ChrisWeigant.com

The Call Is Coming From Inside The House!

[ Posted Thursday, September 6th, 2018 – 16:51 PDT ]

That title is a classic horror show moment, so first allow me to properly cite it. In the movie When A Stranger Calls (1979), a frightened and terrified woman is told the threatening calls she's been getting are more than just close to home. The actual quote, from a policeman calling her up, is: "Jill, this is sergeant Sacker. Listen to me. We've traced the call... it's coming from inside the house. Now a squad car's coming over there right now, just get out of that house!" Younger readers may recognize it more from the spoof horror film Scream, which paid homage to the original. The horrific aspect of the line is that the danger is very close at hand, obviously. Which is why it is the perfect quote for the center ring of the Trump circus at this particular moment in time.

Yesterday, the New York Times published what will likely go down in history as the most famous anonymous opinion article ever written. "I Am Part Of The Resistance Inside The Trump Administration" is indeed (oxymoronically) an instant classic. A senior Trump administration official felt the need to explain himself (or herself) to the world, in the hopes of gaining some sort of absolution. It was a cry from within the building, but in this case the irony is that the danger is identified as the man in the Oval Office.

Such a thing is unprecedented. Which means it'll just get added to the already-long list of unprecedented events during the Trump presidency. Even so, this one stands out. A senior member of Trump's team is warning the world in very clear language that the president is so unfit to serve that his own aides must resort to doing everything they can to distract him and thwart his worst impulses. This isn't coming from a disgruntled former employee, it is instead coming from a terrified current employee. It's not coming from a journalist, either, it's coming from someone Trump himself selected to work for him. You know, one of the "best people" Trump promised he'd hire.

The article is, in a word, a betrayal. No matter how you otherwise feel about the leaker, you have to admit that the article was an enormous act of betrayal against the author's titular boss. Not even the underhanded things they've been doing to save America from Trump, but the very act of writing such an article and having it prominently published was a supreme act of betrayal.

It is not, however, an act of treason, as Trump has already called it. Trump, no matter how much he convinces himself otherwise, is not the equivalent of either America or the Constitution. Betraying Trump is not the same thing as betraying America. In fact, the author is arguing that it is the exact opposite -- that betraying Trump is actually serving America. But no matter where you fall on that debate, betraying Trump by writing an anonymous article is not in any way treasonous, no matter what Trump thinks.

The anonymous author has already sparked a division in the political world. Famous leakers usually do -- for example: just look at how Edward Snowden is seen, good or bad. How you see him (and other famous leakers) often depends on how you feel about what was leaked, in large part. If you feel the information needed to be seen by the public, then you're probably pretty sympathetic to the leaker. If you feel the opposite, then you'll likely feel the opposite about the leaker, as well.

The anonymous author of the article, though, isn't getting much love from anyone so far. Trump supporters see him or her as a coward, as a traitor to Trump, and as someone who should resign immediately. Trump opponents, meanwhile, see him or her as a coward, as someone setting a dangerous precedent of ignoring presidential orders, and as someone who should have resigned a long time ago. Nuances exist, but neither one is particularly positive.

To a Trump supporter, the author is a coward for writing the article in the first place, and also for not signing their name to it. They see the author as a traitor to Trump, for obvious reasons. They see the author as someone who should resign immediately, because the author is so patently unfit to serve Trump in the first place, and because doing so would end the frenzied search now underway at the White House to uncover the author's identity.

To those opposed to Trump, the author is a coward for not publicly making their statement in their own name, and for not immediately offering to testify to Congress about why the president is dangerously unhinged and unfit for office. Duty to the Constitution requires such a thing, in other words. Those against Trump feel naked relief at the fact that there are some adults in the room who are trying to contain Trump's tantrums, but at the same time are more than a little uneasy about the precedent being set. After all, nobody elected the anonymous author president, meaning that they are disregarding and subverting Trump's orders on their own authority, which is indeed a dangerous thing to contemplate. In the military, you can refuse to follow an unlawful order, but you have to stand up and vocally refuse -- ignoring the order or refusing to follow it without such a declaration will get you court-martialled. And finally, the Trump opponents are horrified that anyone would continue in their job when they knew beyond a shadow of a doubt that the president was dangerously unstable, rather than to resign and tell the world about it. That would have been the honorable thing to do, they believe, and it should have happened a long time ago.

Both sides get to their conclusions via different routes, but when both sides see the author as a coward and someone who should go public and resign, it's a little unusual. There isn't just one frenzied attempt underway to uncover the author's identity, there are actually multiple such frenzies going on -- within the White House itself, and also in the newsroom of every news organization in the country. Will they soon be identified? Nobody knows. Watergate's Deep Throat stayed anonymous for decades, please remember.

The picture that the article paints is, again, a familiar one. I wrote earlier this week about Bob Woodward's new book, and many of the same things I said then could now be said about this anonymous article -- because, like Woodward's book, everything in it confirms exactly what everybody else has been saying. The Times swears it got the article before the Woodward book excerpts were published, but it's now impossible to see the two as anything other than bookend events. They are both independently telling exactly the same story -- and it's the same story we've heard before and seen before us on a daily basis.

The Constitution is explicit on what is supposed to happen if the president of the United States is seen as mentally unfit or unable to perform the duties of his office. Cabinet members are supposed to sign a letter stating this unequivocally, and then Congress has a chance to weigh in. Shirking this duty is an abdication of the oath of office to uphold and defend the Constitution. Yes, it would be a constitutional crisis. But the Constitution itself demands no less. According to the anonymous author, cabinet members have already discussed using the 25th Amendment, early on in Trump's tenure. They, obviously, never did so. That makes all of them complicit in anything Trump does, because they could have prevented it, and were indeed duty-bound to prevent it, and yet they didn't.

We are in dangerous and uncharted territory, no matter what happens next. That much is certain. Members of the presidential cabinet apparently discussed, a long time ago, using the 25th Amendment's provision to unseat a president for being too mentally unstable to perform his duties. That has never happened before. If they refused to follow through while at the same time knowing Trump was dangerously unstable, then by their own inaction they have left in office a man unfit to serve. The anonymous author tries to gain some absolution by detailing how the sane Trump aides are covering up his inadequacies, but the author even admits that these efforts aren't always successful. Which places us all in the position of knowing that there is, as Bob Woodward called it earlier, an ongoing "administrative coup d'état." Is anyone really comforted by this? Pretending that crazy orders don't exist isn't exactly the most reassuring strategy for the nation, to put it another way.

The call is coming from inside the house. But the real question is what we're all going to do about it next.

-- Chris Weigant

 

Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant

 

104 Comments on “The Call Is Coming From Inside The House!

  1. [1] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    I had to stop reading the article to query if there is a call from outside the house as the opening game of the NFL season is delayed by lightning.

    Could this mean that God is on Trump's side in the anthem debate? :D

  2. [2] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Regarding the 25th amendment. Most folks are familiar with the first paragraph of Section 4, if only because they saw Air Force One:

    "Whenever the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive departments or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall immediately assume the powers and duties of the office as Acting President."

    Okay fine. But most folks don't realize that the process doesn't stop there:

    "Thereafter, when the President transmits to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives his written declaration that no inability exists, he shall resume the powers and duties of his office unless the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive department or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit within four days to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office. Thereupon Congress shall decide the issue, assembling within forty-eight hours for that purpose if not in session. If the Congress, within twenty-one days after receipt of the latter written declaration, or, if Congress is not in session, within twenty-one days after Congress is required to assemble, determines by two-thirds vote of both Houses that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall continue to discharge the same as Acting President; otherwise, the President shall resume the powers and duties of his office."

    This part begins with a confusing timeline. If the President writes his own note that says that he's okay, nothing to see here, "he shall resume the powers and duties of his office".

