Sorry about that. I misread the tone of what you were saying.

No apology necessary; I could easily discern that you misunderstood. The fact is, I call Donald Trump "Benedict Donald" all the time and have been doing so on this website since my first post in mid May 2016.

http://www.chrisweigant.com/2016/05/13/ftp391/#comment-75291

It's by no means whatsoever an accident that I refer to Donald Trump in such a manner and ain't about to stop doing it now. ;)

BC's use of the term ad hominem was a description of kick's criticism of donald trump's words. ad hominem in this context meant that kick claimed the words were weasely because donald said them, which is fallacious reasoning - nothing to do with what anyone said about anyone else here in the comments section. perhaps this is just me being thickheaded, but i don't really understand why it read as hypersensitive to you.

JL

I just think she needs to learn how to take constructive criticism (which she claims she takes as a personal attack) and not call it an ad hominem attack.

Here's a piece of free advice for you ... avoid making unsubstantiated assumptions.

This blog may be the wrong one for you.

Consider my names for 'Benedict Donald' as the equivalent of Michale referring to Barack Obama as 'Odumbo.' Merely an opinion based on facts both public and some that have yet to be released."

Sorry about that. I misread the tone of what you were saying.
B

Elizabeth Miller said:
"With all due respect?? Why is it that commenters who use that phrase have no intention of being respectful?

'This appears to be an ad hominem' ... Seriously? Please don't tell me that we have another hypersensitive girl on this blog!"

Let me ask you a question. Is pointing out when you think someone made a logical error necessarily being disrespectful? My major area of interest is philosophy, and I tend to draw a distinction between insults/ personal attacks and arguing that someone has made an error in reason. One is directed at the person. The other is directed at the person's argument. "With all due respect" is a tired cliche, but in this case I was using it to try to communicate that I am not attacking Kick personally, merely that I thought the formulation of his argument was flawed. People in general(here I absolutely include myself) tend to take criticism of their arguments as a personal attack. And when people feel they are being personally attacked, they tend to shut down the reasoning part of the mind and become defensive. It means they won't analyze the critic's argument on it's logical and empirical merits(or lack thereof). Through my use of a cliche, I was simply trying to avoid this happening.

Collins tweets she is a NO!

And down goes the "tax cut" bill disguised as health care (at least for now). :)

You haven't been here long enough to allow such an assessment.

Spew alert! *wipes off screen* *LOL* :)

Bonus points to JL for the case law. +++

Michale, you lose on this... get over it. :)

And yet, you cannot reconcile your OPINION with the three accepted FACTS...

I've kicked down your "accepted" BS multiple times while you ignored it and kept spewing the utter nonsense.

http://www.chrisweigant.com/2017/05/10/will-youre-fired-be-trumps-undoing/#comment-99677

**********
And yet, he is a highly successful businessman..

So was Al Capone. Oh, come on... that's not a "fact"... that's an opinion that depends on one's definition of "highly successful businessman." Most people who've paid millions to the government for breaking the law and landed in court as many times as Trump for violations of federal law and paid millions of dollars to people in restitution for breaking their contracts or taking their money in fraudulent scams aren't considered "highly successful businessmen;" they are what the majority refers to as "cons."

He beat 19 highly qualified, highly experienced and well-funded GOP candidates.

You keep typing this over and over as if it's a "fact." It's not a fact for many reasons:
* First off, you keep typing "19" over and over. Trump didn't beat 19 GOP candidates. Check your math; it's wrong.
* Second, someone should tell Scott Walker he was well-funded. He dropped out early because he actually wasn't. There are other candidates who weren't remotely well-funded, but you already know that.
* "Well-qualified"... ROTFLMAO. Another opinion. Besides, beating "well-qualified" candidates when you're an unqualified ignorant con artist just means you knew what Party contained a plethora of "easy to snow" flakes.

Typing that utter nonsense over and over doesn't magically make it become a "fact."

And he totally DEVASTATED the biggest, meanest and most well-funded political juggernaut in the history of the planet...

The biggest, meanest, and most-well funded political juggernaut in the history of the planet is in Russia and run by one Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin... who didn't exactly run against Trump.

**********

No.. Just a typical Democrat.. :D

(1) The question wasn't to YOU.
(2) Every time you continue to type that out, it's another LIE. I'm NOT a Democrat. Let that sink in and stop lying about posters. You want to be taken seriously or keep lying repeatedly about others? You choose.

And they ruled 9-0 to remove the stay except under very narrow circumstances as defined by the Trump administration...

