ChrisWeigant.com

Friday Talking Points [440] -- Liar, Liar!

[ Posted Friday, June 9th, 2017 – 17:20 PDT ]

President Donald Trump and former F.B.I. chief James Comey engaged this week in an extended game of "Liar, liar!" Or, more properly: "Liar!" "No, you're a liar!" Yes, it was "Super Bowl" week in Washington, folks!

For the first time in quite a few years, all the big broadcast television networks carried the Senate Intelligence Committee hearing with Comey live from start to finish. That's pretty extraordinary, but then so was the testimony.

Comey began -- within the first 10 or 15 minutes -- by explaining that he wrote notes after meetings with Trump for three reasons. The third was the "nature of the person" he was talking to:

I was honestly concerned [President Trump] might lie about the nature of our meeting. I knew that there might come a day where I might need a record of what happened, not just to defend myself and F.B.I. and the integrity of our situation, and the independence of our function.

I don't know why Comey would think that of Trump... unless, of course, it is related to the 623 documented times Trump has lied to the public, in just his first 137 days in office. Come to think of it, that might just have something to do with it!

Later, while totally rejecting the announced version of why he had been fired by Trump, Comey was even more direct:

The administration then chose to defame me -- and, more importantly, the F.B.I. -- by saying the organization was in disarray and that it was poorly led, that the workforce had lost confidence in its leader. Those were lies, plain and simple.

After a day-long Twitter blackout, Trump finally tweeted early this morning in response:

Despite so many false statements and lies, total and complete vindication ... and WOW, Comey is a leaker!

Got that? Comey was being totally and bigly honest when he was "vindicating" Trump, but everything else was "false statements and lies." Trump reinforced this doublethink today in the Rose Garden: "Frankly, James Comey confirmed a lot of what I said, and some of the stuff he said just wasn't true."

When asked directly if he had asked for a loyalty pledge from Comey, Trump responded:

I hardly know the man. I'm not going to say I want you to pledge allegiance. Who would do that? I mean think of it. I hardly know that man. It doesn't make sense. No I didn't say that.

Um, OK. Because that would be totally insane, right? Who would make thousands of people he didn't know pledge their allegiance to him? He'd have to be some kind of tinpot megalomaniac to do so, eh?

But Trump now has a personal criminal defense attorney, so he's not going to take any of this lying down. Marc Kasowitz has already filed a legal complaint against Comey, because he: "unilaterally and surreptitiously made unauthorized disclosures to the press of privileged communications with the President."

Sarah Huckabee Sanders, speaking at the White House press podium, uttered a line which may come back to haunt her: "I can definitely say the president is not a liar." This prompted Republican messaging guru Frank Luntz to tweet:

"The President is not a liar" is almost as bad as Nixon's "I am not a crook.” Bad language. Bad strategy.

Florida GOP strategist Rick Wilson was even more direct:

Donald Trump could kill and eat a small child on the White House lawn and he would not be impeached be [sic] this Congress.

Of course, much of this game of "Liar, liar!" could be cleared up if there are actual recordings of those conversations Trump and Comey had. Trump was the one who suggested this, which was the stated reason Comey decided to leak his notes. Trump tweeted, less than a week after Comey was fired (and before Comey indirectly contacted the press):

James Comey better hope that there are no "tapes" of our conversations before he starts leaking to the press!

Since there has been some hair-splitting on the word "hope" this week, it's worth pointing out this is pretty close to the classic: "You got a nice place, here. It'd be a shame if anything happened to it." In other words, there's simply no other way to read Trump's statement than as mobster-style threat.

Speaking of hope, this led to one of the most-quoted moments in the hearing, when Comey said:

Lordy, I hope there are tapes. If there are tapes, it's not just my word against his.... All I can do is hope. The president surely knows whether he taped me.... Release all the tapes!

The White House had not yet even responded to questions about such tapes' existence (even though the president himself was the one to bring them up). Yesterday, reporters took another shot at getting an answer from Sarah Huckabee Sanders. Her flippant response: "I have no idea." When pressed, she snarked: "Sure, I'll try to look under the couches."

Trump, in the Rose Garden, tried to play it coy, when asked about his hint that there were tapes: "I'm not hinting at anything. I'll tell you about it over a very short period of time." Asked again, he responded: "I'll tell you about that maybe sometime in the very near future." When directly asked: "Are there tapes, Sir?" Trump said: "Oh, you're going to be very disappointed, don't worry."

There's only two ways to read that last one. Either "you're going to be very disappointed" when the tapes are made public and they vindicate Trump's version of the conversations, or the disappointment will be that there never were any tapes in the first place -- in which case, it will prove Trump was lying in his tweet. Guess we'll all have to wait until "sometime in the very near future" to find out which it is.

Of course, there's a third possibility, that Trump did make recordings of his meetings, but then subsequently destroyed them. That's a whole 'nother kettle of fish. If recordings were made, then microphones were deployed and the taping would have been monitored and archived in computers. How many tech guys and gals were necessary for that to have taken place? The name Rose Mary Woods springs immediately to mind, for anyone who lived through Watergate. These days, at a minimum some I.T. folks would be involved in the whole process. So if recordings were made and then later erased, more than just Trump's inner circle is going to know about it. Stay tuned, folks!

In other Trump scandal news, the president said he'd be happy to testify under oath to the special counsel, a statement which may come back to haunt him. Put Trump in a closed room with some very sharp people willing to question him in minute detail for hours over every interpretation of what Trump says? That's a recipe for all kinds of things going wrong, but Trump doesn't seem to realize it yet. Maybe his criminal defense lawyer will "clarify" this offer later today, who knows?

Paul Ryan had the most interesting defense of Trump, which can be summed up as: "He's just an ignoramus, what did you expect?" OK, that had a big side-helping of snark, so here are Ryan's actual words: "He's new to government. And so he probably wasn't steeped in the long-running protocols that establish the relationships between D.O.J., F.B.I., and White Houses. He's just new to this." But... but... didn't he promise us all he understood all this stuff better than any man alive, out on the campaign trail? I thought we'd all get tired of "winning," starting on "Day One"? Call this the "he doesn't know what he's doing and refuses to learn" defense, which was echoed by more than one sheepish-sounding Republican this week.

Speaking of doddering old men, John McCain was the most-tweeted-about questioner during the Comey hearing, for... um... well, we don't know what the heck he was doing, and neither did anyone else. He even apologized the next day for his meandering attempts to ask a coherent question, with a local-sports excuse: "I get the sense from Twitter that my line of questioning today went over people's heads. Maybe going forward I shouldn't stay up late watching Diamondbacks night games." Maybe that's a good idea. And maybe you should change that to "under" instead of "over," John. Just a suggestion....

And our final bit of Trump news of the week: several Twitter users are suing Trump because he blocked them on his Twitter account. The case they're making is that Trump's tweets (and access to the resulting threads of comments) are a "public forum" that the president cannot ban them from for their political views. This could be an interesting First Amendment case, but it'll take a long time before the Supreme Court gets to hear it, so we'll just have to wait.

This is already way too long a column, so we're just going to whip through all the non-scandal news before moving on to the awards and the talking points.

Under the radar news: Republicans in the House are busily gutting the Dodd-Frank law, so that big banks can operate free of onerous federal regulations. Because we all know how wonderfully that turned out, last time, right? Republicans in the Senate are busy. working on their Obamacare repeal-and-replace bill, and Mitch McConnell has set an arbitrary deadline: either there's a bill to vote on before the July 4th break, or the Senate is just going to punt on the issue altogether. The divisions within Senate Republicans might just be too wide to even agree on a bill.

In foreign news: Qatar is being diplomatically snubbed by their neighbors, including Saudi Arabia. Trump's reaction to this (and other foreign policy issues) now has the State Department reportedly "creating an alternate U.S. foreign policy." Bets are now open on how long this will continue before it blows up in Rex Tillerson's face....

Britain just had an election, and the conservatives lost, big time. Theresa May called the snap election in the hopes of winning a big vote of confidence. Things didn't turn out so well for her or her party, as Labour picked up dozens of seats in Parliament. Note to American readers (to cause envy of the Brits): their entire election season was only seven weeks long. Imagine a presidential election that completely happened inside of two months!

A high-ranking diplomat -- the former acting ambassador to China and the second-highest American diplomat in Beijing -- just handed in his resignation. As the head of the embassy until Trump's new ambassador arrives, David Rank was supposed to hand over the formal notification that America was withdrawing from the Paris Accord climate agreement. Instead, he resigned, stating that "as a parent, a patriot, and a Christian," he could not in good conscience do what was asked of him.

Puerto Rico votes on their future this weekend, as they consider the question of statehood. Will we get another star on the U.S. flag soon? This may be a heavy lift, though, since Republicans are likely to balk at adding two more senatorial seats that would likely go to Democrats.

The "Russia interferes in our elections" story got stronger with the leak of the fact that Russians tried to hack their way into election machines across the country this week. The improbably-named Reality Winners was immediately arrested for leaking the classified document, and was just denied bail.

And finally, we have to close on a very bad pun, just because. The story can be told in two sentences. Get ready to groan:

A bear in Vail, Colo., snuck into a home and briefly played the piano. Police who reviewed footage of the break-in declared the tune to be "unbearable."

 

Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week

Before we get to the main award, we've got a few Honorable Mention awards to hand out. The Hawai'i legislature and Governor David Ige get the first one, for being the first state to pass a law keeping the state within the Paris Accord climate agreement. Ige said on signing the bill: "Climate change is real, regardless of what others may say."

Elizabeth Warren joins Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton as "politicians with their own action figures." That's worth another Honorable Mention. They will reportedly be available before Christmas, for any liberals on your shopping list!

And we're awarding our very first (please note the spelling) Honourable Mention award, to British Labour Party leader Jeremy Corbyn for impressively beating all expectations in this week's election. The conservative Tories lost their majority in Parliament, even though they had expected the election to actually strengthen their position. Well done to Corbyn for his astonishingly good finish!

But our Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week goes to one of California's senators, Kamala Harris. Harris has just begun serving in the Senate, and some are predicting she's going to attempt to take the "Barack Obama path" to the White House. It's always been known she's already eyeing the 2020 presidential race, but this week she had a few breakout moments in the Senate Intelligence Committee hearings that have really launched her onto the national stage. In particular, her "she persisted" moment, on Wednesday.

When questioning Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein about his involvement in the firing of James Comey, Harris got annoyed with the deflections from the witness. She shortened her question to "Yes or no, Sir?" but then got interrupted by the committee's chair, Republican Richard Burr. Burr was "extending the courtesy" to allow the witness to answer without being interrupted. He went on to chastise her for her persistence.

Salon sums up why this was so insulting:

Now, you may be saying to yourself, maybe Harris was just too aggressive with her questioning. To that I say, what about Ron Wyden? Or Angus King? Or Martin Heinrich?

Sen. Wyden questioned Rosenstein as well, at some points using the same vernacular as Harris, and no one shut him down. He even came to Harris’s defense on Twitter, pointing out that fact.

@SenKamalaHarris was getting facts onto the record. I was not interrupted by @senatorburr when I asked tough questions. She was.

Sen. King went after N.S.A. director Michael Rogers for not answering his questions. Nobody cut him off.

Sen. Heinrich called Rosenstein out for his inability to clearly answer a question, saying "At this point, you filibuster better than most of my colleagues." No one batted an eye.

This article finishes with a classic quote from (of all people) Bette Davis: "When a man gives his opinion, he's a man. When a woman gives her opinion, she's a bitch."

Harris has now even (very intelligently) turned the moment into her own political slogan: "Courage not courtesy." After all, "She persisted" was already part of the Elizabeth Warren brand, so this was a good move by Harris to build her own nationwide political brand.

Harris, so far, seems to be doing a great job of filling the shoes of the retired Barbara Boxer, in fact. Harris was impressive questioning the witnesses in both major Senate Intelligence Committee hearings this week, and she has so far been impressive in the face of casual sexism from the chair of the committee. This week's Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week award wasn't even close. Courage, not courtesy! It's our bet we'll be hearing a lot more from Harris over the next few years, but she's certainly off to a good start.

[Congratulate Senator Kamala Harris on her Senate contact page, to let her know you appreciate her efforts.]

 

Most Disappointing Democrat Of The Week

What with Trump and the Trump investigation sucking all the oxygen from Washington this week, we simply could not identify a Democrat worthy of the Most Disappointing Democrat Of The Week award this week. Surely some Democrat did something disappointing somewhere, so we're (as always) open to suggestions in the comments, for stories we didn't hear about or forgot. But unless anyone's got a good nomination, we're putting the MDDOTW award back on the shelf until next week.

 

Friday Talking Points

Volume 440 (6/9/17)

It's a real mixed bag this week, with some tweets, some quotes, and some just-plain talking points. And then things get medieval at the end, so there's that to look forward to. As always, use responsibly, and enjoy....

 

1
   Where are the tapes?

This is the first talking point, because it really should be the first thing out of any Democrat's mouth being interviewed on television this weekend.

"I'd like to start by asking the White House and Donald Trump flat-out: Where are the tapes? Nobody has mentioned Oval Office tapes in Washington since Nixon left town, but all of a sudden Trump threatens James Comey with --in quotes -- 'tapes' of their conversations. Well, now it's time to put up or shut up, Mister President. Did you tape people in Oval Office meetings or elsewhere in the White House? Were there conversations with Comey that were taped? Do these recordings still exist? In this battle of he-said/he-said, we can all very easily get to the real truth just by listening to those tapes. So where are they? And, just to be sure, you are aware that destroying any such tapes would be illegal, as well as just confirming James Comey's recollection of those meetings, right?"

 

2
   What's the matter with Kansas?

Yet again, more proof the GOP has no idea what they're talking about, economically.

"The Kansas legislature just overrode a veto to raise taxes and desperately try to save the state from the economic toilet their governor has flushed them down. This is trickle-down at its worst, really. When Sam Brownback led the charge to slash tax rates, he predicted this experiment in conservative ideology would be 'like a shot of adrenaline into the heart of the Kansas economy.' Instead, it was like a shot of poison. The growth rate in Kansas has lagged not only the country as a whole since then, but also the Midwest region they're in. Government services like schools and road repair have almost collapsed. The state faces a billion-dollar budget shortfall. So a bipartisan group in the Kansas legislature did the only thing they could do -- throw out the massive tax breaks. Brownback vetoed it, but the legislature overturned the veto this week. This is important to note, since Donald Trump and Paul Ryan's budget ideas are exactly the same ones which just failed miserably in Kansas. Once again. Just like trickle-down has failed over and over and over again. What was it Einstein said about the definition of insanity?"

 

3
   Trump tolls

According to the White House, this was "infrastructure week." Trump's plan -- as usual -- fell far short of his lofty campaign promises. Representative Rick Nolan from Massachusetts pointed this discrepancy out: "I thought a trillion dollars for infrastructure meant a trillion dollars for infrastructure. He's talking about 90 percent from the private sector and 10 percent from the feds? It's not going to happen. It's exactly backwards." But it was Chuck Schumer who came up with the best talking point for Democrats to use:

When he called for a trillion-dollar infrastructure bill, we thought that was great. What they've proposed is privatizing most of our infrastructure to give wealthy financiers tax breaks on projects they were probably going to build anyway... it'll lead to "Trump tolls" from one end of the country to the other.

 

4
   Trump polls

Trump's not doing so great with the public, these days. Sad!