    Unless the VP and Cabinet re-iterate their objection within four days. Does that mean that a President, having been ousted from office by the previous letter, could return to office for up to three days? What if he fires the Cabinet within that time frame?

    Then it gives the Congress only 48 hours to convene, but up to 21 days to decide the matter. It is not stated whether the President may continue to hold office during that time. The law implies that the Vice President should "continue" to stay in the Oval Office as Acting President during that time, but doesn't expressly state it.

    Finally, two third of both houses would then have to vote to remove the president. In this, the bar is exactly the same as in an impeachment, but without the formal requirement of a trial.

    But that's a very, very high bar, especially in today's tribal political environment. The GOP would be ripped into shreds in the process.

    Knowing all that, we can't discount the possibility that the Op-Ed that started this debate isn't a "false flag" designed to light a back-fire against talk about impeachment, or worse, as an excuse to crack down hard on leakers and other less-than-loyal members of the Administration.

    But keep an ear out for the dog that doesn't bark: where is the counter narrative that doesn't originate from the White House? Is there anyone that doesn't work for or with Trump stepping up to testify about his stability, organizational ability, and grasp of World events?

    .................crickets.

  3. [3] 
    neilm wrote:

    Is there anyone that doesn't work for or with Trump stepping up to testify about his stability, organizational ability, and grasp of World events?

    Michale thinks he isn't barking mad at least.

  4. [4] 
    James T Canuck wrote:

    Et Tu Anon?

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2018/09/06/trumps-paranoid-rage-is-getting-worse-but-the-white-house-resistance-is-a-sham/?utm_term=.018c2f31ebab

    I'm still not impressed by what I've seen, I don't like what's in the piece or the way it written, and for me, the kicker is this group chose, in the environment they know so well, to out themselves when they could have remained ghostly stewards of the Administration...Surely, they must have known their future endeavors would be subverted immediately, yet they chose to say they will continue to make paper-clip necklaces, swallow the occasional declaration of war that lands on Trump's desk and Make America Safe from Trump, some more.

    I noticed Trump got another 'Dear Leader' moment today, he likes those. They should line up a few more of those, it would cheer him up to no end, then he can break some poor intern on the rack, and head out for a round of mulligans...

    I'm taking a wait and see, stance...but I don't think this was a kick-while-down, I stinks of manufactured distraction.

    If I had to pick a name to blame...100% John Barron.

    LL&P

  5. [5] 
    Kick wrote:

    CW

    Which places us all in the position of knowing that there is, as Bob Woodward called it earlier, an ongoing "administrative coup d'état."

    Coup coup ka-choo, Mrs. Robinson,
    Jesus loves you more than you will know
    Woe, woe, woe
    God bless you, please, Mrs. Robinson
    Heaven holds a place for those who pray
    Hey, hey, hey
    Hey, hey, hey

    Sitting on a sofa on a Sunday afternoon
    Going to the candidates' debate
    Laugh about it, shout about it
    When you've got to choose
    Every way you look at this you lose ~ Paul Simon

    I still can't shake the feeling that this so-called "coup" is the handiwork of "Javanka" because they thought it might cover their asses and/or help "big daddy" rally his base to his side. It's a "cover" letter... a cover their asses letter... from the only people who could write it and get away with it.

    Why do we think Javanka went to Washington, y'all? Because they knew daddy's situation, they were simply doing what daddy asked them during the campaign, and when they won they knew somebody had to go save the world from him. :)

    Go ahead... hurl your insults; I know it sounds like a conspiracy theory, but I do have a reason to believe this theory of mine... seriously. I would even go so far as to say that if "Javanka" didn't write that NYT op-ed, they really should have thought of it... to "cover" every one of their very exposed asses for what's coming.

    The call is coming from inside the house. But the real question is what we're all going to do about it next.

    Well, I'll tell you what I'm going to do. Ima buckle up because this shit is going to get a whole lot worse before it gets any better. Mueller is just getting started, and there's a reason I have always called him "Benedict Donald."

    Alexa, order all the popcorn. :)

  6. [6] 
    Kick wrote:

    Favorite Tweet of the Day

    Kyle Griffin
    @kylegriffin1

    Trump's pronunciation of "anonymous" is the best video of the night.

    9:50 PM - 6 Sep 2018

    https://twitter.com/kylegriffin1/status/1037895796388229122

  7. [7] 
    TheStig wrote:

    I think mutiny may be a better description of what's going on in the WH than simple betrayal. In a mutiny, both Captain and mutineers feel betrayed. Only the Captain and his loyalists end up in the longboat, but the mutineers likely swing from a rope at later date, so you have to admire their enthusiasm.

    I strongly suspect the NYT editorial is most likely the work of multiple career staff a plus one professional editor to tighten up the prose that results from a group effort. In other words, a slice of the career talent, not the fly by night "best people" that
    Trump drags in from God only knows where before tossing them out with the weeky trash.

    I also think the timing of the NYT editorial release was intended to call attention to, and to a limited extent corroborate, the new Woodward book.

    It is said that Trump doesn't drink, but this might be a good time for him to start.

  8. [8] 
    Kick wrote:

    Another Tweet of the Day... Last One

    Red T Raccoon
    @RedTRaccoon

    "Joe, add the word lodestar. Trust me."

    3:10 PM - 6 Sep 2018

    https://twitter.com/RedTRaccoon/status/1037795119741784064

    Last one 'cause it's midnight CDT. :)

  9. [9] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    The article is, in a word, a betrayal. No matter how you otherwise feel about the leaker, you have to admit that the article was an enormous act of betrayal against the author's titular boss.

    Is it really a “betrayal”? If the author was someone Trump would NOT throw under the bus for a minor slight or a person Trump would NEVER attack on Twitter for having an opinion that is different from his, then I could see where “betrayal” would be the right description for this.

    A “betrayal” requires there to be a belief by the victim that they would never do to the “betrayer” what was done to him. It is virtually impossible for Trump to be betrayed by anyone BUT himself!

  10. [10] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Kick

    I still can't shake the feeling that this so-called "coup" is the handiwork of "Javanka" because they thought it might cover their asses and/or help "big daddy" rally his base to his side. It's a "cover" letter... a cover their asses letter... from the only people who could write it and get away with it.

    I think Javanka could be it, but I think that Kellyanne Conway is a better candidate for a couple of reasons.

    First, she and her husband are still married. I don’t know how someone who thinks so little of Trump, as her husband does, could be with someone actively working for this administration... unless they were actually a covert member of the resistance.

    The other big reason I suspect Conway is because she failed to tell Trump about Woodward wanting to interview him for the book and she feels guilty about Trump trying to spin it that Woodward was making up lies about Trump’s presidency! This letter to the Times was one giant verification of Woodward’s book being based on the truth. I think Conway was trying to make sure Trump fans didn’t buy Trump’s claim that Woodward didn’t even try to interview him to learn the truth, he just made up lies to hurt Trump.

    The person I wish was the secret author is the First Lady...”screw a porn star while I was giving birth to that mutant child of ours...oh HELL NO!!!”

  11. [11] 
    Michale wrote:

    The NY Grime let slip that the author is a man..

  12. [12] 
    Michale wrote:

    The person I wish was the secret author is the First Lady...”screw a porn star while I was giving birth to that mutant child of ours...oh HELL NO!!!”

    I doubt that ANY mother would refer to her child as a "mutant" child..

    And, don't you think it's a tag uncalled for to attack a 12 yr old little boy???

    I'm just sayin'....

  13. [13] 
    Michale wrote:

    Michale thinks he isn't barking mad at least.

    If you looked at things logically and rationally rather than thru the prism of HHPTDS and Party Slavery, you would agree with me...

    It's funny.. President Trump *WASN'T* "barking mad" when he had a -D after his name...