It's a win no matter how you want to spin it.. :D

So, in other words, he wanted to do the "right" thing, but didn't have the balls to accept the consequences...

Like I said.. A cowardly act...

And an illegal one, despite your opinion to the contrary...

And you were WRONG...

The SCOTUS DID rule on it.. :D

They ruled on whether or not to allow the stay. They didn't rule on the case. That ain't spin, pookie; that's a FACT. Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Anthony Kennedy both joined the majority opinion that agreed to keep parts of the ban on hold until oral arguments this fall. The fact that neither Roberts nor Kennedy agreed with the United States dissenters to put the full Executive Order into effect is a huge clue for how they'd be likely to rule on the merits, a bad sign for the Trump administration with regards to certain citizens protected under the Constitution.

So no ruling on the case, just the stay. :)

The SCOTUS thread the needle. I suspect they'll decide in the fall that the 90 days is past and the issue on the merits of the plaintiffs' case is moot and make no further ruling.

You can spin it any way you want it, but it's clear that the Court DID rule that Trump's Travel Ban can go into effect except for a very narrow sliver of people that the GOVERNMENT gets to define..

A ruling on a stay in a case is NOT a ruling on the merits of a case. If they've agreed to hear oral arguments in the fall, then the case hasn't been ruled on, pookie. I'm sorry if it's over your head, but there is no ruling on the merits of the case.

I will concede I was wrong when and if the court makes a ruling on the case. :)

It's a win for President Trump's travel ban...

I would agree that there was something for everybody, both sides won regarding the stay with oral arguments to be heard on the merits of the case in the fall.

WRONG.. The administration updated the EO to take effect after the SCOTUS rules.. Hence, the 90 days hasn't even started yet...

The 72 hours? *LOL* Do the math, dearest; the 90 days will still and nevertheless be long since completed in October.

As for your and JL's bet, I'd call this one a push. :)

But, in reality, I won because the SCOTUS did re-instate the ban which affirms that the ban is constitutional and within the purview of the POTUS...

Nope. Only three justices did what you're claiming. The majority dissented against them including Chief Justice Roberts, Kennedy, and the 4 liberals (must I name them?)

So to recap: Trump got a partial lift of the stay on his second executive order that was "watered down," and "politically correct." Trump's words, NOT mine.

That's President Trump, in case ya forgot. :D

But that's probably because I like what she has to say.. :D

Indubitably. :)

as i (and CW and others) have proven many times over, the act was NOT illegal. and comey DID explain it, in his senate hearings. he said he wanted his version of events to get out, but didn't want reporters dogging him and his family. his exact words were:

“Because I was worried the media was camping at the end of my driveway at that point, and I was actually going out of town with my wife to hide, and I worried it would be like feeding seagulls at the beach..."

As I told JL... I realize your dodging and I am in too good a mood to care.. :D

there's nothing to dodge; you're tossing out stuff that's been thoroughly disproved many times over.

JL

Utter nonsense. :)

I respect your opinion..

I just disagree with it. :D

"This appears to be an ad hominem" ... Seriously? Please don't tell me that we have another hypersensitive girl on this blog!

I didn't read it that way...

To me, it sounded like the tone of a new person who doesn't want to come in here and start throwin' their shit around... :D

But that's probably because I like what she has to say.. :D

I could be talking out my ass here.

You haven't been here long enough to allow such an assessment.

Yep!

Sorry, kick.. That was prick-ish....

Well, looky there; it seems we do NOT disagree on everything. No problem, though. I gave you some right back... though not quite as prickly. :)

Very nice!

With all due respect, this appears to be an ad hominem.

With all due respect?? Why is it that commenters who use that phrase have no intention of being respectful?

"This appears to be an ad hominem" ... Seriously? Please don't tell me that we have another hypersensitive girl on this blog!

I am saying that Comey wasn't taking notes as a private citizen, he was taking notes as an employee of the President...

Well, there's part of your problem. The President is NOT an employer. The United States is Comey's employer, and he swears to uphold the Constitution. He like many if not all employees of the United States swear an oath to the country, NOT any person.

COMEY'S OATH: "I, James B. Comey, [Holder: do solemnly swear] do solemnly swear [Holder: that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States] that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States [Holder: against all enemies, foreign and domestic] against all enemies, foreign and domestic.

Comey: And I’m so excited to be working again with the people of the FBI and serving the American people.

It is when he could have posted those papers himself..

