.

“What Trump did in Louisiana was increase voter participation. While he increased the pro-Trump turnout, he also increased the anti-Trump turnout. That’s kind of the lesson here,” said Ron Faucheux, a nonpartisan political polling analyst based in New Orleans...

November 18, 2019 8:11 AM  
Anonymous Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh...LOL !! said...

The Supreme Court halted a lower court order Monday requiring the president’s accounting firm to turn over his tax records to House Democrats in their impeachment probe.

Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr. granted the administration’s request to stay the federal appeals court ruling against the president

November 18, 2019 1:05 PM  
Anonymous LOL Bubblehead forgot something -- oops! said...

The Supreme Court on Monday temporarily blocked a ruling that requires President Donald Trump’s longtime accounting firm to turn over his tax returns to Congress.

The temporary stay order signed by Chief Justice John Roberts gives the Democratic-controlled House Committee on Oversight and Reform until Thursday to respond. The document did not note any public votes or dissents.

The move was expected and does not provide new information about how the justices may ultimately vote on the matter. It generally requires five votes to grant a stay, though in some cases one justice may do so pending review by the full court.

Earlier in the day, attorneys for House Democrats said in a letter that they would not oppose a temporary delay in enforcing the subpoena to allow the court time to consider arguments from both sides. The committee said in the letter that it would provide its response on Friday.

Today's parade of impeachment witnesses is impressive:

Army Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman

Jennifer Williams

Kurt Volker

Tim Morrison

Popcorn is loaded and ready to pop!

November 19, 2019 8:19 AM  
Anonymous The children are our future said...

BOSTON — By a nearly 2-to-1 margin, more young voters support than oppose the impeachment of President Donald Trump and his removal from office, according to a new national poll released Monday by the Institute of Politics at the Harvard Kennedy School.

The poll, which isolated voters ages 18 to 29, found 52 percent of all eligible youth voters and 58 percent of likely youth voters in the 2020 presidential general election believe Trump should be impeached and removed from office.

Twenty-seven percent of all youth voters and 28 percent of likely general election voters disagreed that he should be impeached and removed. The remaining said they did not know, didn't care or declined to answer the question about impeachment.

The findings show a stronger preference for Trump's impeachment among young people than older voters. It's consistent with the leftward political shift of young voters, who supported Democratic candidates in record numbers during the 2018 midterm.

"Clearly, the majority of support for impeachment and now removal is coming from younger cohorts," said John Della Volpe, director of polling at the Harvard Kennedy School Institute of Politics. "That's been consistent over the course of the summer and it remains consistent."

Public hearings are set to continue this week in the Democrat-controlled House impeachment inquiry into Trump's dealings with Ukraine.

An ABC-Ipsos Public Affairs poll of Americans — not just youth — released Monday found 51 percent believe Trump should be impeached by the House and removed from office by the Senate. That's compared to 25 percent who said Trump did nothing wrong related to Ukraine, 13 percent who said Trump's actions were wrong but he should neither be impeached nor removed, and 6 percent who said he should be impeached but not removed...

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2019/11/18/young-voters-overwhelmingly-want-trump-impeached-removed-office-poll-finds/4228474002/

November 19, 2019 8:27 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home