    Funny, iddn't it.. :D

  14. [14] 
    Michale wrote:

    Could this mean that God is on Trump's side in the anthem debate? :D

    I am sure HE thinks so.. :D

  15. [15] 
    Michale wrote:

    On a sad note..

    Bandit has just taken his last run with his Firebird Trans Am...

    RIP Bandit..

  16. [16] 
    Michale wrote:

    CW,

    You did a great job of outlining the attitudes against this cowardly leaker.

    I am curious as to what YOUR opinion is...

    Is it manna from heaven or a dangerous precedent??

    Or both??

    I mean, on the one hand, it's same ol same ol.. Hysterical claims about President Trump without a SHRED of fact to support.. It also proposes NOTHING untoward or illegal or impeachable... It's summed up simply as a boss with a style that the author does not always like or appreciate...

    That's it..

    For me, personally, I don't care.. I see the results of President Trump's style and that is all that matters to me...

    For me, this is simply more of the same.. Hysterical rantings from an anonymous source..

    If it's Friday, then it must be time for more hysterical attacks against President Trump.. Yaawwnnn

    But enough about me.. :D What's your opinion??

  17. [17] 
    Michale wrote:

    Knowing all that, we can't discount the possibility that the Op-Ed that started this debate isn't a "false flag" designed to light a back-fire against talk about impeachment, or worse, as an excuse to crack down hard on leakers and other less-than-loyal members of the Administration.

    Who could have possibly thunked it!??

    Oh... wait.. :D

  18. [18] 
    Michale wrote:

    Speaking of the America Haters in the NFL...

    Another NFL Ratings Drop Could Impact Nets' Standing On Wall Street
    https://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/Daily/Issues/2018/09/06/NFL-Season-Preview/Ratings-Analysts.aspx

    It's going to be be another brutal season for NFL ratings..

    All because they cuddle and cater to America and Cop Hating pissy millionaires...

    NFL has made their bed.. Now they get to lie in it..

  19. [19] 
    Michale wrote:

    It's funny how the NeverTrumpers move in cycles..

    RUSSIA!!! COLLUSION!!! RUSSIA!!! COLLUSION!!!

    "Huh?? That's not working??"

    EMOLUMENTS!! EMOLUMENTS!! EMOLUMENTS!! EMOLUMENTS!!

    "Damn! Not many people even know what that is!!"

    HOOKER PAY OFF!!! HOOKER PAY OFF!!!

    "HA, what a bunch of hypocrites we are.."

    DIMINISHED CAPACITY!!! 25th!!! 25th!!! FOR THE LOVE OF GODS, 25th!!!!!!

    Rinse and repeat ad nasuem...

    I saids it befores and I'll says it agains...

    The NeverTrumpers are NOT going to be able to nullify a free, fair and legal election..

    It simply won't be allowed to happen..

    And the NeverTrumpers should be VERY thankful for that..

  20. [20] 
    Michale wrote:

    Reading about Burt Reynolds and DELIVERANCE..

    When Reynolds saw test footage of a dummy in a canoe going over the falls in one scene, he told Boorman the scene looked fake. He climbed into the canoe, was sent crashing into the rocks and ended up in the hospital. "I asked [Boorman] how [the new footage] looked, and he said, 'Like a dummy going over the falls,'" Reynolds wrote.

    hehehehehehehehe Now that is drink-spewing funny :D

  21. [21] 
    Michale wrote:

    Having said all of the afore....

    CW, you are to be commended...

    That was an awesome way to tie a pop culture reference to current events.. :D

    "OK, that's it! I don't want another single pop culture reference out of you for the rest of the trip. You understand?"
    -Tony Stark, AVENGERS-INFINITY WAR

    :D

  22. [22] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    deliverance was a disturbingly outstanding film.

  23. [23] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    as to the Times report and Woodward's book, i think the most concerning thing is the lack of any alternate narrative. the white house has attacked the motives and character of everyone associated with the accounts, but hasn't suggested any other story that might dispute or reframe their interpretation of the facts.

  24. [24] 
    Michale wrote:

    as to the Times report and Woodward's book, i think the most concerning thing is the lack of any alternate narrative.

    The "alternative narrative" is there for all to see..

    Exploding economy..

    MASSIVE JOBS..

    Low unemployment..

    Lowest unemployment in history for black Americans..

    etc etc etc etc

    THERE is your "alternative narrative"...

    But it's ignored simply due to HHPTDS...

    People who simply want to hate on President Trump will hate on President Trump regardless of the facts.. No "alternative narrative", no matter how factually accurate, will have any validity with those people..

    Those who support President Trump and love this country know that all of these tell alls come from a place of deep hatred of President Trump and a hyper extreme case of sore luserism... Those people don't NEED an "alternative narrative".. They have the facts and reality....

    In short, one side will ignore the facts of an alternative narrative...

    The other side already know the facts and reality...

    So, why bother with an alternative narrative??

  25. [25] 
    Michale wrote:

    Wage growth posts recovery high in August; payroll growth also beats expectations
    https://www.cnbc.com/2018/09/07/us-nonfarm-payrolls-aug-2018.html

    There's yer "alternative narrative"....

  26. [26] 
    John M wrote:

    [5] Kick

    "I still can't shake the feeling that this so-called "coup" is the handiwork of "Javanka" "

    [7] TheStig

    "I strongly suspect the NYT editorial is most likely the work of multiple career staff a plus one professional editor to tighten up the prose that results from a group effort."

    [10] ListenWhenYouHear

    "I think Javanka could be it, but I think that Kellyanne Conway is a better candidate for a couple of reasons."

    To add more to the speculation:

    It has been pointed out that of all the most prominent people issuing denials of writing the article so far, White House Chief of Staff JOHN KELLY has NOT been one of them. If it were him, it would be ironic to say the least, since Kelly is the one in charge of finding the author. Much like Mark Felt, Associate Director of the FBI at the time, was put in charge of finding out who Deep Throat was, when in fact Deep Throat was Mark Felt himself.

    I have also seen the speculation, like Agatha Christie's Murder On The Orient Express and as TheStig contends, it was penned by a group and not a single individual.

  27. [27] 
    TheStig wrote:

    Rand Paul is proposing the WH staff should be polygraphed. Others are proposing that staff should be required to sign affidavits..

    The beatings will continue until morale improves.

    I think the veneable game of Clue could easily reworked into yet another topical variant, working title of Leak. What senior staffer, where in the White House, with what communication device.

    Finally, Melania seems unusually chipper in recent in recent TV footage. A smile intead of the usual Blue Steal that she stole from Zoolander. The prospect of an uprade from separate bedrooms to separate residences pleases her?

  28. [28] 
    John M wrote:

    [24] Michale

    "The "alternative narrative" is there for all to see..

    Exploding economy..

    MASSIVE JOBS..

    Low unemployment..

    Lowest unemployment in history for black Americans.."

    So, because of YOUR SLAVERY to PARTY IDEOLOGY, it is perfectly fine to have someone as President who is UNFIT to serve, as long as, like other Republicans, you are getting conservative judges and tax cuts in return ???

    Do you really think all of us are gullible enough to believe that if we simply replace Trump with Obama and a D after his name that you would still be singing the same tune? Oh HELL no!!!

  29. [29] 
    Michale wrote:

    JM,

    So, what are your thoughts on the dangerous precident this sets??

    Do the ends (nullifying a free, fair and legal election) justify the means (Treason)??

    And make no mistake, this is treason..

    Postulate a scenario where a "senior White House official" were to sabotage the Commander In Chiefs efforts in prosecuting a war due to his sympathies for the enemy.....

    That would be TREASON no matter how much you want to spin it and THAT is what is happening right now..

    We are in a war with those who would want to subvert democracy and nullify a free, fair and legal election.