Utter nonsense. :)

And, if talking to the President Of The United States was considered a "break", you would have a point..

But it's not, so you don't..

Wow, Michale. You are confusing the dinner with the note taking. You think Comey took out a pad in between the steak with ketchup course and the 2 scoops of ice cream?
*LOL*

No one owns your free speech regarding anyone. Comey is allowed to take notes and disseminate whatever he desires as a private citizen that wasn't deemed classified or privileged. Donald Trump has claimed no privilege yet for any witnesses... not a single one.

Comey could exercise his free speech however he sees fit. He could write a book, testify, forward it to whatever press he wanted via whatever method he wanted... because he is a private citizen. Let that sink in, and get over it already.

I get it, Kick.. I really do... You just got yer wee wee whacked on the SCOTUS siding with President Trump 9-0 so your reaching for ANYTHING to save face...

Wow. You deserve this: You really are ignorant if you claim to know what I'm thinking and why.

I understand..

Wow. Claiming to understand what I'm thinking says more about you than it does about me. Dang.

But Comey himself knew he was doing something illegal which is why he didn't leak the documents himself...

Doubling down on the ridiculous and claiming to know what James Comey "knew" is equally telling. You must not mind at all appearing foolish and... oh, I will stop there. :)

I am ecstatic about the SCOTUS ruling so I don't really care about Comey right now.. :D

And yet, he did not leak those papers himself..

Ergo, he knew it was illegal...

That's the point you just can't explain...

that's simply not the case. nothing comey wrote in his memos was classified "confidential" (nor in any other way classified) - and since he is no longer in the employ of the government, any information he knows that is not classified is his prerogative to share with whomever he chooses. unless there's a compelling national security concern, the government doesn't have any right to control the thoughts or words of its former employees.

JL

it's in the text of the statute. were your eyes closed when you read it?

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/641

JL

I admire your perseverance... :D

And Nixon transcripts has exactly WHAT to do with Clinton only wanting to get himself off???

Sounds like yer describing the Clintons :D

I am determined to catch up here!

None of which really compares to a President getting a blow job in the oval office, as far as prestige is concerned..

You've admitted you weren't a "history buff" before so I'm going to chalk up this comment to that FACT you prove regularly. If the keeping of enemies' lists, wiretapping, espionage, burglaries, leaked national secrets, and conspiracy to commit murder against a journalist that went on in the Nixon administration are worse than two consenting adults, then clearly you are simply misinformed regarding history. :)

Reagan and to a lesser extent, Nixon at least did the wrong thing for the right reasons..

So you think there is a "right reason" for an administration to knowingly violate the laws of the United States regarding drug sales and conspiracy to commit murder of a journalist? You think obstruction of justice where Nixon instructs his chief of staff H.R. Haldeman to tell the FBI, "Don't go any further into this case, period" is okay with you?

Careful there, Mr. LEO, you're teetering on the edge of your moral foundation to preach about issues of law to the rest of Weigantia. :)

Clinton was ONLY interested in getting off...

You should crack a history book and learn something. If you have an aversion to reading, perhaps listening might more suit your tastes.

http://nixontapes.org/transcripts.html

:)

Also irrelevant..

Comey leaked confidential information..

THAT is factual..

No, it does not...

you know it's not illegal, but you're still repeating that opinion, which is not factually supported.

It is factually supported..

You just don't like the facts... :D

But Comey COULDN'T release them in that manner because he KNEW it was illegal to do so..

by your own reasoning, comey's request for his friend to give the press a secondhand description of a copy of his memos was not illegal. comey kept the original documents secure, and ceded them to the special counsel when they were requested. that's factual.

furthermore, as i've already explained to you, the statute requires anything removed to be "of value," in order for its removal to be illegal. comey's written words on a few pieces of paper, or on a digital screen, do not meet that standard under any existing case law.

you know it's not illegal, but you're still repeating that opinion, which is not factually supported.

JL

you seem to be acknowledging that comey's actions were not illegal,

When did I ever claim Comey's actions were not illegal??

They are clearly illegal per US Code Title 18

Has anyone that lost ever run again in the next election against the candidate they lost to?

Right off the top of my head: William Jennings Bryan lost to William McKinley in 1896 and 1900. Ross Perot lost to Bill Clinton in both 1992 and 1996 as an Independent candidate along with Ralph Nader... although one of those campaigns of Nader's was on the ballot while one was as a write-in candidate.

Don makes a very good point here, though. :)

Except for the fact that my "Odumbo" is contingent on ya'all's name-calling..