"Trump's poll numbers are looking pretty dismal these days. He's down to the lowest average yet on Real Clear Politics -- only a flat 39 percent job approval. His job disapproval's over 55 percent for the first time as well. Even breaking the numbers down doesn't help, as Nate Silver recently noted -- the amount of people who 'strongly' support Trump (rather than just 'somewhat' support him) is falling across pretty much every demographic. His base hasn't totally deserted him, but they are now moving in that direction. As for the Russia investigation, 56 percent of the public thinks Trump is interfering with the investigation rather than cooperating, and 61 percent think he fired Comey to protect himself (rather than for the good of the country). The number of people who trust what Trump says about Russia's role in the 2016 election is down to roughly 1-in-5. All the trendlines look pretty dismal for Trump, at this point."

 

5
   Trump influences European elections

On the whole question of "who can manipulate foreign elections best?" Donald Trump is falling far behind Vladimir Putin. So far his "wink, wink, nudge, nudge" endorsements of European politicians in France and Britain haven't exactly turned out real well. David Weigel of the Washington Post perfectly summed this up in one tweet:

Trump endorses Le Pen: She loses by 32 points. Trump cozies up to May: She blows a 25-point lead and maybe loses the leadership.

 

6
   Graham cracks a good one

Al Franken's got some competition for "funniest sitting senator."

"Senator Lindsey Graham offered up perhaps the most succinct -- and most amusing -- version of the Republican talking point that Trump is just 'too naive to understand what he's doing.' Graham goes a step further, when dismissing Trump's multidimensional-chess-playing abilities: 'I don't believe Trump colluded with the Russians because I don't think he colludes with his own staff.' And don't forget to tip your waitress, folks, he'll be here all week...."

 

7
   Getting medieval

This isn't really a talking point, but it was the most amusing part of the Comey hearing, when he and Senator Angus King of Maine both had the same thought. For a brief moment, the hearing headed back to the twelfth century.

SENATOR ANGUS KING: You said [Trump] said, "I hope you will hold back on that." But when a president of the United States in the Oval Office says something like "I hope" or "I suggest" or "would you," do you take that as a directive?

JAMES COMEY: Yes. Yes, it rings in my ear as kind of: "Will no one rid me of this meddlesome priest?"

KING: I was just going to quote that -- in 1170, December 29th, Henry II said: "Who will rid me of this meddlesome priest?" And then the next day he was killed. Thomas à Becket. That's exactly the same situation. We're thinking along the same lines.

-- Chris Weigant

 

All-time award winners leaderboard, by rank
Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant

Cross-posted at: The Huffington Post

 

236 Comments on “Friday Talking Points [440] -- Liar, Liar!”

  1. [1] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Of course, much of this game of "Liar, liar!" could be cleared up if there are actual recordings of those conversations Trump and Comey had.

    This is cleared up from the get-go and tapes are not required. I mean, seriously, I'm not trying to be facetious here ...

    I am at a complete loss as to why anything needs to be cleared up on this score??

  2. [2] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    No kidding. I don't have much good to say about Comey, but it's pretty clear that Big Orange is the lying liar.

  3. [3] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    It's advantageous for Trump that he's white under the clown make-up. If he was black, cancervatives would feel compelled to believe the cop. As it is, they can call him a liar despite the unending torrent of obvious lies that spews from the Donald's mouth. Sad.

  4. [4] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Comey is one of the good guys.

  5. [5] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    You do have to admire the rasslin' performance artist in chief's commitment to his heel role - always in character. When Lyin' Paul Ryan whined ludicrously about how Donald was new in town and doesn't understand how corruption works, he was seriously undermining Trump's brand with no upside. Who would believe such horse shit about someone so slimy? Lyin' Paul should be hit over the head with a folding chair.

  6. [6] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    I concur.

  7. [7] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    Do good guys do perjury? Trump says Comey lied under oath and promised 100% he'll do the same.

  8. [8] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    I'm not following ... ?

  9. [9] 
    andygaus wrote:

    By the way, Becket's name was simply Thomas Becket. The "a" can be saved for the next time the doctor asks you to open your mouth.

  10. [10] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    How much would that cost?

  11. [11] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    You said Comey is a good guy, but the "president" says he's a perjurist.

  12. [12] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Oh, I see ... said the blind man to the deaf man.

  13. [13] 
    TheStig wrote:

    Awesome FTP essay!!! I'll get to the talking points after I catch my breath.

  14. [14] 
    TheStig wrote:

    And the talking points proper are a match for the essay. Outstanding editorial performance in a crisis.

  15. [15] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    I agree!

  16. [16] 
    michale wrote:

    "Climate change is real, regardless of what others may say."

    Leave it to the Left Wingery to try and argue a point that no one is making.. :D

    It's as if this moron signs a bill that says "We declare that the sun rises in the east and sets in the west!!"

    And, the NORMAL people, the INTELLIGENT people just sadly shake their heads, roll their eyes and go, "Yea, no shit sherlock"

    :eyeroll:

    Harris has now even (very intelligently) turned the moment into her own political slogan: "Courage not courtesy."

    Yea, gods know we wouldn't want COURTESY....

    After the Kathy Griffin fiasco, no one expects courtesy from the Left..

    :eyeroll:

  17. [17] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    andygaus [9] -

    Hey, the whole "last name" thing was pretty fluid in the 1100s.

    Plus, when else do I get to use an "a/grave" accent?

    à À à!

    Heh.

    But I do admire your pedantry. I correct people when they say "Democracy In America, by de Tocqueville." No need for the "de" in that sentence...

    :-)

    I like watching Lisa Desjardins on the PBS NewsHour, but my wife gets bugged because I always refer to her as "Lisa, of the gardens."

    -CW

  18. [18] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    TheStig [13] -

    Thanks for the kind words. I did kind of wonder whether I had gone overboard this week, so that's good to hear.

    [14], [15] -

    OK, now you guys are just making me blush... I liked that "in a crisis" part -- seems like "just another Friday" at this point... EVERY week's a crisis, with Trump, it seems. Whew!

    -CW

  19. [19] 
    michale wrote:

    Liz,

    My opinion of Comey was the same as yours..

    Right up to the point he admitted he committed a crime because he was pissed he got fired...

    And he compounded that crime by committing it in the most cowardly of fashion..

    I simply can't respect a man who would do such a thing for such a piss-poor and self-serving reason...

  20. [20] 
    michale wrote:

    But, as I am wont to do....

    http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2017/06/can-hillary-clinton-please-go-quietly-into-the-night

    Let's find some common ground.. :D

  21. [21] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    LizM -

    What'd you think of the first "Honourable" Mention award?

    :-)

    -CW

  22. [22] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    michale -

    What crime, exactly? "He broke executive privelege," perhaps? His notes were unclassified, remember, so no crime there.

    But Trump himself broke that privelege when he talked about the content of those conversations before Comey leaked. So no privelege claim is even possible, according to the legal reasoning I've seen...

    -CW

  23. [23] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    michale -

    Last time I gave Hillary a "MDDOTW" award, I almost cited the country music title: "How Can I Miss You When You Won't Go Away?"

    Heh. But then I decided it was too snarky...

    -CW

  24. [24] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    michale [16] -

    Courtesy is fine, when it's consistent. All the men get to be discourteous, but the woman is chided for doing the same exact thing? That's not courtesy, that's sexism hiding behind "courtesy," sorry.

    -CW

  25. [25] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    andygaus -

    One more thing. It was from the transcript. I didn't write it! That's what King said (Angus, not Henry II). Most transcripts had it as "Thomas A. Becket" or "Thomas A Becket" so I actually thought I improved on the King quote.

    Heh.

    :-)

    -CW

  26. [26] 
    michale wrote:

    CW,

    What crime, exactly? "He broke executive privelege," perhaps? His notes were unclassified, remember, so no crime there.

    It is a crime to steal, sell, or convey “any record, voucher, money, or thing of value of the United States or of any department or agency thereof.
    TITLE 18 U.S.C. § 641

    I am further constrained to point out that Comey *KNEW* he was committing a crime because he had a friend "leak" the documents..

    I mean, fer christ's sake! Be a man!!

    Finally, the manner in which Comey came to the decision to commit this crime certainly supports the Scorned Woman concept....

    But Trump himself broke that privelege when he talked about the content of those conversations before Comey leaked. So no privelege claim is even possible, according to the legal reasoning I've seen...

    It's the President's privilege to break... Not Comey's..

    Last time I gave Hillary a "MDDOTW" award, I almost cited the country music title: "How Can I Miss You When You Won't Go Away?"

    Heh. But then I decided it was too snarky...

    I honestly don't think there is such a thing as TOO MUCH snark when it comes to NOT-45...

    But that's just me.. :D

    Courtesy is fine, when it's consistent. All the men get to be discourteous, but the woman is chided for doing the same exact thing? That's not courtesy, that's sexism hiding behind "courtesy," sorry.

    If I were so inclined, I am sure I can find PLENTY of examples of men being discourteous and being chastised for it within the Senate..

    I am certain that you have awarded awards to Democrat men who were chastised for being discourteous and have attacked GOP women for chastising discourteous Democrat men...

    Blaming sexism JUST because a woman is involved is no different than blaming racism JUST because a black person is involved....

    But let's not open THAT can of worms, eh?? :D

    I think Sarek's words of wisdom are especially apropos...

    "There can be no offense where none is taken"

  27. [27] 
    michale wrote:

    Finally, the manner in which Comey came to the decision to commit this crime certainly supports the Scorned Woman concept....

    In the interests of a sexist free commentary..

    Change "Scorned Woman" to "Scorned Lover".... :D

  28. [28] 
    michale wrote:

    I think Sarek's words of wisdom are especially apropos...

    "There can be no offense where none is taken"

    In other words, Democrats sure do love playing the victim....

    But, one has to wonder.

    Howz that worked out for them so far??? :D

  29. [29] 
    michale wrote:

    CW,

    Courtesy is fine, when it's consistent. All the men get to be discourteous, but the woman is chided for doing the same exact thing? That's not courtesy, that's sexism hiding behind "courtesy," sorry.

    Put it another way..

    Is it entirely possible, even LIKELY , that Harris would have been chastised for her lack of courtesy, even if she were a he??

    Of course it would be... (and it's true because we used to live on Whidbey... :D )

    Now, if Harris had been a Republican and a woman, would she have been chastised by the Republican chairman??

    Of course not....

    Ergo, a case for sexism simply cannot be made...

    It's clearly a case of Party Bigotry on the part of the Republican....

    "Simple logic"
    -Admiral James T. Kirk

    :D

  30. [30] 
    michale wrote:

    What crime, exactly? "He broke executive privelege," perhaps? His notes were unclassified, remember, so no crime there.

    It is a crime to steal, sell, or convey “any record, voucher, money, or thing of value of the United States or of any department or agency thereof.
    TITLE 18 U.S.C. § 641

    The documents Comey leaked were not his documents to leak. He was a government employee who made notes on a government meeting, using government equipment on government time..

    Those notes belonged to the United States Government and Comey had absolutely NO AUTHORITY to leak them..

    It was a crime under Title 18 US Code..

    Further, Comey *KNEW* it was a crime because he had a friend release them...

    Remember how ya'all attacked Trump because he "leaked" intel to the Russians??

    How is Comey's actions any different??

    Well, besides the FACT that there are no facts to support ya'all's attack on President Trump and it's a FACT that the President has the authority to release any intel or information he wishes to...

    Obama proved that more times than can be counted...

    But FORMER Director Comey had no such authority...

    It all comes down to the..... you guessed it... -X after the person's name... :D

  31. [31] 
    michale wrote:

    There was a minor revelation that Attorney General Loretta Lynch directed Comey to refer to the Clinton investigation as a "matter" instead of an "investigation," but that's pretty small potatoes in the grand scheme of Clinton investigations.

    There was a MAJOR revelation that AG Lynch ordered Comey to align the investigation message with the NOT-45 campaign message..

    THAT is *BIG* potatoes in the grand scheme of the NOT-45 investigations...

  32. [32] 
    TheStig wrote:

    I have a feeling Trump's offer to testify under oath about his private dinner with Comey is going to go the way of his tax returns.

  33. [33] 
    TheStig wrote:

    I have carefully listened to John McCain's session with Comey a couple of times. I still can't make any sense of it. Some important nouns seem to be mixed up.
    Starting with John McCain.

  34. [34] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    TheStig [32],

    100%

  35. [35] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    Comey is law enforcement. If there were any legitimate case against his release of his notes, i don't think he would have been as forthright as he was about them. Calling it a leak is sour grapes righty spin, not a valid legal argument.

  36. [36] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Those notes belonged to the United States Government and Comey had absolutely NO AUTHORITY to leak them..

    Um, no. The notes were made by Comey to himself, on his own personal laptop. They generally describe non-classified information, and they weren't actually shown to anyone except for Comey's friend, who described them to the press, but didn't send along copies.

    That's why the Senate committee requested copies of the notes yesterday from him. Because no one (except Mueller) has actually seen them.

    So how was that a leak?

  37. [37] 
    michale wrote:

    JL,

    Comey is law enforcement. If there were any legitimate case against his release of his notes, i don't think he would have been as forthright as he was about them. Calling it a leak is sour grapes righty spin, not a valid legal argument.

    Comey is a lawyer... And, apparently, knows the political game well...

    The law is clear.. Comey violated the law...

    This is fact...

    But it IS interesting to note that you want to nail Trump's ass to the wall based on a LOT less....

  38. [38] 
    michale wrote:

    Um, no. The notes were made by Comey to himself, on his own personal laptop.

    Even if that were true, it doesn't matter..

    They were notes made on government time re: a government meeting...

    Even if they were made on Comey's OWN time, they still pertain to a government meeting and, as such, they are the property of the US government..

    They generally describe non-classified information, and they weren't actually shown to anyone except for Comey's friend, who described them to the press, but didn't send along copies.

    Cite...???

    Like I said.. It's hilarious how ya'all bend over backwards to twist the law to make anyone with a -D after their name completely innocent of ANYTHING...

  39. [39] 
    Mopshell wrote:

    [22] CW -

    Surely it isn't possible for Comey to have broken Executive privilege since he was neither a member or employee of the Executive at the time. I don't believe private citizens can be covered by EP.

    [26] Michale -

    Comey's personal notes, like his personal laundry and shopping lists, are not a record, voucher, money, nor anything belonging to any department or agency.

    Comey owns the notes and therefore had complete authority over them. They were not part of any investigation, just his personal impressions and concerns about the character of Trump.

    He documented calls and meetings with Trump in order to protect himself should circumstances warrant such protection. As it turned out, his instincts were right and he did need that protection.

    Trump is a proven liar: ...the 623 documented times Trump has lied to the public, in just his first 137 days in office.

    With the weight of evidence against Trump 623 times over, no rational and reasonable person would believe whatever Trump says. Only a cult follower shuts their eyes and ears to the evidence and continues to champion someone like Trump.

  40. [40] 
    michale wrote:

    Calling it a leak is sour grapes righty spin, not a valid legal argument.

    And claiming Trump is guilty of all the crimes ya'all accuse him of is ALSO sour grapes Lefty spin, not valid legal arguments..

    Once again, you use different standards for the Left and the Right...

    Left Wingers must have mathematically precise FACTS that align ever so precisely.......

    "In 18 years precisely... The planets will align ever so nicely."
    "Oy... verse...."