    This "Resistance Fighter" accept a job in good faith and is illegally supressing the will of the people thru their fairly, freely and legally elected President and substituting his own appointed and un-elected will...

    That is Treason, no matter how you look at it..

  30. [30] 
    Michale wrote:

    So, because of YOUR SLAVERY to PARTY IDEOLOGY,

    My "slavery" is to the country and the freely, fairly and legally elected President Of The United States...

    it is perfectly fine to have someone as President who is UNFIT to serve,

    That is your opinion ONLY and it is NOT even your place to make such a judgement..

    If the president is unfit, there is a LEGAL and CONSTITUTIONAL way to go about fixing that..

    But the enemy CAN'T go the LEGAL and CONSTITUTIONAL way because they ***KNOW**** they would LOSE... AGAIN...

    simply replace Trump with Obama and a D after his name that you would still be singing the same tune? Oh HELL no!!!

    If I say an attempt by America Haters to nullify a FREE, FAIR and LEGAL election, my reaction would be the same regardless of who is in the White House..

    You seem to forget.. *I* am an Obama voter as well as a Trump supporter..

    So your claims of political bigotry against me are, once again, lost to FACTS and REALITY...

  31. [31] 
    Michale wrote:

    If I say an attempt by America Haters to nullify a FREE, FAIR and LEGAL election, my reaction would be the same regardless of who is in the White House..

    That should read SEE an attempt......

    My bust...

  32. [32] 
    Michale wrote:

    Regardless, the simple fact is, President Trumps presidency is WINNING all over the place. The traitor coward even ACKNOWLEDGES the good President Trump has accomplished..

    But, of course, ya'all IGNORE that and ONLY cherry pick the points that serve your agenda...

    I mean, honestly.. You want to talk about SLAVE to one's ideology?? :D

  33. [33] 
    John M wrote:

    [29] Michale

    "So, what are your thoughts on the dangerous precident this sets??

    Do the ends (nullifying a free, fair and legal election) justify the means (Treason)??

    And make no mistake, this is treason..

    Postulate a scenario where a "senior White House official" were to sabotage the Commander In Chiefs efforts in prosecuting a war due to his sympathies for the enemy.....

    That would be TREASON no matter how much you want to spin it and THAT is what is happening right now.."

    FIRST ALL, it's NOT treason. It's not even CLOSE to being treason. It's NOT what is happening right NOW. We are NOT at war with a nation that is being cooperated with against the interests of the United States in this PARTICULAR instance, which is the ONLY definition of treason. Unless, of course, you want to actually imply that this is being done at the direction of a foreign power and someone in the White House really is guilty of COLLUSION with the RUSSIANS????

    "This "Resistance Fighter" accept a job in good faith and is illegally supressing the will of the people thru their fairly, freely and legally elected President and substituting his own appointed and un-elected will..."

    I AGREE. TWO things however:

    1) This is NOT new. We have seen this before. Like when John Ehrlichman pushed back against the Nixon Administration idea of firebombing the Brookings Institution Think Tank.

    2) There are legal and constitutional ways to go about this. A) The 25th Amendment route and B) Impeachment.

  34. [34] 
    John M wrote:

    [30] Michale

    "it is perfectly fine to have someone as President who is UNFIT to serve,

    That is your opinion ONLY and it is NOT even your place to make such a judgement.."

    It IS MY PLACE as an American citizen and voter. Just like it is yours also. If enough of a majority of Americans were to call on their representatives to act who felt the same way, then it would be imperative that they carry out the will of the American people. Or do you want to argue against that???

    "If the president is unfit, there is a LEGAL and CONSTITUTIONAL way to go about fixing that.."

    Again, I AGREE. So you do concede then that a legal, fair and free election CAN be legally and constitutionally nullified?

  35. [35] 
    Michale wrote:

    FIRST ALL, it's NOT treason. It's not even CLOSE to being treason. It's NOT what is happening right NOW. We are NOT at war with a nation

    We are at war with the enemy of democracy...

    You can poo poo it all you like.. The actions of this coward IS treason..

    1) This is NOT new. We have seen this before. Like when John Ehrlichman pushed back against the Nixon Administration idea of firebombing the Brookings Institution Think Tank.

    Irrelevant.. Just because it's not new doesn't change the fact that it's illegal and treasonous..

    There are legal and constitutional ways to go about this. A) The 25th Amendment route and B) Impeachment.

    But we're not talking about either..

    We're talking about a man who says, "MY will is more important than the tens of millions of Americans votes and *I* am going to run this country as *I* see fit!!"

    No bullshit.. If someone had done this during the Odumbo Administration, you would be calling for his head and screaming TREASON to the high heavens..

    Don't bother denying it because you and I both know it's an accurate assessment...

    On another note..

    Catch the Eagles/Falcons game last night???

  36. [36] 
    John M wrote:

    [30] Michale

    "You seem to forget.. *I* am an Obama voter as well as a Trump supporter.."

    No one would know that from your comments!

  37. [37] 
    John M wrote:

    [35] Michale

    "We are at war with the enemy of democracy..."

    Irrelevant to the LEGAL definition of treason.

  38. [38] 
    John M wrote:

    [32] Michale

    "Regardless, the simple fact is, President Trumps presidency is WINNING all over the place."

    Yeah, so much "winning" his White House is in constant turmoil, CHOCK FULL of backstabbers and leakers!

  39. [39] 
    Michale wrote:

    It IS MY PLACE as an American citizen and voter.

    You can make the claim as an opinion, but not as a statement of fact...

    Again, I AGREE. So you do concede then that a legal, fair and free election CAN be legally and constitutionally nullified?

    Of course. I never claimed otherwise..

    If it can be PROVEN beyond a shadow of a doubt that Trump worked with the Russians to win the election??

    **THAT** is the only cause for impeachment ya'all have..

    I would completely, utterly and unequivocally support impeachment if it is *PROVEN*....

    Will you reciprocate??

    Will you state unequivocally and for the record that you will quit pushing impeachment if Russian conspiracy is NOT proven beyond a shadow of a doubt???

    Will you accept President Trump as your LEGALLY, FAIRLY and FREELY elected POTUS and stop advocating his removal??

    Of course you won't...

    NOTHING that this traitor wrote speaks to either criminality or unfitness to be President.

    This traitor's entire screed can be summed up thusly:

    "My boss is a big fat asshole and, while he has done some really good things he has also done a few things I don't like and I don't like ANY of the way he does things"

    NONE of that is impeachable or indicates any mental infirmity or disability...

  40. [40] 
    Michale wrote:

    Yeah, so much "winning" his White House is in constant turmoil, CHOCK FULL of backstabbers and leakers!

    Aided and abetted by you and people like you...

    But the winning is undeniable..

    Funny, no one here wants to talk about the economy and how awesome it is and the low unemployment and the RECORD low unemployment amongst minorities and the fact that President Trump's support has almost TRIPLED amongst minorities..

    The winning is undeniable and is ALL the "alternative narrative" needs to be.. :D

  41. [41] 
    John M wrote:

    [35] Michale

    "Catch the Eagles/Falcons game last night???"

    I had to work last night, and I am more of a baseball fan. But what would you think if the Ny Giants hired Colin Kaepernick now that Nike has provided then some cover to do so if they wanted, and the Giants owner has expressed support for the ability of players to protest?

  42. [42] 
    Michale wrote:

    Irrelevant to the LEGAL definition of treason.

    DO you deny you would call it treason if someone did this to Odumbo?? Removed papers from the oval office.. Conspired to supplant HIS will over the will of Odumbo??

    Yes, you would call that treason..

    So I am comfortable with the definition..

  43. [43] 
    John M wrote:

    [39] Michale

    "NONE of that is impeachable"

    You KNOW very WELL as much as I do that impeachable is whatever CONGRESS says it is. That it is a political decision, not a solely legal one. Otherwise Clinton would never have been impeached by Republicans over an extra-marital affair.