In other words, if ya'all wouldn't do none, there wouldn't be none...

Actually, that depends on what he actually says, in my opinion. His mental faculties in decline are ever present regardless, however. :)

And yet, you cannot reconcile your OPINION with the three accepted FACTS...

Do you take me for a scoundrel? *LOL* ;)

No.. Just a typical Democrat.. :D

With all due respect, this appears to be an ad hominem.

Really? *LOL* ;) I'm just kidding you.

Consider my names for "Benedict Donald" as the equivalent of Michale referring to Barack Obama as "Odumbo." Merely an opinion based on facts both public and some that have yet to be released.

Trump is a terrible person, therefore anything he says must therefore be weasel worded.

Actually, that depends on what he actually says, in my opinion. His mental faculties in decline are ever present regardless, however. :)

Since you consider him a "treason weasel", would you still consider it weasel wording no matter the actual content of what he said?

Do you take me for a scoundrel? *LOL* ;)

And you were WRONG...

The SCOTUS DID rule on it.. :D

The court hasn't ruled on it yet, and they didn't rule now.

You can spin it any way you want it, but it's clear that the Court DID rule that Trump's Travel Ban can go into effect except for a very narrow sliver of people that the GOVERNMENT gets to define..

It's a win for President Trump's travel ban...

I am guessing the SCOTUS will later decide there's no need to making a ruling on the issue because the 90 days has lapsed.

WRONG.. The administration updated the EO to take effect after the SCOTUS rules.. Hence, the 90 days hasn't even started yet...

As for your and JL's bet, I'd call this one a push. :)

As did I...

But, in reality, I won because the SCOTUS did re-instate the ban which affirms that the ban is constitutional and within the purview of the POTUS...

That's President Trump, in case ya forgot. :D

Sorry, sorry.. Prick-ish again. :D

you seem to be acknowledging that comey's actions were not illegal, while at the same time claiming that he was being sneaky by knowingly NOT doing something illegal. this argument doesn't make any sense.

JL

Not incorrect.. Incomplete...

Your statement that "Trump's ban is re-instated with the exception of the plaintiffs" is incorrect. As the decision is written, there are likely millions more exceptions than just the named plaintiffs. That is not spin; that is a fact.

Anyone who has a connection to the US is exempt from the Travel Ban...

So quite a bit more exceptions than "the plaintiffs."

You can spin it all you want, but you lost..

If you think the one-word response "incorrect" constitutes "spin" when your statement was indeed incorrect, that says more about you than it does about me. :)

ESPECIALLY when you said the court would not even take up the question...

Wrong, wrong, wrong. I said I thought the court would find a way to NOT rule on it. Review what I said here:

http://www.chrisweigant.com/2017/06/05/let-trump-be-trump-kellyanne/#comment-101970

The court hasn't ruled on it yet, and they didn't rule now. They simply allowed the 90-day stay to remain in place for those constitutionally protected while allowing the stay to be enforced for those not otherwise constitutionally protected. There's something for everyone in the partial lifting of the stay, but there's no ruling yet.

I am guessing the SCOTUS will later decide there's no need to making a ruling on the issue because the 90 days has lapsed. If they rule otherwise, I will then concede I was wrong.

This is a win because it affirms that the Travel Ban is constitutional and is within the purview of the POTUS...

Well, I would actually say it affirms the travel ban is partially constitutional and partially unconstitutional, which is why the stay is being allowed to remain in place for some persons yet be enforced for others.

As for your and JL's bet, I'd call this one a push. :)

And, if talking to the President Of The United States was considered a "break", you would have a point..

But it's not, so you don't..

I get it, Kick.. I really do... You just got yer wee wee whacked on the SCOTUS siding with President Trump 9-0 so your reaching for ANYTHING to save face...

I understand..

But Comey himself knew he was doing something illegal which is why he didn't leak the documents himself...

Then Comey's BEST course of action would be to release the notes himself, instead of leaking them...

But Comey COULDN'T release them in that manner because he KNEW it was illegal to do so..

If you are saying that a private citizen's notes and his free speech belongs to the government, then you're simply mistaken and/or have drank the right-wing Kool-Aid.

No, I am not saying that a private citizen's notes and his free speech belongs to the government.

I am saying that Comey wasn't taking notes as a private citizen, he was taking notes as an employee of the President...

And he wasn't exercising his free speech, he was skulking around in the dead of night leaking papers he had no business leaking..