    -HERCULES

    :D

    Right Wingers, all ya need is the barest of inference, innuendo, hell even RUMORS are acceptable "proof" of guilt...

  41. [41] 
    michale wrote:

    Comey owns the notes and therefore had complete authority over them. They were not part of any investigation, just his personal impressions and concerns about the character of Trump.

    No he did not...

    They were notes of a government meeting, created on government equipment, during government time..

    They are the government's notes..

    Your claims to the contrary do not make it so....

    He documented calls and meetings with Trump in order to protect himself should circumstances warrant such protection. As it turned out, his instincts were right and he did need that protection.

    Which is completely and utterly IRRELEVANT to the determination of the ownership of the notes..

    They belong to the US Government..

    It's a crime to release them..

    Comey KNEW it was a crime to release them, which is why he had a friend do it..

    These are the facts that NO AMOUNT of Left Wing wishful thinking will change..

    With the weight of evidence against Trump 623 times over, no rational and reasonable person would believe whatever Trump says.

    ANd yet, when Trump had a -D after his name, everyone on the Left LOVED Trump!!! Obama is even quoted as saying he aspired to be like Trump and hoped his children would be like Trump..

    Same man.. Only difference is then Trump had a -D after his name and now he has a -R after his name...

    That's why I can't get excited about all the hysterical accusations against Trump..

    Because the FACTS clearly prove that it's nothing but Party loyalty at work...

  42. [42] 
    michale wrote:

    MS & Balthasar...

    OK.... Let's look at things from your side...

    These memos are Comey's personal property and Comey is totally and completely on the side of angels..

    WHY did he not release those memos directly?? Why did he send them to a friend and have that friend release them??

    The answer is simple...

    Comey KNEW he was committing a crime....

    That is the ONLY explanation that addresses ALL the facts...

  43. [43] 
    michale wrote:

    JL,

    To address your claim that Comey's disclosure wasn't really "leaks"...

    Many in the media have tried to spin this as not a “leak” because leaks by definition only involve classified information. That is entirely untrue as shown by history. Leaks involve the release of unauthorized information — not only classified information. Many of the most important leaks historically have involved pictures and facts not classified but embarrassing to a government. More importantly, federal regulations refer to unauthorized disclosures not just classified information.

    Ya'all are trying to spin this away, but the simple FACT is Comey committed a crime...

  44. [44] 
    michale wrote:

    On Display In Russia Hearings, Democrats' Trump-Hatred Is Worthy Of Captain Ahab

    Trump And Russia: If there's one thing Congress' Russia hearings have shown, it's that President Trump has driven the Democratic Party and far-left media to near insanity. How else can you explain their unhealthy fixation on all things Trump and nonstop efforts to end his presidency?

    No, we're not joking. Listening to the hearings on Wednesday and Thursday, when National Intelligence Director Dan Coats, National Security Director Adm. Michael Rogers, Acting FBI Director Andrew McCabe, and former FBI Director James Comey testified, was a revelation.

    In their questioning, Democrats were plainly not interested in the truth. They merely hoped for something, anything, that would be damning or damaging to Trump. In particular, they hoped for evidence of "obstruction of justice" to impeach Trump.

    But they didn't get it. Under persistent questioning Wednesday, Coats, Rogers and McCabe all emphatically denied that Trump had brought improper pressure to bear on the Russia investigation. None.

    Again, on Thursday, Comey drove that point home, saying that he did not perceive anything that Trump said to him as an attempt to obstruct "the broader investigation into Russia or possible links to his campaign."

    So in the end, as the current saying goes, it was a big nothing-burger, with cheese. And instead of a grand inquisition, it turned into rather pathetic political theater.

    Is this how the Democrats hope to regain power?
    http://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/on-display-in-russia-hearings-democrats-trump-hatred-is-worthy-of-captain-ahab/

    Leave it to IBD to sum things up so perfectly...

    As an aside, Thanx to Neil for turning me on to IBD :D

  45. [45] 
    michale wrote:

    And ya know what's REALLY awesome about all this!!??

    While the AHAB Party scan the horizon for their hated White Whale, Trump....

    President Trump is quietly undoing all the damage the Obama administration has caused this country...

    So, by all means, Ahab Party.. Concentrate on your great White Whale....

    Not only will President Trump be able to continue doing all the damage, the Left will piss off more and more middle class Americans and push them into giving President Trump 4 more years... :D

  46. [46] 
    michale wrote:

    As for the Trump-haters in the Democratic Party and the media, the June IBD/TIPP Poll, taken from May 30 to June 6, holds some bad news: Some 47% of Americans agree that "the investigation into possible ties between the Trump campaign and Russia is a political 'witch hunt' aimed at getting the president impeached."

    The nonstop efforts to get Trump are failing. Piece by piece, Trump's putting his agenda in place — just in time to watch the Democratic Party's ship go down.

    Yep... Yep... Yep.... :D

  47. [47] 
    michale wrote:

    Democrats will continue to lash out and contort Comey’s testimony, but the facts speak for themselves. President Trump has not asked anyone to lie, he has not prevented anyone from performing his or her legal obligations, and he has most certainly not obstructed justice.

    Comey’s testimony was not flattering toward the president, but, as I wrote yesterday, it did more to help Trump than to hurt him. No matter how much the Democrats and mainstream media outlets try to spin a crime out of the straw that was Comey’s testimony, the facts just do not take us there.

    The president still has the advantage of being innocent. If the Democrats want to impeach Trump, they will have to keep looking. I’m sure they will.
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/wp/2017/06/09/trump-committed-no-crime-democrats-need-to-get-over-it/?utm_term=.06892ab370f4

  48. [48] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale,

    Comey committed no crime.

    It is hard, apparently, for some people to put themselves in another's shoes and understand ALL that they have encountered and dealt with and even come to the conclusion that they would have done the same thing.

    I am quite surprised by your reaction to Comey's reaction to President Trump's threatening tweet.

  49. [49] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale,

    It would be wise for you to take the advice from the headline of your last link.

  50. [50] 
    michale wrote:

    Batman has just died....

  51. [51] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale,

    Trump is guilty of attempting to remove the independence of the FBI when it comes to its investigatory function and that is what the recent Comey hearing was all about.

    I am surprised that you don't agree with me on that score.

    Trump is also guilty of lacking any semblance of decency with respect to how he fired the FBI director, a man of great integrity who has dedicated his entire adult life to the service of America and its citizens. I am very surprised that you don't agree with me on that score.

  52. [52] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    ... but, the Black Panther has arrived!

  53. [53] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Chris,

    Any honourable mention that is awarded for taking action on climate change is well placed.

    I will start following more of what the governor of Hawai'i is doing in this regard and I look forward to more honourable mentions and even MIDOTW awards to Ige, Brown and all those who understand the critical nature of this issue and who are not afraid to take the necessary action to mitigate it and to resist the Trump administration.

  54. [54] 
    michale wrote:

    Liz,

    Comey committed no crime.

    The facts say otherwise..

    It would be wise for you to take the advice from the headline of your last link.

    WHich one was that? I posted so many.. :D

  55. [55] 
    michale wrote:

    Trump is guilty of attempting to remove the independence of the FBI when it comes to its investigatory function and that is what the recent Comey hearing was all about.

    It's not a crime...

    Just like ya'all said it wasn't a crime when Obama suborned the IRS to go after HIS political enemies..

  56. [56] 
    michale wrote:

    The facts say otherwise..

    As a matter of fact, there are MORE facts supporting prosecuting Comey than there is for prosecuting President Trump....

  57. [57] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    I didn't say it was a crime, Michale.

    But, it is the wrong thing to do, in any event.

  58. [58] 
    michale wrote:

    Just like ya'all said it wasn't a crime when Obama suborned the IRS to go after HIS political enemies..

    http://www.chrisweigant.com/2017/06/08/the-curious-incident-during-comeys-testimony/#comment-102306

    Just to make sure there are no misunderstandings...

  59. [59] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale,

    It's funny, you know ... that I am the only one here who considers Comey worthy of defending. I would have thought that, as a former LEO, you would understand all of this better than me ... ??

  60. [60] 
    michale wrote:

    Liz,

    But, it is the wrong thing to do, in any event.

    I disagree... The is nothing wrong from demanding loyalty from an employee..

    You think Obama didn't demand loyalty from AG Holder, AG Lynch, etc etc???

    It's just that no one heard about it because the MSM was firmly in the Obama camp...

  61. [61] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale,

    Which one was that? I posted so many.. :D

    Now I know you don't read what I write ... not carefully, anyways. :(

  62. [62] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    We're not talking about loyalty, Michale. We're talking about the independence of the FBI.

    As a former LEO, I would be very interested to know why you think the FBI shouldn't remain at arms length from the White House when it comes to investigations?

  63. [63] 
    michale wrote:

    It's funny, you know ... that I am the only one here who considers Comey worthy of defending. I would have thought that, as a former LEO, you would understand all of this better than me ... ??

    And I was right there with you, defending Comey throughtout EVERYTHING...

    Even when he failed to prosecute NOT-45 for political reasons, I was right there with you and him saying that Comey made the BEST possible choice given the shitty circumstances that NOT-45, Obama and Lynch foisted upon Comey...

    I stuck with Comey through it all..

    RIGHT up to the point where he admitted to committing a crime and doing it in a totally cowardly manner for totally selfish, spiteful and self-serving reasons...

    If Comey truly felt that THAT information needed to be made public, he should have done it HIMSELF and done it BEFORE he was fired..

    Doing it in the cowardly manner he did and waiting until AFTER he was fired to do it???

    He just comes across as a whiney and spiteful coward...

  64. [64] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    @m
    In your eagerness to appeal to hypocrisy you've mistaken me for someone else. I have not drawn a conclusion yet about whether or not Donald committed a crime. They evidence on that is far from complete. We'll see where the investigation leads.

  65. [65] 
    michale wrote:

    As a former LEO, I would be very interested to know why you think the FBI shouldn't remain at arms length from the White House when it comes to investigations?

    You mean that the FBI should remain an arms length away from President Trump...

  66. [66] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    THE evidence. Dang autocorrect

  67. [67] 
    michale wrote:

    In your eagerness to appeal to hypocrisy you've mistaken me for someone else.

    WHAT!!!???? I have NEVER DONE THAT BEFORE!!! :D heh

    I have not drawn a conclusion yet about whether or not Donald committed a crime. They evidence on that is far from complete.

    Agreed... The evidence of ANY "crime" that the President has committed is far far far FAR FAR FAR FAR from complete... So far as to be practically non-existent...

    We'll see where the investigation leads.

    And if you could get the entirety of the Left Wingery to shut the frak up UNTIL the investigation leads somewhere....

    Then no one would hear a peep from me... :D

  68. [68] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale,

    Here are the pertinent facts as I see them:

    1. The FBI is investigating the intrusion of the Russian government and its surrogates into the election process in the US, through cyber and other means.

    2. One focus of this investigation has been to uncover any possible contacts and/or collusion between Russian officials and the Trump campaign and transition teams.

    3. Several Trump officials have not been forthcoming about their contacts with Russian officials during the 2016 election campaign and Trump transition and neglected to reveal these contacts when under oath.

    4. President Trump tried, unsuccessfully, to have the FBI investigation into General Flynn's role in all of this dropped ... because Flynn "is a good guy".

    5. The FBI investigation surrounding Flynn and contacts between the Russians and Trump campaign and transition officials continues.

    6. Trump fired the FBI director ... in a most indecent manner, I might add. Which is not illegal, on either count, but which does tell me a lot about the president.

  69. [69] 
    michale wrote:

    RIGHT up to the point where he admitted to committing a crime and doing it in a totally cowardly manner for totally selfish, spiteful and self-serving reasons...

    The parallels between James Comey and Angela Corey is amazing..

  70. [70] 
    michale wrote:

    RIGHT up to the point where he admitted to committing a crime and doing it in a totally cowardly manner for totally selfish, spiteful and self-serving reasons...

    The parallels between James Comey and Angela Corey is amazing..

  71. [71] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    You mean that the FBI should remain an arms length away from President Trump...

    Did I say that?

    Just answer the question!

  72. [72] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    RIGHT up to the point where he admitted to committing a crime and doing it in a totally cowardly manner for totally selfish, spiteful and self-serving reasons...

    That's not a crime, Michale ... that is your misguided opinion which I believe is based upon a very extreme kind of partisanship on your part.

  73. [73] 
    michale wrote:

    4. President Trump tried, unsuccessfully, to have the FBI investigation into General Flynn's role in all of this dropped ... because Flynn "is a good guy".

    President Trump "hoped" that, in the context of General Flynn's great service to this country, that any investigation unless something VERY serious was uncovered, could be viewed in that context...

    Which is not illegal, on either count, but which does tell me a lot about the president.

    Oh com'on.. You already KNEW "a lot" about the President before this happened..

    Please don't insult my intelligence and claim that this was important in your assessment of president Trump..

    Every point you list has one vital shortcoming..

    NO FACTS..

    You spin it your way and it could be spin'ed a completely different way to make President Trump look awesome..

    Give me something concrete.. Something factual, unequivocal, dead on ballz factual and actually has RELEVANCE to a crime being committed..

    But no one can because there are NO SUCH FACTS like that to be found..

    The entire might of the UNITED STATES investigation apparatus has been looking into collusion between Russia and the Trump campaign and have found ZERO FACTS that incriminate ANYONE...

    Don't you find that the LEAST bit relevant??

    OVER a YEAR and NOT A SINGLE SOLID UNEQUIVOCAL FACT...

    That should tell ya'all something right there...

    The problem here is ya'all look at ANONYMOUS STORIES like Jared Kushner's "back channel" with the Russians and declare Trump guilty!!!

    Ya'all are inclined to believe EVERYTHING so ya'all fall for ANYTHING....

  74. [74] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Joshua,

    In your eagerness to appeal to hypocrisy you've mistaken me for someone else.

    Michale always treats us like we are all the same. That is what I hate most about this place.

  75. [75] 
    michale wrote:

    Liz,

    That's not a crime, Michale ...

    It IS a crime..

    Title 18 USC, Section 641...

    If you can't accept the facts and reality, there is no point in discussing anything...

  76. [76] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    President Trump "hoped" that, in the context of General Flynn's great service to this country, that any investigation unless something VERY serious was uncovered, could be viewed in that context...

    As a former LEO, you can't possible be that naïve.

  77. [77] 
    michale wrote:

    Michale always treats us like we are all the same. That is what I hate most about this place.

    Those who know it doesn't apply to them know it doesn't apply to them...

    I have already gone over this several times..

  78. [78] 
    michale wrote:

    The entire might of the UNITED STATES investigation apparatus has been looking into collusion between Russia and the Trump campaign and have found ZERO FACTS that incriminate ANYONE...

    Ask yourself one question..

    Two thirds of that investigative time was done by OBAMA's investigation agencies...

    I think you would agree with me that Obama was **VERY** motivated to find even a scintilla of a fact that incriminated Trump...

    If Obama didn't find anything, isn't it logical to conclude that there was NOTHING to be found???

    Although I know no one will give me any credit, *THAT* is a damn good point...

  79. [79] 
    michale wrote:

    As a former LEO, you can't possible be that naïve.

    As former military in addition for former LEO (really no such thing) I can see the situation VERY clearly...

    You keep bringing up the LEO factor which has NOTHING to do with ANYTHING...