  44. [44] 
    Michale wrote:

    Irregardless of your answer to #42, I concede your point..

    This is not treason as it is legally defined...

    But I still maintain that, had such an admission of guilt been made against a "senior official" in the Odumbo administration that furthered the GOP's agenda of making Odumbo a 1 term POTUS, you and everyone on the Left would be screaming "TREASON"...

    This is undeniable..

  45. [45] 
    Michale wrote:

    You KNOW very WELL as much as I do that impeachable is whatever CONGRESS says it is. That it is a political decision, not a solely legal one. Otherwise Clinton would never have been impeached by Republicans over an extra-marital affair.

    OK.. And, since Congress has NOT started impeachment hearings, NONE of what this coward said is impeachable...

  46. [46] 
    John M wrote:

    [40] Michale

    "Funny, no one here wants to talk about the economy and how awesome it is"

    Precisely because it has been so overshadowed by everything else! All self-inflicted by the White House and Trump.

  47. [47] 
    Michale wrote:

    Precisely because it has been so overshadowed by everything else! All self-inflicted by the White House and Trump.

    And therein lies the problem..

    Ya'all's priority is taking down Trump and to hell with how good the country is doing...

    Are you will to give this country a shitty economy and put millions of black & hispanic Americans out of work, just so you can have the satisfaction of taking down President Trump????

  48. [48] 
    Michale wrote:

    Should President Trump need a model to use to track down leakers inside his administration like the “anonymous” insider who challenged his authority in a New York Times op-ed, he need go no further back than the Obama administration that prosecuted leakers and shutout the media.

    According to reports at the time from even New York Times journalists, no administration was tougher on leakers and punishing to the media than Obama’s, a saga reinforced by reporters who have called Trump’s team more forthcoming.

    Criticism of Obama’s attacks on the media and leakers did not just come in tweets and TV appearances by journalists but in an official report from the Committee to Protect Journalists, authored by former Washington Post Executive Editor Leonard Downie Jr.

    “This is the most closed, control freak administration I’ve ever covered,” said David E. Sanger, veteran chief Washington correspondent of The New York Times, in the report.

    USA Today said of the report, it “portrays an administration gripped by strict policies about information flow and paranoid about leaks across all executive branch departments.”

    It detailed prosecutions and even the use of lie-detectors on staffers. Some have encouraged Trump to use lie-detector tests on his staff, something he has so far ignored.
    https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/washington-secrets/flashback-obama-prosecuted-staff-leakers-gave-lie-detector-tests-paranoid

    Like I said.. If this had happened under the Odumbo Admin, ya'all's reaction would have been a LOT different..

  49. [49] 
    John M wrote:

    [39] Michale

    "Again, I AGREE. So you do concede then that a legal, fair and free election CAN be legally and constitutionally nullified?

    Of course. I never claimed otherwise.."

    REALLY??? I seem to remember someone singing a different tune not at that long ago. Something about Trump supporters having more guns and being ready to take up arms against what is a lawful and constitutional act, such as impeachment.

  50. [50] 
    Michale wrote:

    REALLY??? I seem to remember someone singing a different tune not at that long ago. Something about Trump supporters having more guns and being ready to take up arms against what is a lawful and constitutional act, such as impeachment.

    Nope, not what I said..

    I said that if President Trump is impeached and removed from office based on some bullshit claim having nothing to do with Russian Collusion.....

    THEN Trump supporters would take up arms against this illegal coup..

    In other words...

    If ya'all are going to impeach and remove President Trump from office..

    It had BETTER be because Russian Collusion was proven Beyond A Shadow Of A Doubt....

    Otherwise, we will be in a real shooting civil war..

    And the majority of guns and training is with Trump supporters...

  51. [51] 
    TheStig wrote:

    John M-33

    "This is NOT new. We have seen this before."

    It's not new, it's the old normal. The WH leaks like a sieve...just as it did in the 19th century when ordinary citizens could just stroll off the street and inside for a chat. Newspapers print material, vaguely attributed to "a senior advisor" all the time. If they didn't be reduced to printing WH press releases and editorials (like Fox News). This leak only attracting undue attention because of the alarming behavior it describes....a President unable to comprehend his job snd mentally unstable to boot.

    As I see it, the leakers are multiple, and most likely old hands from the military and intelligence branches. These guys (I think it's many more than one)view Trump as existential threat to national security. They have highest clearance and have seen the goods. They also know security procedures and have left few footprints for investigators. If they have been sloppy, the guy closest to retirement takes the fall. It's a soft coup, make no mistake.

  52. [52] 
    Michale wrote:

    NFL Season Opener Ratings Crash To Multi-Year Low...
    https://deadline.com/2018/09/eagles-nfl-kickoff-game-ratings-down-falcons-nbc-1202459228/

    NFL is in trouble...

  53. [53] 
    Michale wrote:

    These guys (I think it's many more than one)view Trump as existential threat to national security.

    No, these guys view President Trump as a threat to their deep state hegemony..

    "Well, you think about it Ethan, it was inevitable. No more cold war. No more secrets you keep from yourself. Answer to no one but yourself. Then, you wake up one morning and find out the President is running the country without your permission. The son of a bitch, how dare he. Then you realize, it's over. You are an obsolete peice of hardware, not worth upgrading, you got a lousy marriage, and 62 grand a year."
    -Jim Phelps, MISSION IMPOSSIBLE

    If this cowardly traitor IS an intelligence person, then the precedent it sets is all the more terrifying...

  54. [54] 
    Michale wrote:

    It's a soft coup, make no mistake.

    And Stig and I are in COMPLETE agreement..

    CrazyTown indeed...

  55. [55] 
    John M wrote:

    [50] Michale

    "I said that if President Trump is impeached and removed from office based on some bullshit claim having nothing to do with Russian Collusion....."

    In other words, you are now BACK-PEDALING, and your support for the CONSTITUTIONAL article of impeachment is SUBJECTIVELY CONDITIONAL based on YOUR OPINION of the circumstances.

  56. [56] 
    John M wrote:

    [54] Michale

    "It's a soft coup, make no mistake.

    And Stig and I are in COMPLETE agreement..

    CrazyTown indeed..."

    I AGREE it's a soft coup also.

  57. [57] 
    Michale wrote:

    In other words, you are now BACK-PEDALING, and your support for the CONSTITUTIONAL article of impeachment is SUBJECTIVELY CONDITIONAL based on YOUR OPINION of the circumstances.

    Nope, I am correcting you when you erroneously put words in my mouth that I did not say..

    Other people get hysterically pissed off when they think I do that..

    But not me.. I just laugh it off and chalk it up sufferers hearing/reading what they WANT to hear/read whether than what's actually said..

    Kinda like MURDERS AT THE RUE MORGUE

    :D

    I AGREE it's a soft coup also.

    It's GOT to be an alternate reality... Nothing else would explain it.. :D

  58. [58] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    -Jim Phelps, MISSION IMPOSSIBLE

    For the record, that portrayal of Phelps put me off the MI films for the duration. Imagine a ST spinoff in which Spock is portrayed as a secret Romulan.
    Disgraceful.

    No, these guys view President Trump as a threat to their deep state hegemony..

    "Deep state hegemony"? You're mixing your paranoias. All of the folks surrounding Trump in the White House were hired by Trump, and Pompeo has been spending too much time in North Korea to have been swiping papers off of Trump's desk.

  59. [59] 
    Michale wrote:

    For the record, that portrayal of Phelps put me off the MI films for the duration. Imagine a ST spinoff in which Spock is portrayed as a secret Romulan.
    Disgraceful.

    I have to agree with you...

    Jim Phelps was an institutional hero.. To make him go so petty to go rogue like that.. Disgraceful in spades...