I would not call a major newspaper "the sly."

It is when he could have posted those papers himself..

absolutely right about comey. i can understand why the president's supporters want to discredit comey and his testimony, but there's nothing illegal about the way he released his account of his conversations.

JL

My comments on this blog are not a transcript of an official government meeting between myself and the POTUS..

I never said they were. If you are saying that a private citizen's notes and his free speech belongs to the government, then you're simply mistaken and/or have drank the right-wing Kool-Aid. As long as the notes do not contain classified information, Comey has committed no crime by exercising his right to free speech.

If they were, and they were transcribed on government time using government equipment, as Comey's were, you can bet your bippy that they would be government documents..

"Bippy"? Government employees are allowed to receive personal information on government equipment and allowed to perform limited personal tasks thereon in their spare time. Sorry, bubba, you lose again. They're called breaks, and no one can own your free speech.

If you seriously think James Comey wasn't allowed to take breaks to take notes while in the performance of his government duties, perhaps you haven't seen Donald Trump in action on the golf course. Breaks for personal time are allowed. :)

I only need on fact to PROVE my case..

This is a very telling statement. *LOL*

Comey went thru an intermediary to release the government documents.. There was absolutely NO REASON to do so unless Comey knew he was dirty. If those documents were his to do with as he pleased, there was no reason to leak them via a friend. Comey could have posted them himself on any one of a number of public outlets...

How a citizen exercises their right of free speech is really none of your business. It's his business.

But Comey DIDN'T speak "freely"..

He skunked around in the dead of night and release the documents on the sly..

I would not call a major newspaper "the sly." He simply passed off his notes to a friend to get his story out there. I can understand exactly why. The president was lying on twitter about him and attempting to influence his testimony.

Thank you for proving my point..

Your delusion is intact. Run along now and drink your Conservative Kool-Aid wherein you are spoon-fed to believe a private citizen is not allowed to speak freely about his time in office. It's well-settled case law: Absent a specific legal prohibition, government employees have a constitutional right to speak out on matters of public concern. This right was recognized by the Supreme Court in 1968 and is unchallenged today.

unless there's been a conviction of which i'm unaware, "lying con-artist" definitely falls into the realm of opinion. there is certainly copious evidence of donald's statements being divorced from factual reality, but the name-calling weakens your argument.

@michale/bclancy,

hillary may still want to continue running for president, but it's doubtful the democratic primary voters will continue to support her. hillary had her bite at the apple and blew it; i see it as highly unlikely she'll win the nomination again.

JL

heh I have my moments.. :D

On the other hand, a man who is only interested in getting himself off and to hell with his partner???

35 years of marriage to my gorgeous best friend has taught me that THAT is a bad motive.. :D

It's doubtful that Hillary has the capacity to learn those qualities.."

Damn it could've saved me the trouble of typing that long response. This sums up my reasons perfectly.

Reagan was trying to free hostages....

Nixon?? Well, in his bizarre warped vision of reality, he thought he was the savior of the country.. :D

How is that a bad motive? ;)

All things being equal, it isn't.. :D

But when you are SUPPOSED to be running the country from that chair rather than making it all sticky with yer... well, ya get the idea..

Think of it as if the Pope would get a handjob while addressing a Good Friday crowd..

While it might be a GOOD Friday for the Pope...??? It tends to diminish the prestige of the office.. :D

Reagan and to a lesser extent, Nixon at least did the wrong thing for the right reasons.."

What reasons are you referring to?

"Clinton was ONLY interested in getting off..."

How is that a bad motive? ;)

Thank you...

For me, the main questions were answered by the SCOTUS, 9-0...

YES, a Travel Ban is constitutional

and

YES, the President has the authority to initiate a Travel ban...

Having said that, to be fair, it's enough of a muddle that, had we wagered, I would have accepted it as a PUSH..

Is that enough to put to rest all thoughts of another comeback? We can only hope."

Oh good it's not just me. That was hard to write. It's difficult to express my own idle speculation based on personal feelings while simultaneously being as polite about Hillary as possible :S

None of which really compares to a President getting a blow job in the oval office, as far as prestige is concerned..

Reagan and to a lesser extent, Nixon at least did the wrong thing for the right reasons..

Clinton was ONLY interested in getting off...

in a sense i agree with the dissenters that this isn't the kind of decision that can be made halfway, and will likely result in chaos as immigration officials try to operationalize what a bona-fide connection is and is not.

what's most interesting to me is the fact that gorsuch and alito sided with thomas's dissent. this case is far from over, but it can't be denied that even allowing part of the ban to go forward counts as a win for the administration.