    Comey is a LAWYER, not a cop...

  80. [80] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    No, you keep bringing up the LEO factor ... whenever you wish to belittle us.

  81. [81] 
    michale wrote:

    No, you keep bringing up the LEO factor ...

    Only when it's applicable. Here it is not applicable..

    whenever you wish to belittle us.

    I will endeavor to stop that...

  82. [82] 
    michale wrote:

    whenever you wish to belittle us.

    I will endeavor to stop that...

    In return I would hope the belittling directed my way will also stop... :D

  83. [83] 
    michale wrote:

    “Did the president behave inappropriately? Yes, absolutely. If being rude, and crude, and a bull in a china shop were a crime, he’d be guilty. But it’s not.”
    -Senator Lindsay Graham

    And there it is...

    Ya'all think President Trump is a boorish, arrogant prick..

    And he is...

    But THAT is neither illegal or impeachable...

    THAT's the point that ya'all miss...

    Balthazar went on and on about Trump's "crimes" and then finished up with how Trump allegedly threw family members under the bus...

    And how, exactly, is that a crime???

    95% of what ya'all accuse Trump of is not illegal or impeachable and the other 5% ya'all have NO FACTS to support.....

    That is what it all boils down to...

  84. [84] 
    michale wrote:

    95% of what ya'all accuse Trump of is not illegal or impeachable and the other 5% ya'all have NO FACTS to support.....

    And THAT describes the entirety of the Anti-Trump movement in a nutshell...

  85. [85] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    @liz,
    Exactly, attempting to refute one person by attributing to them an argument by unnamed other persons is not valid. If one wants to address my point, they should be able to avoid conflating it with someone else's.

  86. [86] 
    michale wrote:

    Exactly, attempting to refute one person by attributing to them an argument by unnamed other persons is not valid. If one wants to address my point, they should be able to avoid conflating it with someone else's.

    And yet, 90% of the time ya'all use the same rhetoric to achieve the same goals.....

    One can be forgiven for a spot o confusion now and then, no???

    I really simplified things in the last day or so...

    If my "ya'all" doesn't apply to you, then it doesn't apply to you... :D

    What could be simpler???

  87. [87] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Joshua,

    I really do think that ignoring the nonsense that permeates this place (comments sections only, just to be clear), it is possible to have a civil, enlightening and interesting discussion in the era of Trump.

    It's really hard to ignore sometimes, especially when silence is often mistakenly equated with acquiescence instead of what it really is which is to say complete frustration. But, it's getting easier and I am just not strong enough to deal with it anymore - too much going on in my little world and out in the big world to waste any precious time on nonsense.

  88. [88] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    What could be simpler???

    Replying only to arguments by the individual you're talking to. It's not that hard, we all have different names.

    JL

  89. [89] 
    michale wrote:

    Give ya'all a perfect example..

    When ya'all rail against Right Wingers or Republicans, telling everyone how much you hate them and how they are the cause of every misery in this country...

    I don't take offense because I know you are not talking about me...

    So, if I rail against brain-dead morons who hysterically accuse Trump of crimes against humanity, such as taking TWO scoops of Ice Cream, and no one here is a brain-dead moron who hysterically accuses Trump of such crimes against humanity.....

    Then obviously that doesn't apply to anyone here who ISN'T a brain-dead moron who hysterically accuses Trump of such crimes against humanity....

    See how easy it is??? :D

    There can be no offense where none is taken
    -Sarek Of Vulcan

  90. [90] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    so... If my "ya'all" doesn't apply to you, then it doesn't apply to you... :D

    If it doesn't apply to me, don't use it when you respond to me.

  91. [91] 
    michale wrote:

    Replying only to arguments by the individual you're talking to. It's not that hard, we all have different names.

    Yes, you all have different names..

    But more often than not, ya'all make the same arguments, using the same talking points...

  92. [92] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    @liz,
    At least to me, silence usually means an argument is so foolish it's not worth my time.

  93. [93] 
    michale wrote:

    Liz,

    I really do think that ignoring the nonsense that permeates this place (comments sections only, just to be clear), it is possible to have a civil, enlightening and interesting discussion in the era of Trump.

    It's really easy...

    Just hold yourself to the same standard you expect from others..

    Calling Trump an "ADD President" is utter and complete nonsense..

  94. [94] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    @michale,
    That's just an excuse for arguing lazily

  95. [95] 
    michale wrote:

    Calling President Trump an orange fascist is ALWAYS nonsensical..

    But it's funny how you never have time to condemn THAT nonsense....

    If ya'all applied your standards fairly and equitably, then 80% of the "nonsense" would be eliminated...

  96. [96] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    I referred to nonsense, Michale, not Michale's nonsense.

  97. [97] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale,

    Have you seen the trailers yet for the Black Panther?

  98. [98] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    michale [26] -

    Executive privilege is an important shield to protect the president’s power. It is not a sword, though. So where a current or former government employee wants to cooperate and turn over the requested information, the privilege itself won’t — and can’t — stop him or her. For current employees, the threat of losing their job, their reputation or both from disobeying the president will often serve to keep them in line. But for former employees, there’s no such specter (and sometimes, quite the opposite, as Comey’s case underscores). This is why Trump could not have invoked executive privilege to stop Comey from testifying, something the White House tried not to acknowledge by putting out word that he “chose” not to do so. It is not a “violation” of executive privilege to voluntarily disclose materials that could be protected by the privilege, no matter what Kasowitz says.

    Nor is such a voluntary disclosure illegal. Federal law proscribes certain unauthorized disclosures, including of “information relating to the national defense” or information that has pecuniary value to the United States. But it’s hard to see how Comey’s after-the-fact transcription of his relevant conversations with the president fall within either of these provisions. No one is making an argument that the material in Comey’s memos was classified, or that information about a conversation could have the kind of monetary value required to trigger the federal conversion statute. Lawyers might often have to grapple with additional obligations imposed by their state bars about whether information is privileged, but those, too, are administrative requirements — not criminal penalties. And at any rate, Comey wasn’t serving as Trump’s lawyer during their conversations.

    So leaking the memos did not somehow violate executive privilege, or federal law. But it’s also worth stressing that Trump would not have had a valid basis for invoking executive privilege in any event. From his own public statements and tweets about his conversations with Comey, Trump has almost certainly waived any potential privilege claim, since he has acknowledged both the existence and substance of the discussions.
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2017/06/09/trumps-lawyer-says-comey-violated-executive-privilege-hes-wrong/?utm_term=.8b6c16cbc18f

    What may be criminal here is if Trump's lawyer actually does try to retaliate against him. I misstated this in the FTP article above -- the complaint has not actually been filed yet, just a threat to do so next week. But that could be seen as intimidating a witness -- which is criminal.

    As for your "sexism never happens" defense, sure, go ahead and try to find a similar case -- where women senators were allowed to badger the witness, but whenever a male senator tried it he was admonished. But I'm not going to hold my breath waiting for such a cite, if you know what I mean...

    -CW

  99. [99] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    michale [29] -

    Wrong. Sorry.

    There were other senators who badgered witnesses in that hearing. None were admonished. Just like the "nevertheless, she persisted" Warren case -- where Warren's exact words (quoting Coretta King) were repeated by male colleagues who were not admonished.

    There were Democratic senators who badgered the witness in that hearing. They were not admonished. There were Republican senators who did the same thing, with nary a peep from the chair. But when a woman did so, she got shut down.

    You can choose not to see the obvious all you want, but please don't ask the rest of us to do so.

    -CW

  100. [100] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    michale [31] -

    Likewise, it's only big potatoes if you have tiny, tiny hands. To the rest of us, pretty small spuds.

    :-)

    -CW

  101. [101] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    TheStig [32] -

    Heh. But shouldn't that be "go the way of Trump's promise to release his tax returns"?

    :-)

    -CW

  102. [102] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    TheStig [33] -

    Best comment I've heard is that McCain was "channelling his inner Sarah Palin."

    The Post has an article up today with a possible explanation -- McCain had just returned from something like a 75,000 mile trip around the Pacific, so he was probably exhausted.

    -CW

  103. [103] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    Mopshell [39] -

    Good points. It's been noticed that, during the hearing, not ONE Republican chose to directly attack Comey's perception of Trump as a liar. Not one.

    It'd be easy to do so (spoken in high dudgeon):

    "Sir, did you just sit there and call the President of these United States a liar? Does not the president of all Americans deserve the simple courtesy of not calling him a liar to his face? You, Sir, are dangerously close to contempt of Congress by such a statement!"

    Heh. See? It's easy to come up with the angle of attack... but no GOP senator tried to do so.

    That really says something, doesn't it?

    :-)

    -CW

  104. [104] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    michale [40] -

    I semi-agree with part of your point, but not really.

    The president is indeed different, and is held to a different standard (for the time being). Did Comey do anything criminal? If so, he'd be tried in a court of law. Did Trump do any "high crimes and misdemeanors"? If so, it will be because Congress says so -- a majority of the House, and 2/3rds of the Senate.

    So, yes, we have to treat them differently, just not how you said.

    Just for the sake of argument, if Trump is impeached and removed from office, then he would be open to criminal charges in court, because he'd be a private citizen once again. So eventually he'd face the same thing.

    But an impeachable offense is defined as "whatever a majority of the House and 67 senators decide is an impeachable offense." 'Twas always thus...

    -CW

  105. [105] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    michale [42] -

    Asked and answered. Comey didn't want to feed the seagulls at the beach.

    Heh.

    -CW

  106. [106] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    michale [45] -

    Not only will President Trump be able to continue doing all the damage

    Um... I think you meant "un-" in front of "doing".

    I don't agree with your point, but I think you wanted to make it more positive for Trump, no?

    We aim to please.

    :-)

    -CW

  107. [107] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    michale [47] -

    "Yet."

    That's the word that's missing from that article. And remember, the investigations in Congress are all Republican-led. A Republican Attorney General appointed the Special Counsel.

    Partisan? Hardly.

    -CW

  108. [108] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    michale [50]

    RIP Adam West.

    "Same bat time, same bat channel..."

    He will be missed, old chum.

    -CW

  109. [109] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    michale [60] -

    Did you see that link in the article? The "tinpot megalomaniac" link?

    Watch it, and then find me any Democrat... no, actually, any American politician ever who did anything remotely similar. But, again, I'm not going to hold my breath or anything while waiting...

    -CW

  110. [110] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    michale [67] -

    And if you could get the entirety of the Left Wingery to shut the frak up UNTIL the investigation leads somewhere....

    Wait... here you go:

    And if you could get President Trump to shut the frak up and stop tweeting about it UNTIL the investigation leads somewhere....

    There we are! Fixed!

    Heh.

    There's one person who can't let it go, but I don't think he's a lefty, sorry.

    :-)

    -CW

  111. [111] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    LizM [68] -

    That's a remarkably good roundup of where we stand.

    Just had to say that -- well done!

    -CW

  112. [112] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    michale [70] -

    OK, I'll bite. Who is Angela Corey?

    -CW

  113. [113] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    michale [73] -

    You're having a "yet" problem again:

    But no one can because there are NO SUCH FACTS like that to be found..

    No, there are no such facts like that which have been found and released to the public -- so far.

    Facts may have been found already, but not leaked. Don't forget to include that possibility.

    One thing I think not many people expect right now is that Mueller's operation will quite likely be extremely tight, and offer few (if any) leaks until they're done. So we may not know until he reports exactly what he's found.

    -CW

  114. [114] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    michale [79] -

    Is a big-city police commissioner a cop, in your eyes?

    Comey ran the biggest federal cop bureau in existence. Unless you're making the argument that the top brass aren't really "cops" and are more like politicians, Comey was definitely a cop.

    -CW

  115. [115] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    michale [83] -

    See above. Impeachable is whatever enough members of Congress consider to be impeachable. That's as designed. It's an inherently political decision.

    -CW

  116. [116] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    LizM [96] -

    Michale's Nonsense?

    Wasn't that a TV show way back when?

    Oh, wait, I'm confused...

    http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0055689/?ref_=fn_al_tt_1

    Heh. Couldn't resist.

    :-)

    -CW

  117. [117] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    Whew! Finished!

    :-)

    -CW

  118. [118] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Now, THIS is what I call a comments section!!!

    No one does it better than you, Chris!

  119. [119] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    [116]

    Heh.

  120. [120] 
    TheStig wrote:

    CW-101

    So, my prose isn't prolix enough.:-)

    I take your point, but I kind of like the broader implications of my simpler version. Trump's tax returns are a deep mystery which he vaguely promises to clear up some day and besides there is nothing to see here folks. Trump is re-purposing this well worn dodge(2 step?) to his latest work in progress, My Dinner With Comey.

  121. [121] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    @cw [114]

    On this point you're making michale's argument for him. Being ceo of Chicago schools did not make arne Duncan an educator. So, if Comey didn't serve in the lower ranks of law enforcement, its a reasonable argument that he's not a cop

  122. [122] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    So, are cops the only law enforcers?

  123. [123] 
    TheStig wrote:

    Comey Maybe

    I just took office.
    It's really crazy
    and I'm no liar,
    but Comey - may be.
    All the fake news boys
    they try and chase me
    I've got it covered
    it's Comey, maybe?

  124. [124] 
    altohone wrote:

    Hey Liz and anybody that cares about our northern neighbor

    I noticed your comment earlier, so I'm testing the theory... haven't had a chance to check for a response to my last comment to you a few days ago about Tar Sands Trudeau's Foreign Minister saying "war is central to the country's future"... but she's at it again!!!

    Canada to hike military spending by 70% over the next decade
    http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2017/06/10/cawa-j10.html

    A 70% increase in military spending is a goal you might expect from the "conservatives".

    What is going on with the neoliberal government up there?

    A

  125. [125] 
    altohone wrote:
  126. [126] 
    TheStig wrote:

    CW-

    I don't view Comey as a cop. At root, he's a lawyer...and fixer. By fixer, I mean he's somebody who knows how to get things done within the labyrinth of the law. That's his professional history since law school. He's like Cromwell as depicted in Wolf Hall. It's a dangerous job, and you have to watch your back. Satisfy the king, watch out for the nobles AND the king.

  127. [127] 
    Mopshell wrote:

    [41] Michale - Well of course that's what a cultist would say. The fact that you're unable to psychologically allow yourself to understand the legal facts of matter - that you are compelled to spin them into some kind of fantasy while repelling reality - is what demonstrates all too clearly that you've become a cult follower.

    As for this:

    Obama is even quoted as saying he aspired to be like Trump and hoped his children would be like Trump.

    That is a myth, mere republican propaganda. It never happened. It exists only in the fevered minds of the cultists.

  128. [128] 
    Mopshell wrote:

    [42] Michale -

    Apparently you are deaf, dumb and blind when it comes to the disgusting behavior of the US media (which, in all fairness, are not alone - elements of the British media are just as bad, probably thanks to the evil oligarch, Rupert Murdoch).

    Comey was doing what he could to get the facts into the public arena while protecting the privacy of his family.

    I'm sorry to see your cultism has advanced to the stage where it doesn't allow you to see the lengths people will go to because the wellbeing of their family is so important to them. I would've thought, as a fond family man yourself, you'd at least be able to understand that. It's sad to see what the cult obsession has done to you.

  129. [129] 
    Mopshell wrote:

    [78] Michale -

    The entire might of the UNITED STATES investigation apparatus has been looking into collusion between Russia and the Trump campaign and have found ZERO FACTS that incriminate ANYONE...