    "Deep state hegemony"? You're mixing your paranoias. All of the folks surrounding Trump in the White House were hired by Trump,

    And Benedict Arnold was hired by George Washington. Does that make General Washington responsible for Arnold's treason???

  60. [60] 
    Michale wrote:

    put me off the MI films for the duration.

    I few Cruise's MI series like I do Star Trek 90210..

    I'll watch it and even (maybe) enjoy it, but it's NOT REALLY Mission Impossible/Star Trek...

  61. [61] 
    John M wrote:

    [57] Michale

    "Nope, I am correcting you when you erroneously put words in my mouth that I did not say.."

    FIRST, You said this:

    "So you do concede then that a legal, fair and free election CAN be legally and constitutionally nullified?

    Of course. I never claimed otherwise.."

    THEN, you said this:

    "I said that if President Trump is impeached and removed from office based on some bullshit claim having nothing to do with Russian Collusion.....

    THEN Trump supporters would take up arms against this illegal coup.."

    HOW is that NOT a BACK-PEDAL????

    Remember, GROUNDS for IMPEACHMENT is WHATEVER CONGRESS says it is.

  62. [62] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Are you will to give this country a shitty economy and put millions of black & hispanic Americans out of work, just so you can have the satisfaction of taking down President Trump?

    a. The good economy was inherited from Obama. You're welcome.

    b. The writer of the Op-Ed stresses that any achievements of this administration were made despite Trump, not because of him.

    c. And, as I point out repeatedly, Trump hasn't done anything to affect the economy, save to sign a GOP giveaway-to-the-rich bill, and impose tariffs on our allies. Experts say that effects of the former will dissipate by late 2019, and the worst effects of the latter won't be felt until early 2020. It's worth noting here that since the Tariffs were put in place, our trade deficit has gone UP.

    d. There isn't time to impeach Trump before the 2020 election. The impeachment of Clinton took two and a half years. As I pointed out in post #2, even a 25th Amendment scenario requires the votes of two thirds of both houses to complete. Democrats' best bet is to win the House and try to tie Trump's hands legislatively and legally until he can be voted out of office.

    e. The only other option would be for Republicans to see the writing on the wall and force Trump to resign. While the sentiment for that is growing, at present the Trump base wouldn't allow it.

  63. [63] 
    Michale wrote:

    I few Cruise's MI series like I do Star Trek 90210..

    Grrrr...

    I VIEW blaaa blaaaa

  64. [64] 
    Michale wrote:

    a. The good economy was inherited from Obama.

    Yea, that's the claim... Bullshit, unproven and Party biased claim..

    The writer of the Op-Ed stresses that any achievements of this administration were made despite Trump, not because of him.

    The writer is a coward.. As such anything he says can be disregarded...

    c. And, as I point out repeatedly, Trump hasn't done anything to affect the economy,

    And yet, it was YOUR claim (x millions) that President Trump WOULD affect the economy as in destroy it..

    So, what you are saying NOW is that President Trump would have gotten all of the blame, but you are refusing to give him ANY of the credit..

    And this is NOT Party bias exactly why???

    Yunno, YOU can admit that President Trump is doing a better job than you thought possible. It won't kill you and your tongue won't turn to fire..

    d. There isn't time to impeach Trump before the 2020 election. The impeachment of Clinton took two and a half years. As I pointed out in post #2, even a 25th Amendment scenario requires the votes of two thirds of both houses to complete. Democrats' best bet is to win the House and try to tie Trump's hands legislatively and legally until he can be voted out of office.

    So, because the hysterical NeverTrumpers can't do it legally, they are going to go with a "Stig's words, not mine) "soft coup"???

    And this is perfectly acceptable to you because.. Well, it's President Trump... :^/

    . The only other option would be for Republicans to see the writing on the wall and force Trump to resign. While the sentiment for that is growing, at present the Trump base wouldn't allow it.

    And THAT won't happen because the GOP is enjoying the same resurgent popularity amongst minorities that President Trump is enjoying..

    Once again, NO ONE wants to address that.. :D

  65. [65] 
    Michale wrote:

    HOW is that NOT a BACK-PEDAL????

    Because nullifying a free fair and legal election for anything OTHER than Collusion With The Enemy would NOT be a "legal and constitutional" act...

    Impeach all you want..

    You have to know that, with what there is on the table now, it will fail...

  66. [66] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Why is everyone more interested in finding out the identity of the author than they are finding out whether what they wrote is true?

    One thing that I think people overlook is that the NYTimes editorial staff that approved the piece has claimed to have verified the source is a senior official in the administration. If it ended up being written by some unknown staffer with limited access to the going-on’s of the administration, the Times’ reputation would be forever damaged. I don’t see them risking that.

    Republicans don’t want/need to determine whether what was written is accurate, which speaks volumes to their cowardliness! They don’t “want” to determine whether it is true because, if it is, they’d be expected to do something about it . They don’t “need” to determine if it is true because they already know that it is!

    And I love that people seem to accept staffers denying that they wrote the article to the press as “proof” that they aren’t the culprit!

    I’m all for the polygraph idea — as long as they are questioned as to whether they have witnessed behavior by Trump that would make him “unfit” to lead our country. I doubt Trump wants his staff being compelled to tell the truth.

    I would love to see Trump questioned while strapped to a polygraph to see if he truly believes his own lies!

  67. [67] 
    Michale wrote:

    c. And, as I point out repeatedly, Trump hasn't done anything to affect the economy,

    ANd yet, the FACTS prove you wrong...

    Trump has set economic growth on fire. Here is how he did it

    President Donald Trump presided over an administration that has seen an enormous level of controversy along that could overshadow a burgeoning economy.

    He has delivered on promises to cut taxes and regulations and promote activity through more aggressive government spending.

    Critics believe that it won't last because the fiscal stimulus is aimed only at near-term growth.

    The results, though, have been impressive: a surge in company profits and near-record levels of optimism from consumers and businesses.
    https://www.cnbc.com/2018/09/07/how-trump-has-set-economic-growth-on-fire.html

    Once again, we have your Party bias...

    And then we have the FACTS and REALITY...

  68. [68] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Yunno, YOU can admit that President Trump is doing a better job than you thought possible. It won't kill you and your tongue won't turn to fire..

    I might if I weren't so busy cringing at his every act and utterance. What an embarrassing spectacle.

    Besides, the nuns taught me that telling a whopper like that would condemn me to eternal hellfire. I don't want to suffer eternal hellfire.

  69. [69] 
    TheStig wrote:

    John M - 53

    "Remember, GROUNDS for IMPEACHMENT is WHATEVER CONGRESS says it is."

    "The Historical Origins of Impeachment" stated: "'High Crimes and Misdemeanors' has traditionally been considered a 'term of art', like such other constitutional phrases as 'levying war' and 'due process.' The Supreme Court has held that such phrases must be construed, not according to modern usage, but according to what the framers meant when they adopted them." - Judiciary Committee report, 1974.

    Trump should be mortally afraid of Original Intent. Not sure he's "there" yet, or that he will ever get "there" but others likely will.

  70. [70] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Re [67]: The part that you didn't quote:

    His critics, a group that includes a legion of Wall Street economists, most Democrats and even some in his own Republican party, don't believe it will last. They figure the current boom will begin petering out as soon as mid-2019 and possibly end in recession in 2020.

    Exactly as I said. To counter that, the author quotes Larry Kudlow, once called "the most unqualified man to ever chair the Council of Economic Advisors". TV economist. pffft!

    .

  71. [71] 
    Michale wrote:

    I might if I weren't so busy cringing at his every act and utterance. What an embarrassing spectacle.

    So, you prefer flash over substance..

    You want a POTUS who will say all the right things and act with prim and propriety but preside over the most sluggish and anemic economic "recovery" in history..