JL

Exactly right, JL. I'm reading these and responding before I move to the next one. I will stop doing that straight away now in order to avoid duplication! :)

That could possibly be a turning point.. Clinton surely caused the prestige of the office to plummet like a stone and that might have royally pissed off the GOP..

You naturally decide on "Clinton" causing the "prestige of the office to plummet" as if Richard Nixon and Watergate and Ronald Reagan and Iran Contra and hundreds in their respective administrations being investigated and jailed for multiple felonies had never happened. Very telling indeed.

Allow me to refresh your memory. You're welcome in advance. :)

Trying to keep this brief, but mostly because of my assessment of her personality, which I'm afraid may be markedly more negative than most people here(Michale excluded of course). I will try to say this nicely. Basically, I think she really wants to be president. I believe she has spent the better part of the past 15 years preparing to run/running. I think she is really ambitious. Look at how long she stayed in the race in 2008. She wants it very badly I think. And I think she still has a lot of favors she can call in from various power holders in the party. I suspect she blames everyone but herself for her loss. Sorry I don't recall where, but I remember hearing some rumors to the effect that Clinton values loyalty above all else in her staff, and that to tell her she is wrong about something, is well... not encouraged by her.

I think the zeitgeist in the Democratic Party(the base of voters, not the politicians) has turned increasingly against the very type of Democrat that Clinton is. The connections to Wall Street and the super pacs especially. Also her record of often lackluster support for issues like gay marriage, and more currently, pot legalization. Trying to be gentle here, but there's an impression that Democrats like her are more interested in pleasing their billionaire donors than showing courage in fighting for issues that Democrats care about. There's a sense that the interests/desires of the Democratic base are in conflict with the interests of rich Democratic donors, and that as a result, the there's a divergence between the behavior and agenda of the Democratic leadership, and that of the party base. I don't think I need to say which side Clinton seems to fall on.

Now you can argue that Clinton is a "true progressive" and has been unfairly portrayed as establishment. But she has certainly said and done quite a few things that add to that perception. Like her response when asked why she took such large sums for the Goldman Sahcs speeches. Problem is, I don't think that Clinton is really perceptive when it comes to which way the wind is blowing politically. She always seems to be several steps behind. So I'm not sure she fully realizes how much her own actions... well if not led to her loss, then maybe could have helped her win if she had done things differently(then again she has been close to Wall Street for years, so I'm not sure how much she could have distanced herself). I'm not sure she realizes how much a lot of Democrats really don't want her to run again. And I'm especially not sure she realizes how bad it might be for her party if she ran again. And.. I'll go one further. I don't think she wants to realize.

Anyway, this ended up being longer than I intended. Please understand this is rampant speculation, and take it in the spirit it is meant. I could be talking out my ass here.

The problem for the vast majority of Weigantians is they START from the premise that President Trump is a lying, no-good, corrupt scumbag spawn of Lucifer..

Like I said..... :D

Michale, Donald Trump has been a lying con artist for decades, a FACT that precedes his presidency by a long shot and hasn't somehow magically disappeared upon his taking the oath of office. Denying that FACT says more about you than it does about the "vast majority of Weigantians."

Neil: Flynn's actions deserve a close look, and so do other actions by Americans who may be straying into treason territory

Michale: No more so than the actions of a number of Clintonistas...

Wow, you really have drank the Kool-Aid. Which one of the "Clintonistas":

* Violated the Emoluments Clause of the Constitution of the United States by accepting payment from a foreign government without advance permission from both the Secretary of State and the Secretary of the Army.

* Had several material omissions regarding payment of foreign funds, etc., on his SF-86 application for renewal of his security clearance in January 2016 just months after he traveled to Moscow.

* Was a paid lobbyist for a Turkish consultancy while working for the Trump campaign and receiving security briefings.

* Was tape recorded discussing the sanctions with the Russian Ambassador, a violation against the current government of the United States; we have one president at a time.

* Received an undisclosed $45,000 to speak at an event hosted by RT, during which he was seated next to Russian President Vladimir Putin.

* Received payments for speeches to Russian firms Kaspersky and Volga Dnepr.

Neil: I initially thought that there was nothing but the whole Kushner/Back Channel issue deserves a look.