    Special Counsel Robert Mueller is assembling a formidable team of top shelf attorneys because he knows there's damning evidence and a lot of of it to judge by the rate he's adding attorneys to his team. Anyone who knows anything at all about the man knows he's not doing this for show in order to waste time and money.

    The question is: will you accept the facts of the evidence when Mueller is ready to present it? It's looking like you're too steeped in cult-thought to be able to do that now. You can't even discern the difference between fact and opinion.

  130. [130] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    @mopshell,
    Michale had trouble telling fact from opinion well prior to Donald Trump being a candidate for anything.

    I agree with you that director comey is not guilty of anything other than protecting his family from public defamation

  131. [131] 
    Mopshell wrote:

    [73] Michale -

    In response to Elizabeth's list of facts in [68], you claim:

    Every point you list has one vital shortcoming..

    NO FACTS..

    You are therefore claiming that:

    1. The FBI is NOT investigating the intrusion of the Russian government and its surrogates into the election process in the US?

    2. That it isn't fact that one focus of this investigation has been to uncover any possible contacts and/or collusion between Russian officials and the Trump campaign and transition teams?

    3. That it is false to say that several Trump officials have not been forthcoming about their contacts with Russian officials during the 2016 election campaign and Trump transition? That these Trump officials neglected to reveal their Russian contacts when under oath?

    I'll add another to the list:

    Both Sessions and Kushner admit they deliberately omitted to mention pertinent information when filling out their SF-86 forms. Do you at least agree that failure to fill out the form honestly is a felony?

  132. [132] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Al[124] - Woo hoo. If Canada tries really hard, they might achieve the military might of Thailand.

  133. [133] 
    Mopshell wrote:

    Michale - You also accuse people here of saying things no-one has ever said.

    Statements like:

    Like I said.. It's hilarious how ya'all bend over backwards to twist the law to make anyone with a -D after their name completely innocent of ANYTHING...

    which is demonstrably untrue since we've all agreed with CW's MDDOTW awards which range from episodes of stupidity to crimes that deserve a prison sentence. To say or even insinuate otherwise is just a plain old lie.

  134. [134] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Stig - I disagree. Whatever his legal status, the Director of the FBI has been considered America's 'top cop' forever, as, for example he is referred to in this random Fox News Article. I can find thousands more like that, dating back to the 1930's.

    Michale doesn't want to think of Comey as a former law enforcement officer because that makes it easier to join in on Trump's attempted character assassination party. Trouble is, the more folks compare Trump to Comey, the better Comey looks.

    If I'm in Trump's circle, I'm thinking, "how can we change the subject?"

  135. [135] 
    Mopshell wrote:

    [89] Michale -

    When ya'all rail against Right Wingers or Republicans, telling everyone how much you hate them and how they are the cause of every misery in this country...

    That isn't "an example" of anything anyone here has ever said; it's just a blanket statement and a flat-out lie. You accuse us of things we've never said all the time. You take what we do say and inflate it into these hyperbolic statements which you use to condemn us. It is not fact. It is not just.

  136. [136] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Sorry, Al but, the link you provided was decidedly non-serious.

    Better luck next time!

  137. [137] 
    michale wrote:

    That's just an excuse for arguing lazily

    Perhaps....

    But it's a valid excuse...

    When one says BLUE 99 times a day, but says RED once, then another can be forgiven for missing that RED...

  138. [138] 
    Kick wrote:

    Michale
    26

    It is a crime to steal, sell, or convey “any record, voucher, money, or thing of value of the United States or of any department or agency thereof.
    TITLE 18 U.S.C. § 641

    I can assure you, they have all taken pens, paper, etc. so lock them up!

    "The president's power to exert executive privilege is very well established; however, in order to facilitate a swift and thorough examination of the facts sought by the Senate Intelligence Committee, President Trump will not assert executive privilege regarding James Comey's scheduled testimony." - Sarah Huckabee Sanders

    Does this put that issue to rest already? Only a really bad attorney would claim Comey violated a privilege that his client chose to waive. Of course, Trump had already waived privilege by the legal definition when he chose to speak publicly on multiple occasions regarding these conversations.

    As far as claiming Comey stole his own notes, anyone that believes this utter fallacy of an argument simply isn't applying "simple logic." <----- See what I did there?

    No one can claim to own your right to free speech, and you are allowed to write your thoughts down on paper and print them out for posterity. Government employees are allowed to perform personal tasks on their government computers, but they ask that you take care of your personal business during your breaks and/or down time. Comey said he began writing his notes immediately when he returned to his vehicle... sound like "down time" to me.

    Come on dude, you were a soldier. I know that somewhere in the rational part of your cranium that you do understand the concept that the government doesn't claim to own your notes and personal emails that do not contain classified information. :)

    Think McFly!

  139. [139] 
    michale wrote:

    MS,

    That isn't "an example" of anything anyone here has ever said; it's just a blanket statement and a flat-out lie.

    Oh puulleeeezzzzeee

    The hatred against the Right from the vast majority of Weigantians is well documented..

    You accuse us of things we've never said all the time.

    Just as I am accused of saying things I never said...

    You take what we do say and inflate it into these hyperbolic statements which you use to condemn us. It is not fact. It is not just.

    Agreed...

    So, if ya'all would cut it out, so would I.. :D

    which is demonstrably untrue since we've all agreed

    It's demonstrably true..

    The fact that you et al condemn a bonehead Dem now and again doesn't change the fact that the -D after a person's name has special meaning for ya'all...

    I can provide NUMEROUS examples, not the least of which how ya'all condemn President Trump's lies but don't mind the lies from a Democrat..

    How many here attacked John McCain for his "senior" moment, but don't condemn Pelosi for her ongoing bouts with dementia..

    The list is endless and I could go on and on if I thought you would actually acknowledge the facts..

    That is a myth, mere republican propaganda. It never happened. It exists only in the fevered minds of the cultists.

    This is exactly my point. I have already documented this several times..

    “The depth of this commitment may be summarily dismissed as the unfounded optimism of the average American—I may not be Donald Trump now, but just you wait; if I don’t make it, my children will.”
    -Barack Obama

    You see??? I provide FACTS and ya'all simply can't acknowledge them..

    Until you can face the fact that you are WRONG and I am dead on ballz accurate and ACKNOWLEDGE the facts...

    We're done here..

  140. [140] 
    michale wrote:

    JL,

    I agree with you that director comey is not guilty of anything other than protecting his family from public defamation

    Once again, ignoring the facts in the pursuit of Party loyalty...

  141. [141] 
    michale wrote:

    CW,

    As for your "sexism never happens" defense, sure, go ahead and try to find a similar case --

    I never said "sexism never happens"...

    I simply said that, in this particular case, it was obviously Party bigotry, not sexism, that was in play here...

    Did Comey do anything criminal?

    Yes he did.. Further, he KNOWS he did because why else would he involve a friend in his crime??

    That's the point ya'all ignore because it TOTALLY refutes ya'all's claim that Comey didn't commit a crime..

    But an impeachable offense is defined as "whatever a majority of the House and 67 senators decide is an impeachable offense." 'Twas always thus...

    And when ya'all actually find FACTS that support an impeachable offense... Come talk to me. :D

    There's one person who can't let it go, but I don't think he's a lefty, sorry.

    ONLY one person???

    Shirley you jest... :D

    No, there are no such facts like that which have been found and released to the public -- so far.

    Thank you....

    Facts may have been found already, but not leaked. Don't forget to include that possibility.

    I am more than willing to concede that possibility..

    But NO ONE here is willing to concede the reciprocal of that possibility..

    That President Trump is completely innocent of ALL accusations against him...

    So why must I concede ya'all's possibility when ya'all are unwilling to concede the other possibility???

    One thing I think not many people expect right now is that Mueller's operation will quite likely be extremely tight, and offer few (if any) leaks until they're done. So we may not know until he reports exactly what he's found.

    Fine.. So let's all wait until Mueller's report is released and quit being hysterical about every anonymous source that says President Trump farted..

    Eh??

  142. [142] 
    michale wrote:

    Liz,

    Have you seen the trailers yet for the Black Panther?

    I have and it looks awesome!!! :D

    Can't wait for it to be released...

  143. [143] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    @m[140]

    Which party? Comey is a Republican, and CW has already addressed your incorrect reading of the statute. What other facts am i ignoring in my loyalty to a fellow Republican?

  144. [144] 
    Kick wrote:

    Michale
    37

    The law is clear.. Comey violated the law...

    This is fact...

    But it IS interesting to note that you want to nail Trump's ass to the wall based on a LOT less....

    In what alternative universe is being a traitor to your country for your own personal gain like Benedict Donald considered "less"?

    I call hypocrisy here. When I claim that Flynn, Sessions, and Kushner have each committed multiple felonies for failing to disclose their meetings with Russians on their SF-86 security clearance disclosures, you comment that they're "innocent until proven guilty... duh!"

    Let me refresh your memory here:

    “The U.S. Criminal Code (title 18, section 1001) provides that knowingly falsifying or concealing a material fact is a felony which may result in fines and/or up to five (5) years imprisonment. In addition, Federal agencies generally fire, do not grant a security clearance, or disqualify individuals who have materially and deliberately falsified these forms, and this remains a part of the permanent record for future placements.”

    So... NEW RULE (props to Bill Maher):

    If deez tree gize who have committed multiple felonies are IUPG, then so is James Comey.

    You can't have it both ways! :p

  145. [145] 
    Kick wrote:

    Michale
    38

    They were notes made on government time re: a government meeting...

    You don't know that. What part of Trump waived Executive Privilege is confusing at all? Sarah Sanders announced that Trump waived privilege.

    Even if they were made on Comey's OWN time, they still pertain to a government meeting and, as such, they are the property of the US government.

    Simply incorrect. As long as they don't contain classified information, they're his notes. If former employees couldn't discuss nonclassified information, there'd be no war movies, books, etc. Not trying to be a jerk here, but I believe you're letting your Party bias color your opinion here. You may have heard this argument a time or two? ;)

    Like I said.. It's hilarious how ya'all bend over backwards to twist the law to make anyone with a -D after their name completely innocent of ANYTHING...

    I haven't read the comments below this post of yours, but I would wager $1,000,000 that somebody besides me has mentioned the "SIMPLE FACT" that Comey is a Republican. :)

  146. [146] 
    michale wrote:

    JL,

    Which party? Comey is a Republican,

    In the here and now, Comey is supporting the Democrat Party agenda...

    Which is hilarious because prior to his canning, Comey was the Democrat Party's Lucifer.. :D

    and CW has already addressed your incorrect reading of the statute.

    I musta missed that...

    Where CW addressed incorrectly my correct reading of the statute..

    It's funny... My reads on points such as these is common-sense plain english reads..

    Ya'all have to spin and nuance the hell out of these points to produce the desired outcome.. :D

  147. [147] 
    michale wrote:

    Kick,

    In what alternative universe is being a traitor to your country for your own personal gain like Benedict Donald considered "less"?

    You misunderstand..

    I was referring to the fact that ya'all have a LOT less evidence and you want to find Trump guilty already..

    I call hypocrisy here. When I claim that Flynn, Sessions, and Kushner have each committed multiple felonies for failing to disclose their meetings with Russians on their SF-86 security clearance disclosures, you comment that they're "innocent until proven guilty... duh!"

    No hypocrisy at all..

    Now, if you were to say, "Flynn, Sessions, and Kushner have ALLEGEDLY each committed multiple felonies"

    THEN you would be making a true and correct statement..

    You don't know that. What part of Trump waived Executive Privilege is confusing at all? Sarah Sanders announced that Trump waived privilege.

    I always ask Balthazar and he always fails to provide..

    I'll try you... :D

    Cite??

    I haven't read the comments below this post of yours, but I would wager $1,000,000 that somebody besides me has mentioned the "SIMPLE FACT" that Comey is a Republican. :)

    But right now, Comey is serving the Democrat Party agenda... :D

  148. [148] 
    michale wrote:

    Kick,

    Simply incorrect. As long as they don't contain classified information, they're his notes.

    OK... OK...

    So, your argument is that Comey was free release those papers because they were not government property..

    Is that your argument??

    So, if I can prove that those papers WERE government property, you will concede the point that Comey committed a crime..

    Fair??

  149. [149] 
    Kick wrote:

    Michale
    41

    ANd yet, when Trump had a -D after his name, everyone on the Left LOVED Trump!!! Obama is even quoted as saying he aspired to be like Trump and hoped his children would be like Trump..

    Okay, I have seen you type out this utter nonsense now about a dozen times, and I've ignored it; that ends TODAY.

    I'm going to let you in on a little secret. Fox News and right-wing propaganda sites will take information and twist it around and spoon-feed it back to their audience. Many in their audience believe the "fake news" without questioning its veracity because it's what they want to believe. Donald Trump uses this same technique when he lies about things; that's why the birther nonsense about Obama was so effective with that group.

    Anyway, here's the truth explaining and containing the relevant quote that Fox News and the right-wing propaganda sites have twisted to make into "fake news" that then gets incorrectly regurgitated and disseminated.

    They [Obama and Rob Fisher] took multiple classes together and co-wrote a never-published book on public policy, titled “Transformative Politics” or “Promises of Democracy: Hopeful Critiques of American Ideology.” The manuscript explored the political failures of the left and right and expounded on markets, race and democratic dialogue, showing glimmers of the political philosophy and rhetoric that Obama would come to embrace.

    ...

    Obama had considered Donald Trump long before either man won the presidency, and brushed off his existence as a misguided national fantasy. Americans have a “continuing normative commitment to the ideals of individual freedom and mobility,” Obama wrote in the old Harvard book manuscript, now more than 25 years old. “The depth of this commitment may be summarily dismissed as the unfounded optimism of the average American — I may not be Donald Trump now, but just you wait; if I don’t make it, my children will.”

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/book-party/wp/2017/05/02/before-michelle-barack-obama-asked-another-woman-to-marry-him-then-politics-got-in-the-way/?tid=ss_tw&utm_term=.2e0fbc15293a

    Key words there being "summarily dismissed as the unfounded optimism of the average American." So Obama was never actually quoted as saying he aspired to be like Trump; he and Rob Fisher's unpublished manuscript did, however, contain the name of "Donald Trump." Far from making a comment about either of them aspiring to be like Trump, Young Obama and Fisher were actually making a comment about Americans' unfounded optimism that they or their children could be Donald Trump. While they could have just as easily used the name of any other rich man such as John D. Rockefeller, Cornelius Vanderbilt, or John Jacob Astor (who famously went down with the Titanic), they most likely chose The Donald because he was more of a household name known to the masses versus those other massively wealthy gentlemen.

    Say... aren't you glad someone is willing to take the time and "unfake the news" for you? You're welcome.

    Now go forth and spin no more. ;)

  150. [150] 
    michale wrote:

    Once again, you prove my point I made to JL..

    My take on things is common-sense plain english take.

    Ya'all have to "nuance" and "equivocate" and "spin" the statements to get it to read what ya'all WANT it to say..

    Your "take" comes from WaPoop, the fake news media that gave us all sorts of hysterical anonymous accusations..

    My take is directly from Obama's own words, plain english and common sense...

    :D

  151. [151] 
    michale wrote:

    What it all boils down to is this...

    All of these hysterical Trump accusations have one goal and one goal only..