    I don't fault you for how you feel..

    Flash and Sizzle gives ya a warm fuzzy...

    But taking more money home and getting bonuses and discounts..

    THAT is much better.. At least for me..

  72. [72] 
    Michale wrote:

    Exactly as I said.

    Yea.. YOU don't believe it will last either..

    But you keep saying that and it keeps lasting..

    How long til you stop saying that and concede it's a GOOD thing for the country???

  73. [73] 
    Michale wrote:

    But, regardless of whether or not you think it will last....

    The FACT is that President Trump's actions and business leadership was and is instrumental in producing this awesome economy and millions and millions of JOBS, JOBS, JOBS...

    Deny it all you want, but the FACTS and REALITY prove other wise.

    Sure it might not last.. Or it might...

    But the fact is, it's ALL because of President Trump..

    And, if it DOESN'T last, who do you think you will blame???

    President Trump..

    You deny him the credit, but you WILL give him all the blame..

    How is that NOT Party bias???

  74. [74] 
    Michale wrote:

    To counter that, the author quotes Larry Kudlow, once called "the most unqualified man to ever chair the Council of Economic Advisors".

    And Odumbo was once called an Islamic terrorist/Manchurian Candidate...

    So????

  75. [75] 
    Michale wrote:

    Obama’s remarks came on the heels of the August jobs report, which found that the United States created 201,000 new jobs in August.

    But it’s not just Trump giving himself credit for the strong economy – economists are as well.

    CNBC called the American economy a “tremendous achievement” for Trump, highlighting that “during his time in office, the economy has achieved feats most experts thought impossible. GDP is growing at a 3-percent plus rate. The unemployment rate is near a 50-year low. Meanwhile, the stock market has jumped 27 percent amid a surge in corporate profits.”

    "Waaaaaa!!!! Waaaaaaa!!!!! Waaaaaaaa!!!!!! I SHOULD GET THE CREDIT!!!! Waaaaaaa Waaaaaaa!!!"
    -Barack Odumbo

    Odumbo reminds me of Trelane, the Squire Of Gothos who whines and stamps his feet saying he woulda beat Kirk...

    That's ya'all's messiah.. :^/

  76. [76] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    What happened to "collusion"?? Where did "collusion" go when we need it?

    All I heard from Weigantia, especially those with no penises, from fall of '16 to spring of '18, was "We promise Trump will soon be gone by virtue of him "colluding" with Russians!!"

    I pointed out a dozen times that getting dirt on Hillary, even when it comes from Russians, is NOT ILLEGAL, and the unpenised repeatedly assured me that "IT MUST BE ILLEGAL!"

    I NEVER have heard the word from Mueller, and now I never hear it from Weigantia. Come on girls, where did you go when the country needs you??

  77. [77] 
    Michale wrote:

    Someone needs to remind Odumbo..

    You didn't build that.."

  78. [78] 
    Michale wrote:

    I NEVER have heard the word from Mueller, and now I never hear it from Weigantia. Come on girls, where did you go when the country needs you??

    There's a reason for that.. :D

    Everyone finally realized that those who were saying "There is no such crime as 'collusion'... " were factually accurate and they can't swallow their pride and admit that they were wrong..

    Not only that, but I bet you'll see a chorus of "I never said that!!" and "No one here EVER said anything about 'COLLUSION'!!!" and "We never said COLLUSION!!!" etc etc etc... :D

    It's been proven beyond ANY doubt...

    Denial is NOT a river in Egypt...

    Denial is a river in Weigantia.. A large angry twisting river...

  79. [79] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    So, you prefer flash over substance..

    To the contrary: I prefer substance to bombast. I'll take the "no drama" candidate that I can rely on over the circus presently in progress.

    You want a POTUS who will say all the right things and act with prim and propriety but preside over the most sluggish and anemic economic "recovery" in history..

    Which has continued unabated for a decade now, the longest period of sustained growth in US history. It may have started sluggishly, but because it was carefully managed, proved to be enduring.

    How long til you stop saying that and concede it's a GOOD thing for the country?

    It is a good thing for the country, in the short run. But Republicans have a blind spot when it comes to economic outcomes because their ideology won't allow it. By overheating the economy, they've ensured that the downside will be worse than it would have been. Many also fear that the removal of capital requirements for mid-sized banks will result in more failures down the road.

    Thinking long-term does not appear to be a GOP virtue.

  80. [80] 
    Michale wrote:

    Everyone finally realized that those who were saying "There is no such crime as 'collusion'... " were factually accurate and they can't swallow their pride and admit that they were wrong..

    There is ample precedent for this..

    They can't admit they were wrong when they claimed that President Trump would destroy the economy and would start WWIII...

    They NOW claim that they never made any such claims..

    So it is in their Orwellian 1984 world...

    "We are at war with East Asia.. We always have been at war with East Asia..."

  81. [81] 
    Michale wrote:

    To the contrary: I prefer substance to bombast. I'll take the "no drama" candidate that I can rely on over the circus presently in progress.

    But only if that no drama candidate has a -D after his name, eh? :D

    Shall we has Border Patrol Officer Brian Terry about "No Drama" Odumbo???

    Which has continued unabated for a decade now, the longest period of sustained growth in US history. It may have started sluggishly, but because it was carefully managed, proved to be enduring.

    But YOU said that a President Trump would destroy it..

    Were you WRONG then???

    Or are you WRONG now??

    Thinking long-term does not appear to be a GOP virtue.

    Really??

    And yet, in this VERY blog, just yesterday, CW complimented and praised the GOP on their LONG TERM THINKING...

    And you said NOTHING in rebuttal then...

    So, were you wrong (by omission) then???

    Or are you WRONG now??

    Moisten yer finger and figure out which way the political winds are blowing... Then get back to me.. :^/

    You see, this is EXACTLY the challenge with trying to discuss things with ya'all...

    Ya'all have no foundation.. Ya'all are ALL OVER THE PLACE saying contradictory things... All for the sake of the Party agenda...

    PARTY UBER ALLES

  82. [82] 
    Michale wrote:

    Ya'all have no foundation.. Ya'all are ALL OVER THE PLACE saying contradictory things... All for the sake of the Party agenda...

    But that's what makes ya'all so lovable..

    So, don't ever change!! :D

  83. [83] 
    Michale wrote:

    Ya are all about propriety....

    Propriety demands that past presidents not interfere in the affairs of those Presidents that follow them...

    A courtesy that Jimmy Carter showed President Reagan...

    A courtesy that President Bush showed Obama...

    So, if ya are all about "propriety" then you HAVE to condemn Odumbo...

    Oh wait.. I know! I know.. Don't tell me...

    "That's different"...

    Funny how it ALWAYS is with Left Wingers....

  84. [84] 
    Michale wrote:

    Hehehehehehehehehehehehehehehe

    I just LOVE it when Democrats get all up on their high horses...

    COREY BOOKER FACE-PLANT

    At Kavanaugh hearing, Cory Booker tries but fails to violate a Senate rule in a comedy of errors

    The craziness at the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on Judge Brett Kavanaugh’s Supreme Court nomination got even crazier Thursday, when Sen. Cory Booker, D-N.J., dramatically announced before the TV cameras that he was releasing what he said was a confidential email from Kavanaugh in violation of Senate rules.

    Booker said he “knowingly violated” Senate rules in an act of “civil disobedience” when he released what he described as a confidential email that Kavanaugh sent when he served in the White House as a lawyer for President George W. Bush. The New Jersey senator said he was prepared to face punishment by the Senate for his rule-breaking.

    You could picture Booker using video of the moment in a campaign commercial if he seeks the Democratic presidential nomination in 2020 and writing about himself in a new edition of “Profiles in Courage.”