Particularly because it appears on its face to have been an attempt to subvert the current administration of the United States; the specific request by Kushner to use Russian gear to establish a line of communication, the request of an amateur which dumbfounded the Russian Ambassador. A private citizen requesting use of secure comms of a hostile power to undermine US policy undetected is not normal. It doesn't matter if he was a member of the incoming administration or not; he was a private citizen when he attempted to establish comms with an adversary of the United States.

Michale: There is no facts whatsoever to support a Kushner/Russia back channel..

*LOL*

The whole point of weasel wording as I understand it, is to give the vague impression you are saying A, but when A turns out not to be true, the exact wording of your statement means that it was technically not a lie.

Doesn't THAT sound familiar??? :D

With all due respect, this appears to be an ad hominem. Trump is a terrible person, therefore anything he says must therefore be weasel worded. Since you consider him a "treason weasel", would you still consider it weasel wording no matter the actual content of what he said?

Now on the other hand, if you are talking about motive, as I said before that is different from the argument I was making(although I don't think it has been proven that he is guilty of treason. On the other hand, I suppose it depends on how one defines treason). I haven't argued anything as to Trump's intent. One could say, for instance, that he was trying to cover himself by being ambiguous, but simply missed the mark. The whole point of weasel wording as I understand it, is to give the vague impression you are saying A, but when A turns out not to be true, the exact wording of your statement means that it was technically not a lie. Like if you called me and asked to speak to my sister, and I said "I'm sorry, I don't see her around anywhere". But it turns out I was closing my eyes when I said it and she was right there in the room with me. Even though it would be dishonest, technically it would not be a lie. But if I said "I have no idea where she is", that would be a lie because I have a very good idea where she is; namely in the room with me. To my way of thinking, if Trump is aware of the existence of tapes, then "I have no idea... whether tapes were made" would not be a mere dishonest equivocation. It would be an outright lie. Which to me means it is not weasel wording. Note that this assessment has nothing to do with my opinions on Trump's motives or character, or indeed anything other than the wording of the statement itself. Perhaps we are talking around each other, since my point is admittedly quite narrow in scope.

Doesn't bode well for the Democrats.. :D

Not incorrect.. Incomplete...

Anyone who has a connection to the US is exempt from the Travel Ban...

The Government decides if the connection is sufficient to allow travel..

You can spin it all you want, but you lost..

ESPECIALLY when you said the court would not even take up the question...

This is a win because it affirms that the Travel Ban is constitutional and is within the purview of the POTUS...

Which is what I have been saying all along..

OK, Trump's ban is re-instated with the exception of the plaintiffs...

Incorrect.

President Trump had amended the second order that it would take effect immediately after the SCOTUS ruled it was constitutional and within the power of the POTUS..

So, the Travel Ban is in effect starting immediately...

No matter how ya'all want to spin it, this is a win for the President and the country...

Re: #143

Too be sure... There are PLENTY of logical and rational reasons why Hillary should be the LAST person that Democrats choose for their champion...

Quite a few of those were in place in 2016, so....????

Surely, she and her campaign-sabotaging husband are not so clueless as to not feel that particular sword of Damocles hanging over her head. Ahem.

Is that enough to put to rest all thoughts of another comeback? We can only hope.

Here's a comment I posted before the bottom fell out.. :D

===========================================
Why do you suspect Hillary Clinton wants or is intending to run for president again? I mean, what might factor into her decision to run in 2020?

I know you didn't address me on this....

BUT..... :D

For Hillary NOT to run, she would have to learn, quite quickly in fact, some humility and the ability to put others before herself... Further, she would have to show that she has at least SOME tenuous connection to reality and acknowledge her responsibility in her last 2 POTUS-run campaigns..

It's doubtful that Hillary has the capacity to learn those qualities..

As such, the *ONLY* thing that will stop Hillary from running is that if she knows that running again will kill her..

It's entirely possible that THAT won't even stop her..

Had withdrawals for a second..

:D

OK, Trump's ban is re-instated with the exception of the plaintiffs...

Point to Trump...

:-)

The SCOTUS will decide in favor of religious freedom.....

ESPECIALLY if it's true that Kennedy retires and the President is able to seat a new Justice..

:-)

The SCOTUS will decide in favor of religious freedom.....

ESPECIALLY if it's true that Kennedy retires and the President is able to seat a new Justice..

Any predictions on how the court will decide this one?

:-)

I've never seen a White House leak like this - it is incredible - why can't Republicans around 45 keep their mouths shut?