    To nullify a free, fair and legal election of a President that ya'all don't like...

    That's it.. That is what ALL of this is about...

    Cue hysterical protestations...

    :D

  152. [152] 
    michale wrote:

    Where were all these Donald Trump attacks from the Left when Trump had a -D after his name???

    They were non-existent..

    It's the same man...??? If the -D/-R is totally and completely irrelevant then all these attacks we see now, there SHOULD be *SOME* evidence of them back then when Trump had a -D after his name..

    There wasn't ANY....

    The *ONLY* logical conclusion is that the -D/-R is the SOLE factor here...

  153. [153] 
    michale wrote:

    Anyone here find me an attack on Donald Trump from anyone here back when Trump had a -D after his name, I'll be happy.... no.. I'll be ECSTATIC to concede I was wrong..

    But the simple fact is, there WERE no attacks..

    Back when Trump had a -D after his name, he was the Democrat's bestest buddy...

    "These are the facts of the case. And they are undisputed..."
    -Captain Smilin' Jack Ross, A FEW GOOD MEN

  154. [154] 
    michale wrote:

    When Director Mueller releases his report and clears President Trump of ANY wrong doing.......

    Will ya'all accept it and stop with the hysterical fact-less accusations???

    I am betting a million quatloos that ya'all won't..

    Mueller will become Comey, post NOT-45 but pre-firing...

  155. [155] 
    michale wrote:

    But, I completely understand why you would think I would.. I have been quite the prick of late and I render my utmost apologies for that...

    I would be lying if I disagreed. Apology accepted. We're all human; some of us are just more human than others. Heh... just kidding. :) I will apologize for what I said when I was trying to give you a dose of your own medicine.

    Hey! Maybe all we need is a "safe word." Hmmmmmmmm.

    Oh, I know....... HITLER! ;)

    Heh!!! Now THAT was funny!!!! :D

  156. [156] 
    Kick wrote:

    EM
    68

    Excellent recap. DOBA

  157. [157] 
    michale wrote:

    TS,

    I don't view Comey as a cop. At root, he's a lawyer...and fixer.

    Exactly..

    Nice ta see the old TS once in a while.. :D

  158. [158] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    @m,

    See post 98 (and 105)

  159. [159] 
    michale wrote:

    JL,

    It's from WaPoop and, as such, it's not worth reading..

    It's a partisan analysis..

    I quoted the actual law..

    Refute THAT....

  160. [160] 
    Kick wrote:

    Michale
    139

    This is exactly my point. I have already documented this several times..

    “The depth of this commitment may be summarily dismissed as the unfounded optimism of the average American—I may not be Donald Trump now, but just you wait; if I don’t make it, my children will.”
    -Barack Obama

    What part of spin no more was confusing? ;)

    I know, I know... I posted my response above before I read this. Barack Obama is not quoted as saying that. It is text from an unpublished manuscript by him and a friend of his at Harvard. The operative words there are "the unfounded optimism of the average American," and then he gives an example of what he considers their unfounded optimism that either they or their children will be Donald Trump. Got that?

    It's not a quote from Obama. It's text from an unpublished manuscript where Obama and the coauthor are basically claiming that Americans' have unfounded optimism where they think they're going to be part of the 1%. That manuscript was never published and is 25 years old. In retrospect, the Obamas just sold their memoirs for a record-setting $65 million advance along with a piece of the profits. So his unpublished manuscript was wrong at least where he was concerned. Maybe it was "the founded pessimism of the not so average Hawaiian" that served him well? ;)

    We're done here..

    If you realize the meaning of the quote in context and spin it no more, then I guess we actually are "done here." I can dream, can't I? :)

  161. [161] 
    michale wrote:

    What part of spin no more was confusing? ;)

    The part where it's ya'all that are the one's spinning..

    I am just reading the plain-text and employing common sense.. :D

    I know, I know... I posted my response above before I read this. Barack Obama is not quoted as saying that. It is text from an unpublished manuscript by him and a friend of his at Harvard. The operative words there are "the unfounded optimism of the average American," and then he gives an example of what he considers their unfounded optimism that either they or their children will be Donald Trump. Got that?

    I got that it's your interpretation of Obama's words which, coincidentally, also jibes with the ideological agenda...

    I definitely got that. :D

    We're done here..

    Actually, that was directed to MS.. If she can't acknowledge the facts and reality, then there really isn't anything we can discuss, given that there is not common point of reference..

    "You mean I have to DIE before you will discuss your thoughts on death with me!!!??"
    -Dr Leonard McCoy, STAR TREK IV-The Voyage Home

    :D

  162. [162] 
    michale wrote:

    JL,

    It's from WaPoop and, as such, it's not worth reading..

    Put another way..

    I am as inclined to accept a WaPoop analysis as ya'all are inclined to accept a FoxNews analysis...

    It works both ways, my friend.. :D

  163. [163] 
    michale wrote:

    Liz,

    Have you seen the trailers yet for the Black Panther?

    Maybe now would be a good time to discuss CA-CW.... :D

  164. [164] 
    Kick wrote:

    Michale
    141

    Fine.. So let's all wait until Mueller's report is released and quit being hysterical about every anonymous source that says President Trump farted..

    Eh??

    I listened to 4+ years of righties claiming that the President of the United States and his Secretary of State were guilty of murdering 4 people in Benghazi. Even when 9 investigations into the same thing produced the exact same result, the righties kept it up, and some of them continue to this day.

    I just read this entire thread where you insist that Comey is guilty of a crime when he merely exercised his first amendments rights as a citizen regarding a matter where the President of the United States waived his Executive Privilege. Got that yet? Trump waived his privilege through his spokesperson Sarah Huckabee Sanders. If you can see all those facts and insist Comey has committed a crime, then you shouldn't get your knickers in a twist if everyone else here thinks Trump committed a crime. Add to that Kushner, Flynn, and Sessions for committing a felony on their SF-86 forms.

    You can't have it both ways... with me anyways. :)

  165. [165] 
    michale wrote:

    A question totally unrelated to politics..

    Has anyone been having problems lately where FLASH just ups and quits???

    I have had a problem both at work and at home where FLASH will quit and lock up the system for as long as 60 seconds..

    Really annoying when yer trying to type a comment...

    Anyone else having any issues??

  166. [166] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    Fox occasionally puts forth an analysis that holds water. Heck even Limbaugh occasionally makes a valid point. Refusing to even consider an argument based on where the argument was published is an ad hominem fallacy. Based on legal precedent the federal statute does not apply to comey. You're reading pout of context

  167. [167] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    Grrr, dang autocorrect

  168. [168] 
    michale wrote:

    Fox occasionally puts forth an analysis that holds water. Heck even Limbaugh occasionally makes a valid point.

    And I can point to many times I used WaPoop for a source...

    But that doesn't change the fact that WaPoop is infamous for it's hysterical accusations against President Trump that later had to be retracted...

    Refusing to even consider an argument based on where the argument was published is an ad hominem fallacy.

    And I can point to HUNDREDS of times ya'all, you included, dismissed a point out of hand, simply based on it's source..

    Goose, meet gander...

    Based on the plain text reading of the statute, it DOES apply to Comey...

    Pretend yer blaming President Trump for violation of the statute... :D

  169. [169] 
    michale wrote:

    Kick,

    Got that yet? Trump waived his privilege through his spokesperson Sarah Huckabee Sanders.

    Yea.. Balthasar made the same claim..

    Until either of you have a cite for me, it's bullshit...

  170. [170] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    @m,

    The phrase in the statute you've overlooked is "of value" - based on precedent, whatever government resources comey may have used to write his notes does not have sufficient value for the statute to apply to him.

  171. [171] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    And I can point to HUNDREDS of times ya'all, you included, dismissed a point out of hand, simply based on it's source..

    I have? Show me ONE, and I'll ignore your defending one logical fallacy with another

  172. [172] 
    michale wrote:

    The phrase in the statute you've overlooked is "of value" - based on precedent, whatever government resources comey may have used to write his notes does not have sufficient value for the statute to apply to him.

    "Value" is a judgement call solely and completely based on the definition that the GOVERNMENT sets...

    How do you think the government will rule in this case? :D

    I have? Show me ONE, and I'll ignore your defending one logical fallacy with another

    I don't recall the specific point/report but I know it came from INFOWARS..

    But if you want to claim that you would never ridicule an INFORWARS based point, I'll make an exception regarding the accusation... For you.. :D

  173. [173] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    What constitutes value is determined by precedent in the case law. The government can't just set some arbitrary standard tomorrow.

  174. [174] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    A report by breitbart or Alex Jones' infowars is certainly less likely to be factually accurate than one in the Washington post, but being posted there does not necessarily make the report wrong.

  175. [175] 
    michale wrote:

    What constitutes value is determined by precedent in the case law. The government can't just set some arbitrary standard tomorrow.

    Wanna bet???

    Value to one person/entity could be (and usually is) radically different to another person.. Not only can the government arbitrarily set the value, they can CHANGE the value as they deem necessary.. :D

    Irregardless, Comey's own actions prove that he knew he was committing a crime. No other reasonable explanation explains why he didn't leak the memo himself...

    A report by breitbart or Alex Jones' infowars is certainly less likely to be factually accurate than one in the Washington post, but being posted there does not necessarily make the report wrong.

    I'll remind you of that the next time someone ridicules a report based on it's source.. :D

  176. [176] 
    michale wrote:

    The phrase in the statute you've overlooked is "of value" - based on precedent, whatever government resources comey may have used to write his notes does not have sufficient value for the statute to apply to him.

    Where did THAT come from!??

    No one is talking about the value of the government "resources" that Comey used...

    But I am glad to see you confirm my point that Comey DID, in fact, use government resources.. (Wrong again, Balthy.. :D)

    Comey didn't leak "resources"... Comey leaked memos.. THAT is the value that needs to be ascertained..

    And the government can set ANY value to those memos that it deems necessary...

  177. [177] 
    Kick wrote:

    Michale
    148

    OK... OK...

    Wait, what?

    So, your argument is that Comey was free release those papers because they were not government property..

    No. My argument is that a government employee does not give up their rights to free speech nor to write their free speech into notes in order to preserve them for later use in writing books or giving testimony or simply keeping a diary for their own personal use. When you are writing notes for your personal use, you take care to omit classified information from them.

    You seem to be operating under the assumption that if someone gives a copy of their personal notes to their employer while in their employ that it automatically becomes the exclusive property of the United States. It does not. One may keep diaries, papers, books, ledgers, notes of their own and supply a copy to the government if they choose, and it will not transfer ownership of one's property to the government.

    Just like people make mental notes, people also make written notes for later use. No one can enjoin a person from publishing or speaking about their written or mental notes while in the Service of the United States unless said information is protected by either a classified or privileged designation. President Trump waived his Executive Privilege through his agent Sarah Huckabee Sanders and also by speaking himself about said privileged communications. One cannot wag one's mouth incessantly about a meeting and then claim the conversation is privileged; one has waived their privilege by wagging one's mouth. "Privilege for me but not for thee" is NOT a thing in this country where we have a president and not an authoritarian or a monarch.

    If my memory serves me correctly... and I warn you that it usually does... you met your wife in 1981 while arresting her in the service of the United States of America under the command of... top of the chain... Saint Ronald of Reagan {genuflect} while on duty in Okinawa, Japan. I know this because you wrote it on this blog, and I have fairly decent recall (comes from years of training).

    So..... you're under arrest for disseminating that information on this blog. What's that I hear? It was neither classified nor privileged? Well, your wife has a right to privacy, but I doubt she'd mind you posting it so I guess you're okay for having disseminated that information to potentially everyone in the world with an Internet connection available to them.

    Fair??

    The government cannot enjoin your rights to free speech under the First Amendment to the Constitution nor insist that you can't write your thoughts down on paper for later use. Protected information is classified by several different designations or privileged, and in the relevant case we're discussing:

    (1) Comey is now a private citizen, compliments of the President of the United States.
    (2) Said president publicly waived his privilege in more ways than one:
    (a) wag the tongue, and
    (b) asserting no privilege as announced by his agent.
    (3) Citizen Comey thereby exercised his right of free speech using his notes that contained no protected information. If he supplied a copy of his notes to the United States while he was in their employ, wasn't that nice of him?

    There is no freaking court in the country that is going to enjoin an American citizen from exercising his right to speak about nonclassified information wherein executive privilege has been waived in more ways that one.

    All clear now?

  178. [178] 
    michale wrote:

    I'll check back in a bit so you can edumacate me.. :D

    Duty calls..

  179. [179] 
    Kick wrote:

    Michale
    147

    I was referring to the fact that ya'all have a LOT less evidence and you want to find Trump guilty already..

    There was a reason I called him "Benedict Donald" in my first post. You bet your ass I want him found guilty already, but I doubt that will ever happen. The wheels of justice move slowly, and rich people don't go to jail. They throw poor people in jail for using crack cocaine while turning a blind eye to wealthy people snorting lines on Fifth Avenue.

    Now, if you were to say, "Flynn, Sessions, and Kushner have ALLEGEDLY each committed multiple felonies"

    I have a better idea. Why don't we apply your theory that if "obviously that doesn't apply to anyone" in my post then you can just ignore it. "See how easy it is???" <------ quoting YOU

    THEN you would be making a true and correct statement..

    But what if I prefer your method of just ignoring it if it doesn't apply?

    But right now, Comey is serving the Democrat Party agenda... :D

    I'm going to ignore that utter nonsense because it doesn't apply. I'm also going to go on record that you were not long ago singing the praises of Director Mueller because them "R's" stick together, but you'll soon be referring to him as serving the "Democrat Party" too.

    Place your bets, people! :)

  180. [180] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    Wanna bet???

    For someone once tasked with enforcing the law, your grasp of how the law works leaves much to be desired. There's also a disturbing recent trend toward proposing wagers that are heavily tilted against you. Statutes accounting for theft of government property are based on the legal principle of pecuniary gain. If legal scholars in the past have not considered it a crime to use a government issued pen and paper or computer to write personal notes, today's government is not free to reject that precedent.

    https://definitions.uslegal.com/p/pecuniary-gain/

  181. [181] 
    Kick wrote:

    Michale
    165

    A question totally unrelated to politics..

    Doesn't exist. ;)

    Has anyone been having problems lately where FLASH just ups and quits???

    I haven't.

    I have had a problem both at work and at home where FLASH will quit and lock up the system for as long as 60 seconds..

    Really annoying when yer trying to type a comment...

    Anyone else having any issues??

    Not enough information to diagnose your problem, but try this:

    https://www.howtogeek.com/103292/how-to-fix-shockwave-flash-crashes-in-google-chrome/

  182. [182] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    Grrr filters swallowed my post. I think because it had a link from an online legal dictionary. Nnl doesn't like that site. Anyhow, when i write personal notes about a meeting with my principal on my classroom computer i am not stealing. If i take the computer home and keep it i am stealing. The difference is the value.

  183. [183] 
    Kick wrote:

    Michale
    169

    Yea.. Balthasar made the same claim..

    I posted her exact words in bold. You need your nose rubbed in it?

    Until either of you have a cite for me, it's bullshit...

    It's not bullshit. I posted her quote above [138]. ^^^^^
    You need to be spoon-fed?

    http://content.jwplatform.com/previews/cUznEtWu-vGBh7FrZ

  184. [184] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    @kick,
    Also of legal consequence is that the creation of comey's private notes did not extract any pecuniary gain from the government. Hence the criminal statute cannot apply.

  185. [185] 
    Kick wrote:

    JL
    183

    Also of legal consequence is that the creation of comey's private notes did not extract any pecuniary gain from the government. Hence the criminal statute cannot apply.

    I know, right? It's notes on paper! :)

  186. [186] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Y'know, we can't really take Michale too much to task for his nonsense. After all, the entire right wing is rallying to the lie that somehow Comey's testimony 'vindicated' the president, including the obstructer-in-chief himself.

    Their premise, as laid out on the Fox News website, is based on cherry-picking out of context quotes from the hearing, and even an out-of-context quote from Chris Matthews, made during Comey's live testimony, in which he said that a portion of the testimony seemed to 'blow the collusion argument out of the water'.

    Matthews later walked that back, noting that there was other evidence that suggests collusion, including multiple confirmed contacts between Trump transition team members and the Russians during and after the campaign that remain both unexplained and problematic.

    Is Fox News actually interested in Matthews' opinion, or did they just see an opportunity to bolster their argument with a video clip? I'm guessing the latter.

    We shouldn't let ourselves get distracted by the Right's descent into granular arguments about Comey's behavior. It's Trump's behavior that's on trial here, and Comey's testimony, taken as a whole, portrays the president as a wanna-be mob boss, wishing to swipe away serious questions about his team's behavior with a swipe of his perfectly manicured hand, and the drop of a not-so-veiled threat.

    After explaining away Trump's abnormal and abhorrent behavior for nearly two years now, one would think that even the Faux News machine would tire of having to come up with ever more elaborate reasons to dismiss it.

    There is evidence that some ARE tiring of it. All that Speaker Ryan could come up with was the suggestion that Trump is simply ignorant.

    The best news is that there appears to be a growing 'Trump effect' in both international and national elections, leading to better-than-expected turnouts for Democrats in predominantly Red States, and outright rejection of Right wing politicians in both France and Britain.

    Whether or not investigations of Trump yield enough to convict him of anything, the fact is that the forces that propelled him to power are being exposed, and voters are reacting appropriately. That's the Real News.

  187. [187] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    nypoet22 [121] -

    Yeah, I suppose you can argue background, too. But to me, the head of a cop agency is, both de facto and de jure, a cop.

    Maybe I'm just backing up my own tabloid headline...

    http://www.chrisweigant.com/2017/05/12/ftp436/

    :-)

    -CW

  188. [188] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    michale [141] -

    Nope, wrong again.

    Male GOP sen. badgers witness --> nothing happens
    Male Dem sen. badgers witness --> nothing happens
    Female Dem sen. badgers witness --> admonishment

    Check the "-D" after Ron Wyden's name, for proof.

    -CW

  189. [189] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    Kick [149] -

    Well, michale might not thank you, but I will. Thanks for digging all this up, I hadn't really ever heard that story before (both the spin and the actual fact). So, thanks!

    :-)

    -CW

  190. [190] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    michale [152] -

    OK, you asked for it, so here you go:

    https://www.amazon.com/Yuge-30-Years-Doonesbury-Trump/dp/1449481337

    Yuge! Dems mostly just laughed at Trump, because nobody took him seriously. But here's a political left cartoonist, mocking him for a solid 30+ years.

    There you go!

    :-)

    -CW

  191. [191] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    P.S. - It's a freakin' hilarious book, and I highly recommend it to any fan of Doonesbury!

    -CW

  192. [192] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    michale [153] -

    Ecstatic, huh? Well, happy to have made you happy...

    We do aim to please!

    -CW

  193. [193] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    One more point, look into when he ran the full-page ad against the Central Park group, too. Bet you can find plenty of Dems who disagreed with him back then, too...

    -CW

  194. [194] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    Kick [174] -

    Excellent points, all. Especially the Benghazi one. Michale wasn't saying "let's just wait for the facts" back then, was he?

    Heh.

    -CW

  195. [195] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    Whoops, that should have been [164], sorry...

    -CW

  196. [196] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    Michale [164] -

    My site shouldn't be using Flash at all. Hmmm... let me take a look at this...

    -CW

  197. [197] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    nypoet [172] -

    Especially since the "value" argument can't even really be used. Comey did not give his friend the originals. He gave him copies -- this came out in his testimony. The originals were turned over to Mueller.

    So, even if they did have "value," they were handed back over to the government. Value has not been lost, in other words.

    -CW

  198. [198] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    OK, Dammit, gotta pay closer attention. That should have been [170]...

    Sorry, kinda bleary-eyed today...

    -CW

  199. [199] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    nypoet22 [174] -

    I always keep in mind: the National Enquirer broke the John Edwards love-child story. But I didn't fully buy it until other news organizatins verified it.

    -CW

  200. [200] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    nypoet [181] -

    OK, I'll check the filter and free it, but that'll change the numbering of all subsequent comments, adding to my mixup-the-numbers misery...

    :-)

    -CW

  201. [201] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    OK, freed a few comments, and (thanks, michale) fixed the problem that would flag any comment with the word "accounting" in it.

    Sorry 'bout that...

    -CW

  202. [202] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    nypoet22 -

    Comment restored as [180]

    http://www.chrisweigant.com/2017/06/09/ftp440/#comment-102469

    Apologies...

    -CW

  203. [203] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    The Director of the FBI is the TOP COP in the nation, no "if's, and's', or but's" about it! He may have a law degree, but he is law enforcement FIRST, and anything else comes after.

  204. [204] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Michale,

    During his meeting with Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov and Ambassador Sergey Kislyak last week, President Trump told the men that fired FBI Director James Comey was a “nut job,” and that his removal would relieve pressure on his administration over its ties to Russia. The NY Times reported this and the White House did not deny it.

    So how was Comey "a nut job"?

    “I hardly know the man," Trump said of Comey during a Rose Garden news conference with Romanian President Klaus Iohannis. "I’m not going to say 'I want you to pledge allegiance.'”

    Of Comey's Senate Intelligence Committee testimony that Trump asked him to drop the Flynn investigation. the president said, “I didn't say that.”

    He added, “And there’d be nothing wrong if I did say it, according to everybody that I've read today.”

    So he didn't know him well enough to ask for his loyalty, but did know him well enough to call him a "nut job"?

    And how, exactly, would firing Comey relieve the pressure of the Russian investigation for Trump?

  205. [205] 
    altohone wrote:

    Balthy
    132

    If you want to believe a 70% increase in Canada's defense budget, including an additional $7,000,000,000 this year, is trivial, I'd have to disagree.

    If it had been an issue on which Trudeau had campaigned, and what Canadians who voted for him were expecting, you might have an argument.

    A

  206. [206] 
    altohone wrote:

    Liz
    136

    Let me get this straight...

    A link to an article about the Liberal government in Canada proposing an increase of 70% in the military budget is "non-serious"?

    Few topics are more serious, and dismissing it is about as non-serious as you can get.

    A

  207. [207] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    [205] C'mon Al, $7B doesn't even pay for the Pentagon's office supplies.

    Canada has the fifth largest land mass of any country in the world, yet the its military ranks 20th, as I said, below Thailand's.

    Besides, I'm betting that most of that money goes into cyberwarfare defense, anti-terror, NATO commitments, and upgrades of existing equipment.

    As for Trudeau's promises, I'm sure somewhere in there was a promise to keep his country safe.

    And Trump can't be trusted to do it.
    Is he worse than Hillary yet?

  208. [208] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    P.S. Re:[206] If you want to link to a 'serious' article, try one that doesn't use the word 'imperialist' quite as often. It's off-putting. ;)

  209. [209] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Al[206],

    That was one of the most asinine comments I've come across and, I've seen a few!

    Quite obviously, you are not yet ready for a serious discussion on the meaning of Canadian foreign policy objectives or on the future course of Canada's military.

    You should know, however, that these are the sorts of dynamics at play on the world stage when the US abdicates its role as leader of the free world.

    Can Canada play the global leadership role that has fallen to the US since the end of WWII? Not too terribly likely but, that doesn't mean we won't give it our best shot and make significant impacts in a number of crucial policy areas.

  210. [210] 
    altohone wrote:

    Kick
    delayed response to comment 60 from Islamic State Nearing An End

    If you can stomach a Dem being called out for lying repeatedly, the link is worth watching.

    Trump is escalating the war in Syria into direct regime change which would put our enemies in charge, is supporting the isolation of Qatar where the largest US base in the Middle East is located based on blatant hypocrisy from terror supporting Saudis, is trying to initiate a war with Iran, is serving the interests destroying our planet, is alienating our allies, and his hacks are changing countless government policies including trying to eliminate net neutrality, common sense regulations, etc. etc.
    I am disturbed that you argue it's ONLY executive orders and that the slow pace of government means that Dems ignoring all that and wasting time and effort on unsubstantiated claims is worthwhile.

    You want me to think of it as a fact that we are in an ongoing war with Russia, and that the leaks of DNC and Podesta emails are proof of it even though thus far there is exactly zero proof of Russian involvement?
    Are all the elections we meddle in abroad acts of war? And I'm not talking about our regime change wars and coups.
    Is risking an earth ending nuclear conflagration in the hopes of achieving some partisan political gain a wise course to take?

    Did you read the responses to the Seth MacFarlane tweet?
    I think it's time for Dems (and establishment leaning indies) to face reality.
    Did you see the list in the second paragraph?
    Is there anything in her history to suggest that Hillary wouldn't be doing the same things except maybe the attack on net neutrality?

    A

  211. [211] 
    altohone wrote:

    Balthy
    207, 208

    A comparison with the "conservative" government that preceded Trudeau would be far more valid.
    The Liberal government being more militaristic and misallocating billions of dollars needed elsewhere does not equate with keeping the country safe.
    We've spent trillions on that approach, and created more terrorists and less safety.

    Can't say I disagree too much about imperialism not really applying to Canada (unlike the US)... though they have been aiding our efforts without reservations.

    A

  212. [212] 
    altohone wrote:

    Liz
    209

    Back at ya.
    I don't know what I was thinking expecting you to treat warmongering and a massive increase in military spending by your government as a serious topic for discussion.
    I should know better by now that you consider it childish (comment 64 from Islamic State Nearing An End).

    A

  213. [213] 
    altohone wrote:

    neil
    delayed response to various comments

    Nice prediction on the hung parliament.
    Your response to the trumpling was brilliant.

    I'm not sure why you didn't understand the article by socialists calling Bernie and Corbyn part of the pseudoleft.
    Like I said... it was for laughs... even though they are serious.

    Theresa May blew it big time.
    42 to 40% was an astounding result... the best showing for Labour in 20 years.
    It looks like Corbyn will now get some time to consolidate his power within Labour before the next election... Osborne called May a "dead woman walking" today, so it may not be very much time.
    A few of the Blairites are already groveling and admitting their error, but I'd bet that most of them will keep fighting him.

    May announcing a deal with the DUP after having just condemned the UK for tolerating extremists was pretty sad hypocrisy... and doing so before the deal is even finalized was another major blunder.

    Anyway.
    You've mentioned who you're against.
    Is there anyone you are for with a shot?

    A

  214. [214] 
    Kick wrote:

    A01
    210

    If you can stomach a Dem being called out for lying repeatedly, the link is worth watching.

    Oh, woe is me; I will have my smelling salts at the ready. Seriously?

    Trump is escalating the war in Syria into direct regime change which would put our enemies in charge, is supporting the isolation of Qatar where the largest US base in the Middle East is located based on blatant hypocrisy from terror supporting Saudis, is trying to initiate a war with Iran, is serving the interests destroying our planet, is alienating our allies, and his hacks are changing countless government policies including trying to eliminate net neutrality, common sense regulations, etc. etc.

    Hmmmm. Quite a lot to juggle.

    I am disturbed that you argue it's ONLY executive orders and that the slow pace of government means that Dems ignoring all that and wasting time and effort on unsubstantiated claims is worthwhile.

    I am disturbed that you've twisted my words beyond their meaning; try reading that again. I simply said that the signing of EOs is largely symbolic and nonbinding and that government moves slowly making it somewhat easier to juggle as necessary. Nowhere do I state that "it's ONLY executive orders" or even hint that anyone is wasting time on anything. Perhaps you're projecting.

    You want me to think of it as a fact that we are in an ongoing war with Russia, and that the leaks of DNC and Podesta emails are proof of it even though thus far there is exactly zero proof of Russian involvement?

    Actually, the words "the leaks of DNC and Podesta emails" appear nowhere in my post and are discussed in no way whatsoever. The far lefties and righties seem to be in agreement that "there's nothing to see here;" yet another trait they share: When it fits the narrative or worldview, no evidence is required, but when it doesn't, no amount of proof is sufficient. If only the fringes could agree on foreign policy and a few social issues, they might close that gap in the horseshoe and go full circle.

    Are all the elections we meddle in abroad acts of war? And I'm not talking about our regime change wars and coups.

    I'm not interested in a "reap what you sow" debate. I'm not a gardener, and I'll not be a whipping boy.

    Is risking an earth ending nuclear conflagration in the hopes of achieving some partisan political gain a wise course to take?

    You tell me, partisan. Does wishing it away disarm a single nuclear warhead?

    I think it's time for Dems (and establishment leaning indies) to face reality.
    Did you see the list in the second paragraph?
    Is there anything in her history to suggest that Hillary wouldn't be doing the same things except maybe the attack on net neutrality?

    Oh, sorry mate; it was meant to be a comedic break and not a call to arms about 2016. How does one qualify to preach facing "reality" when they seem quite content to stay moored in the past while discussing "what ifs"?

  215. [215] 
    altohone wrote:

    Hey neil

    If you happened to miss it, Oliver did a great election/Brexit bit.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/john-oliver-lord-buckethead_us_593e3ac2e4b02402687ab6f4?ncid=inblnkushpmg00000009

    Sorry about the HuffPo link for it... the direct YouTube link proved elusive.

    And, just for the record, I don't believe he trademarked it, but there was an American guitarist who went by the name of Buckethead for years... though he wore a KFC bucket, and Lord Buckethead has the complete costume and mentality... even if lacking the face melting riffs.

    A

  216. [216] 
    TheStig wrote:

    Maryland and Washington D.C. are planning to sue Trump on the basis of anti-corruption clauses in the Constitution.

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/dc-politics/dc-and-maryland-to-sue-president-trump-alleging-breach-of-constitutional-oath/2017/06/11/0059e1f0-4f19-11e7-91eb-9611861a988f_story.html?utm_term=.aae8050a44f4

    I think this could be huge. Trump's White House is already running, at best, on 2 or 3 of 4 cylinders. There isn't going to be enough room in the WH corridors for all the lawyers and legal retainers needed to fight the legal battles.

    I suspect the prospect of a 25th Amendment:Resignation scenario is starting to look at least a little attractive to many members of both aisles of Congress. See latest outburst from Old Man McCain (Obama better than Trump). President Pence may appear more attractive than no functional executive at all.

    The end result could set a precedent of no confidence transitions in US presidential politics! The US Constitution seems to fully support this option - if Congress decides it wants to take on the added responsibility going forward. What next - bowler hats? :)

    Don't think Becket...think Henry VI*...try not not to think War of the Roses.

    Admittedly a long shot, but looking less long than a few weeks back.

    * the historical Henry, not the Shakespeare version.