There are multiple factions in the Oval with multiple agendas. The Bannon/Miller faction are trying to take out the Kushner/Ivanka faction and vice versa. There are also factions in the Oval in service to their country who leak accordingly. Multiple leaks. Donald Trump himself is a legendary liar/leaker for nigh a half century... e.g. John Miller, John Barron, etc.

Agreed to review right of private parties to deny services to same-sex couples, particularly in industries involving expression (case page here);

My comments on this blog are not a transcript of an official government meeting between myself and the POTUS..

If they were, and they were transcribed on government time using government equipment, as Comey's were, you can bet your bippy that they would be government documents..

I only need on fact to PROVE my case..

Comey went thru an intermediary to release the government documents.. There was absolutely NO REASON to do so unless Comey knew he was dirty. If those documents were his to do with as he pleased, there was no reason to leak them via a friend. Comey could have posted them himself on any one of a number of public outlets...

When Trump fired Comey, he was free to speak freely and the press was free to report his free speech.

But Comey DIDN'T speak "freely"..

He skunked around in the dead of night and release the documents on the sly..

Thank you for proving my point..

Comey's credibility took a HUGE hit when he illegally leaked confidential government information he had no right to leak..

Comey's private notes are not government information any more than your statements on this blog about your time in the service are owned by the government. The government doesn't own your free speech. When Trump fired Comey, he was free to speak freely and the press was free to report his free speech.

Cite: First Amendment of the United States Constitution, circa 1789.

You don't mind Trump reading Wikileaks from hacked emails, but you take issue with a United States citizen exercising their constitutional rights of free speech. Careful now, your hypocrisy is showing. :)

Incidentally, I have a question for y'all:
Do you think Hillary Clinton wants to/is intending to run in 2020?

Absolutely and unequivocally NOT going to happen. That ship has sailed. Whenever that possibility enters your mind, just remember the emails... not only the purported 30,000+ that are conspiracy theory rumored to be out there "somewhere" but also the hacked emails of WikiLeaks and Donald Trump who lies about his political opponents as a campaign tactic... his Birtherism lies, the lies about Ted Cruz's father being involved in JFK's assassination, his latest lies just this morning accusing Barack Obama of colluding with Russia in order to harm Democrats/HRC.

Donald Trump has long been a con artist and bloviating pathological liar, and that's the tip of the proverbial iceberg, but I digress. HRC is finished running for the office of the presidency, but she is by no means finished.

US politics has always had its periods of relative cooperativeness and its periods of extreme nastiness - it has sort of ebbed and flowed over the centuries. chris weigant, the leader of our little community, has some quotes from the 1820's that would make today's politicians blush. and then there's the little matter of alexander hamilton getting killed in a duel by aaron burr. that sort of political violence wasn't so unusual for the times.

however, i think you're right that we happen to be living in one of the nastier partisan periods. i would say that the current trajectory was first embarked upon by richard nixon and his staff, amplified by specific partisan battles (bork hearings, clinton impeachment, bush v. gore, etc.), and solidified by technological advances that have removed the common narrative and incentive to cooperate, like cable and internet news services and computer-aided gerrymandering.

the other undercurrent to today's partisan nastiness is our overall social and economic decline. more americans today are in danger of becoming poor and homeless, and political opponents make a very convenient scapegoat. i believe the main way we reached this point economically was giant tax cuts for the rich and the gutting of worker protections, but some of it was just the inescapable march of progress.

JL

Personally, I have a sneaking suspicion that the answer to that question is Yes.

Why do you suspect Hillary Clinton wants or is intending to run for president again? I mean, what might factor into her decision to run in 2020?

The problem for the vast majority of Weigantians is they START from the premise that President Trump is a lying, no-good, corrupt scumbag spawn of Lucifer..

THEN they look at the "evidence"....

Like I said..... :D

As best I can tell, the only possibility Trump isn't ruling out with his statement is the possibility that someone else taped the conversation without Trump's knowledge.
Of course, you can always say that Trump may be lying, but that is a whole 'nother kettle of fish. I don't think this particular statement is weasel worded.

Oh, it's weasel worded alright because Benedict Donald said it, and he is nothing if not a Treason Weasel and conspiracy theorist extraordinaire himself. He's most likely heard the rumors circulating out there that the Director of the FBI at that time may have legally allowed his phone to be used as a hot mic, and Poor Donald just isn't sure whether or not those rumors are true or not. Stay tuned. :)

I hadn't thought of that. Good hypothesis.

Which is probably why he saved his BS for his last day.. :D

He KNEW it would get him fired.. heh