  217. [217] 
    altohone wrote:

    Kick
    214

    And loosen the corset :)

    EO's is all you mentioned... as if the far worse can be ignored... the way the Dems are doing because their billionaire donors support the warmongering and deregulation agenda btw.

    "When it fits the narrative or worldview, no evidence is required, but when it doesn't, no amount of proof is sufficient."

    The former is the exact charge against the Dems.
    The latter merely stresses the fact that no evidence has been presented yet. NONE.
    Talk about projection.
    As for the "far lefties" bit, can we please remain within the realm of reality. This tactic to dismiss everybody on the left who doesn't buy into the Clintonite blame shifting narrative that coincidentally serves their ongoing and undeserved dominance of the Democratic party and the warmongerers too is getting old.
    There are plenty in the near left who feel as I do.

    And the DNC and Podesta leaks are at the heart of the charges by the Clintonites and their election meddling narrative. Forgive me for stating the obvious when discussing the issue.

    "I'm not interested in a "reap what you sow" debate."

    It's not about gardening, though I do have two green thumbs... it's about hypocrisy and the accuracy of the claims.

    "You tell me, partisan. Does wishing it away disarm a single nuclear warhead?"

    Like you, I am an independent. But The Bulletin Of Atomic Scientists of the Doomsday Clock fame(y'know... those far lefties who dwell on the issue) specifically mention the actions of the Dems in addition to Trump's blather on China and North Korea and climate change denial.
    From Wikipedia-
    "In January 2017, the clock was set at 2 ½ minutes to midnight, meaning that the clock’s status today is the second closest to midnight since the clock’s start in 1947. When discussing the changes, Krauss, one of the scientists from the Bulletin, warned that our political leaders must make decisions based on facts, and those facts "must be taken into account if the future of humanity is to be preserved."[15] There have been many signs throughout recent years that all point towards our inching closer to Doomsday".

    I would stress the "leaders must make decisions based on facts" part.
    Blaming Russia for the election loss without any facts, and intentionally not engaging on the real reasons behind the loss in order to maintain the status quo is the issue.
    I am not wishing away the threat... I am wishing away the fear mongering by the Dems that is increasing the threat and actively preventing reasoned discussions with Russia to actually disarm more warheads... not to mention making the wasteful trillion dollar nuclear weapon "modernization" plan approved by Obama unnecessary. Silly me for such concerns eh?

    "Oh, sorry mate; it was meant to be a comedic break and not a call to arms about 2016. How does one qualify to preach facing "reality" when they seem quite content to stay moored in the past..."

    His tweet and my response were clearly about the 2020 election, so your "moored in the past" bit is missing the point entirely.
    Did you read the responses to his tweet?
    The few establishment Dems defending MacFarlane were the ones dwelling in the past.
    But the vast majority were criticizing him for his rehash of the "Better than Trump" approach that failed for Hillary so miserably.
    That is the reality I was referring to, and it remains relevant.

    But going back, ask yourself, what if all the Dem candidates in 2018 or even worse 2020 are STILL harping about Russia at the expense of other issues, and Mueller comes out with a report that finds no evidence to support the Russia election meddling claims?
    It very well could become directly responsible for Trump's reelection.

    With all the assertions being made, and all the leaks we've seen, aren't you the slightest bit disturbed that no actual evidence has been revealed, and disturbed about the potential consequences if none ever is?

    A

  218. [218] 
    altohone wrote:

    TS
    216

    Thanks.
    That's what I'm talking about.
    There is plenty of actual evidence to support those charges.

    But I wouldn't get my hopes up, since corporatist Dems are susceptible too and are therefore not too eager to go down that path... and pretty much all the judges in our country were chosen by the oligarch catering establishment duopoly.

    But at least it's a step in the right direction towards justice... and there are some judges willing to do the right thing.

    A

  219. [219] 
    altohone wrote:

    Kick
    214 again

    Speaking of EO's... this is worth a read and backs up your statement completely.

    https://theintercept.com/2017/06/12/trump-assigned-himself-an-awful-lot-of-homework-that-isnt-getting-done/

    I'm not sure it is a good strategy to pressure the Trump admin to actually get more done though... but pressuring them on the secrecy is certainly worthwhile.

    A

  220. [220] 
    TheStig wrote:

    A-216 (or there about, :) rankings are subject to change)

    As I noted, my scenario is unlikely, but consider that the corporatist Congress may be all too happy to get rid of this Incompetent Exec. The Exec function is stalled. Expensive Congress folk can't do the job they were bought to do. Reach for the plunger. The 25th is a vehicle for a bloodless coup. The Reps cabal with the Dems, enough Dems buy in, Pence buys in, a threat is issued, Trump resigns 'cause the threat contains signatures. Trump can count. President non elect Pence better watch his ass (uuuuuhhhhhgggh, sorry banish that image). A precedent is set. A form of "vote of confidence" emerges out of the 25th Amendment.

    The US Constitution has been gamed by lawers for two centuries, and I don't think it's fully gamed out yet. No matter how cynical I get, I can't keep up.

  221. [221] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Al [217] no actual evidence has been revealed

    Sorry, but there's plenty of evidence that the Russians did alot of meddling during the election (and, experts say, still continue).

    Let's start with the fact that hackers with the same signature software attempted to do the same to Macron during the French election. The Russians have been almost brazen in their meddling lately, Putin even speculating that it was done by 'patriots'.

    But go back, back to when all of our intelligence agencies (or as alt-righties call them, the Deep State) put out a joint statement to the press that stated 'with a high degree of certainty' that Russia was behind hacks and involved in other activities only now being revealed (thank you, Reality Winner).

    Or look at the dozens of confirmed contacts that members of the transition team had with high ranking Russians. Do you know how many contacts, by comparison, the Obama team had with the Russians in 2008? One, according to his former campaign manager, and that was accidental.

    Why, this coming Tuesday, the AG, Sessions, will be asked about more contacts with Russians that he'd failed to report during his confirmation. He'll have a hard time: Senators don't like to be played, particularly by a former Senator. While I don't expect J. Beauregard to say, "That crazy Yankee made me do it!", his testimony could lead to another clue to the reasons for all of this Russophilia in Trump Tower.

  222. [222] 
    TheStig wrote:

    Balthasar 221

    Not only is there plenty evidence, there are decades of precedent. Meddling in Western elections is Soviet>Russian Standard Operating Procedure. It's easier than ever due to the nature of modern electronic media which is fast changing, niche oriented and highly interconnected.

  223. [223] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Why do some Americans refuse to believe what the Russians are up to, in America and throughout the West?

  224. [224] 
    altohone wrote:

    Balthy
    221

    Uh, the news reports from a few days ago were that French intelligence found NO link to Russia for the hack/leak on Macron.

    The Reality Winner leak was an evidence free summary of assertions... just like the report from the intelligence agencies in December.
    Assertions, not evidence.

    Likewise, respected experts who reviewed the claims by the company hired by the DNC found their claims to not be supported by the evidence presented.
    Any decent hacker with half an hour can make something look like it came from Russia at the level those claims were based upon (the "evidence" released publicly), and the FBI was never given access to the DNC servers to do a proper, unbiased investigation.
    And good, experienced Russian government hackers would never have left the "evidence" that was touted.

    The contacts with Russia may or may not be about the election.
    I happen to agree with neil that it looks more like financial conflicts of interest.

    That said, I do still hope actual evidence is revealed.
    But until it is, this is all a very dangerous, and perhaps politically damaging game with people like you going on faith in people who lie for a living... and all at the expense of verifiable issues that Dems should be focusing on.

    A

  225. [225] 
    altohone wrote:

    Liz
    223

    Why do some Canadians refuse to discuss anything about the policies of the Canadian Liberal party acting like Trump in their approach to militarism, wages and fossil fuels?

    A

  226. [226] 
    altohone wrote:

    Balthy and anyone interested in imperialism by the US regarding the declaration of martial law in part of the Philippines

    http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2017/06/12/phil-j12.html

    Looks like Duterte got trumped.

    A

  227. [227] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    [223] Why do some Americans refuse to believe what the Russians are up to, in America and throughout the West?

    That's a really good question, Liz.

    I think that you could mitigate some of it by acknowledging that much of it is just manufactured BS. Literally. The Russians have reportedly invested billions of rubles into influencing public opinion (worldwide!), and they didn't stop on election day.

    And Fox News seems to be following Trump off the same cliff. That's tribalism for profit.

    But I really don't understand the left's buy-in. Putin's the worst thing to happen to human rights in Russia since the guy with the map of the Korean peninsula on his forehead was in power.

    And Putin's authoritarian oligarchical kleptocracy should be giving leftists nightmares. It is literally all of their worst fears incarnate.

    Maybe just being contrary, even to reason, is all the rage today, like the way everyone once thought '70's hair was cool. God, I hope we grow out of it.

  228. [228] 
    Kick wrote:

    Nomination for a Special Award:
    You Can't Make This Stuff Up... or Can You!?

    Mike Quigley (D-Ill.) introduced legislation today to classify presidential social media posts as presidential records.

    Communications
    Over
    Various
    Feeds
    Electronically
    For
    Engagement

    The COVFEFE Act would amend the Presidential Records Act to include "social media." Who said it didn't matter what the president tweeted?

    *LOL* :)

  229. [229] 
    altohone wrote:

    Hey gang... Balthy, Liz, Kick in particular

    Just as an FYI... or an appeal and explanation.

    The lead story at the NYT on the day I cancelled my subscription was titled "Reporting for Duty" with a picture of Kerry at the Democratic Convention.
    They lost me as a paying customer a long time ago due to their neoliberal crap angle on issues I care about deeply... foreign policy and economics... though I do still read their stuff regularly.

    I know socialist wsws.org has a slanted far left approach. I'm not blind or in denial about it.

    That said, the facts and quotes in their journalism have always been verifiably accurate even though the presentation and opinion pieces are well outside the mainstream... but I still consider their stories informative and will keep using them as a source.

    My regular news outlets are the BBC, HuffPo, The Intercept and The Real News Network... and they often provide leads to stories or I check out for confirmation Reuters, AP, the NYT and Washington Post... Al Jazeera, Deutsche Welle, Haaretz, etc.

    The paywall at the NYT limits me to 10 free articles per month, and a single search for material can use that up in an hour.

    But none of those outlets have been reporting on the stories I've been linking to from wsws.org as far as I have discovered with my limited access.
    None of them.
    If they were reporting the stories, I'd be using them as a source too/instead.

    So, if anybody is willing and able to provide links to these stories from less slanted or differently slanted sources, I would welcome it... hint hint Liz for Canadian outlets for example.

    In the Soviet Union, people learned to read the state news by noting what wasn't being said.
    Chomsky has noted that what isn't reported by the corporate media here are often the more important stories... and you may notice the pattern of the types of stories I've only been seeing at wsws.org.
    Not necessarily ones that the establishment wants people to know about.
    But if they do cover the stories, and you have the time, please do share. Not only may they cover different angles of the stories, but the differences are often interesting to note.

    Thanks
    A

  230. [230] 
    altohone wrote:

    Balthy, Liz
    227, 223 again

    Why do Americans trust the journalism (print, TV, Cable, internet) that is owned by five corporations who do not have their interests at heart?

    How many times do they need to be wrong (economics, elections, WMD's, whatever) before you begin to doubt their integrity?

    Americans across the ideological spectrum have lost trust in the corporate media for good reason.
    The polls aren't all wrong.

    A

  231. [231] 
    altohone wrote:

    Balthy

    Speaking of Macron

    http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2017/06/12/legi-j12.html

    The first time since WWII that a majority of voters abstained from voting.

    A

  232. [232] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    @kick,

    notwithstanding the cutesy name, that sounds like an excellent idea. presidential communications should be preserved as public records, regardless of the medium.

    JL

  233. [233] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Balthasar,

    I think some people (most people in North America?) are just to damned cynical for their own good. Couple that with the fact that too many of these people don't have the necessary critical thinking skills that would allow them to weed out a lot of the nonsense so they can try to make sense or not of the rest.

  234. [234] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Al,

    I'm going to try to answer several of your queries in this one comment and hope against hope that I am able to make myself clear ...

    First off, I have actually had several delightful conversations recently about the nature of the Trudeau administration, particularly with respect to Canada's evolving foreign policy and new defense department initiatives in the Trump era. I haven't felt inclined to engage with you on these issues for a variety of reasons (overly sarcastic and/or condescending tone of your comments and questions, a tendency on your part toward wholly misguided assumptions based mostly on a total misread of my comments and, last but by no means less important, some really crazy links - just because a news site covers stories that the mainstream media neglects does not necessarily make that story relevant or credible.

    Secondly, I have developed, over the many years, a healthy sense of skepticism when consuming news, even from sources I generally view as very reliable. In addition to a wide range of journalists and columnists from a variety of outlets (print and broadcast and online) I also tend to rely heavily on a select number of analysts who have a proven track record for trustworthiness even if I may not completely agree with their analyses all the time.

    Additionally, I always seek to fully understand a subject through research and using my most reliable sources. A healthy dose of common sense along with the ability to think critically are both indispensable when discerning fact from fiction, reality from fantasy and fake from real news. It strikes me that people who have lost trust in the corporate media have only themselves to blame for not being able to cut through the noise and find the reliable information they need in order to make sound judgments and informed decisions on the issues. In other words, consumers of the news can be just as lazy as the news providers.

    Now, a word about links. In comment sections, I can live without them. I'm not here to engage in the tedious exercise of dueling links. I'm here to have an informed civil discussion about the issues I find of interest in a search for answers and better options. Links usually end up getting in the way of that and, in some cases, can lead to some very strange places that I'd rather not visit.

  235. [235] 
    Kick wrote:

    A01
    229

    The lead story at the NYT on the day I cancelled my subscription was titled "Reporting for Duty" with a picture of Kerry at the Democratic Convention.

    July 30, 2004

    THE DEMOCRATS; THE CONVENTION IN BOSTON: THE OVERVIEW; KERRY ACCEPTS NOMINATION, TELLING PARTY THAT HE'LL 'RESTORE TRUST AND CREDIBILITY'

    http://www.nytimes.com/2004/07/30/us/democrats-convention-boston-overview-kerry-accepts-nomination-telling-party-that.html

    Ah, yes, I remember it well
    That brilliant sky
    We had some rain
    Those Russian songs
    From sunny Spain
    You wore a gown of gold
    I was all in blue
    Am I getting old?
    Oh, no, not you
    How strong you were
    How young and gay
    A prince of love
    In every way
    Ah, yes, I remember it well
    ~ Lerner & Loewe, Gigi

    :p

  236. [236] 
    TheStig wrote:

    Liz-223

    Give the Russians their due. Russian propaganda is much more sophisticated than during the Cold War. They imitate the style of American cable news flawlessly and hire American talent to present it. Aggregators are always looking for something to fill up screens. The internet, with almost no goal keepers, is super easy infiltrate.

    In addition, the American Right is much less knee jerk about Russian totalitarianism than it was about Communist totalitarianism. That removes a lot of automatic shouting.

    Finally, broadcast TV and mass circulation magazines and their audiences were much more centrist than today's niche market electronic news and niche news consumers. Old US media maintained a default centrist Cold War public perception that Russia=bad. The slow death of broadcast news and newspapers consequently removes a lot of default US public rejection of Russian propaganda/news.

    I think that's mostly it....although Americans may just be a bit dumber than they used to be.

Comments for this article are closed.