    And then committee Republicans burst Booker’s bubble, saying the previously confidential email Booker released had been cleared for public release Thursday morning and was no longer confidential.

    Oops..
    http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2018/09/06/at-kavanaugh-hearing-cory-booker-tries-but-fails-to-violate-senate-rule-in-comedy-errors.html

    And then fall on their smug elitist faces.. :D

    It warms the cockles of my heart.. :D

  85. [85] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    I NEVER have heard the word from Mueller, and now I never hear it from Weigantia.

    Do you want an update? Sure.

    So far 36 individuals or entities have been indicted. Of those, 6 have plead guilty to various charges, including Conspiracy to Defraud the United States. Two (Manafort and Van der Zwaan) have been found guilty of various charges following Trial. Van der Zwaan was deported.

    Charged individuals include Trump's former Campaign Chairman and Deputy Campaign Chairman, his former National Security Advisor and former Foreign Policy Advisor.

    The most recent individual to plead guilty and turn State's witness was W. Samuel Patton, a republican consultant with ties to Mercer's Cambridge Analytica operation. In his plea, he admits to being an unregistered agent of a foreign principal, in this case a Russian spy with ties to Manafort. Mueller handed off investigations into the other foreign lobbyists who worked with Manafort ? Tony Podesta, Vin Weber and Greg Craig ? to prosecutors in the Southern District of New York.

    Dozens of witnesses have chosen to testify either to Grand Juries, or in deposition to Mueller's team, including those noted above, his former lawyer, Michael Cohen, and the Chief Financial Officer of the Trump Organization, Allen Weisselberg.

    Cohen has also directly implicated Trump in several felonies relating to Campaign Finance violations, and has agreed to also testify to prosecutors from the NY Attorney General's office and for the US Attorney for the Southern District of New York.

    In addition, Mueller has also received testimony from Rinat Akhmetshin, Russian-born lobbyist and former Soviet Army officer, who attended the Trump Tower meeting, Jason Maloni, former spokesman for Paul Manafort, Sam Clovis, George Papdopoulis' supervisor on the Trump Campaign, Carter Page, former advisor to the Trump Campaign, and George Nader, a Lebanese-American businessman that represented the UAE in meetings with Eric Prince, who was trying to establish a 'back-channel' to the Kremlin on behalf of Trump. Steve Bannon was interviewed 'multiple times' last February by Mueller.

    Subpoenas have also been issued for Kristin M. Davis, the "Manhattan Madam" who had previously worked for Roger Stone, Randy Credico, whom Stone had described as his "backchannel" to Julian Assange. On August 10, 2018, a federal judge found Stone's former aide Andrew Miller to be in contempt of court for refusing to testify before the grand jury.

    Today, Mueller will be interviewing Jerome Corsi, the Washington bureau chief of Infowars, about his association with Roger Stone, and about Stone's prior knowledge of the Wikileaks release.

    This is just some of what we know about the Mueller investigation from public sources. Mueller's team doesn't issue press releases, or discuss the investigation.

    So just because you haven't heard about it lately, doesn't mean that it's dropped out of sight. To the contrary: it continues apace. Weigantians are simply holding their tongues until more facts emerge, a practice that our Weigantian conservatives could learn from.

  86. [86] 
    Michale wrote:

    Desperate Democrats
    https://www.weeklystandard.com/fred-barnes/desperate-democrats

    Democrats shot their wad with Kavanaugh...

    And in the end, Kavanaugh handed them their asses, and departed with his head held high as the assured next Justice Of the US Supreme Court..

    Imagine how desperate Democrats are going to be when Ginsburg steps down.. :D

    Watching Democrats tear themselves to pieces???

    Gonna be wonderful popcorn-worthy theater... And all because Harry Reid wanted some short term relief.. And Schumer hoisted the colors in the air and pulled back nothing but a burnt pole....

    Schumer deserves the award for the most bone-head political play of the decade...

    Balthasar.. You say that REPUBLICANS aren't long term thinkers???

    Look at Democrats, my old friend... :D

  87. [87] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Schumer deserves the award for the most bone-head political play of the decade...

    I disagreed with CW about that. McConnell's play was to bunch those appointments for consideration now, so that Democrat (and Republican) candidates would be kept away from the campaign trail prior to the midterms. Schumer can count, and decided to let those nominations go through as they would have anyway. It was a trade off of short-term pain for long-term gain.

  88. [88] 
    Michale wrote:

    I disagreed with CW about that. McConnell's play was to bunch those appointments for consideration now, so that Democrat (and Republican) candidates would be kept away from the campaign trail prior to the midterms. Schumer can count, and decided to let those nominations go through as they would have anyway. It was a trade off of short-term pain for long-term gain.

    I was referring to Schumer forcing the nuking of the SCOTUS Filibuster..

    Gorsuch was indisputably well qualified.. Gorsuch also did not have ANY effect on the ideological make-up of the court..

    There was absolutely NO REASON that Democrats should whole-heartedly support Gorsuch..

    But they forced the SCOTUS/Filibuster nuke..

    At the time I said it was very short-sighted thinking. That the dynamics could very well change by the time the next SCOTUS seat becomes available. A seat that WILL likely drastically change the ideological make up of the court..

    And here we are.. The delaying tactics of the filibuster would have been a LOT more effective in the here and now than in Gorsuch's confirmation...

    Schumer chose short term base pandering instead of the long term strategic thinking..

    Put another way, with an intact filibuster, Democrats had a chance to derail Kavanaugh's confirmation..

    As things stand, Democrats have NO CHANCE.. NO Republican will side with Democrats on this..

    There are several (at least 3, but I am betting 5) Democrats who will stand with Republicans and confirm Kavanaugh...

    Giving up a long term strategy for short term cheap voova...

    That's today's Democrat Party...

  89. [89] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    Balthy Your [85]

    So what is your point? I said in effect that not a single hanger-on, much less Trump himself, has been charged or convicted of "collusion", and you rattled off a catalog of many sinners and their sins, not a single one of which was "collusion", right?

    Was your point to contradict me, or to agree with me? If it was to agree with me, you coulda done it with far fewer words!

  90. [90] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    But they forced the SCOTUS/Filibuster nuke..

    Really? You're going to try to foist that off on Democrats? We weren't in charge of the chamber.

    That was Mitch "Nukem" McConnell, if I recall.

    Now there's long-term thinking: McConnell figures that by the time that his stunt comes back to bite his own side on the ass, he'll be sipping mint julips on his Kentucky farm.

  91. [91] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    C.R. [89]:

    Do you imagine that word games will save Trump? He's under investigation for having committed felonies in six different jurisdictions. Playing ball with high-level Russian mobsters is just one part of this lunatic's resume. His performance in Helsinki was a low point, leading to another round of "what the hell does Putin have on him?".

    We're supposed to believe that although he was actively doing business with Russians, and that he was literally surrounded by people who were meeting with Russians, and later put people into high level positions that had been specifically honored by the Russians, praises Putin, implored the Russians to hack Hillary's emails, insisted on several occasions on unrecorded meetings with Putin, was caught lying about his son's meeting with Russians, gave top secret information to the Russians, hired a campaign manager that had recently worked closely with the Russians in Ukraine, where his partners included a Russian intelligence officer, and has a beloved daughter with a Russian name, would never in a million years 'collude' with Russia to win the US Presidency. Uh huh.

  92. [92] 
    Michale wrote:

    Really? You're going to try to foist that off on Democrats? We weren't in charge of the chamber.

    Uh.... You DO realize that, by and large, the filibuster is a tool of the MINORITY right??

    Schumer wanted to block Gorsuch to please the base.. So he forced McConnel to nuke the filibuster for SCOTUS nominees..

    The filibuster would have REALLY come in handy to delay Kavanaugh in there here and now, wouldn't it... :^/

    That was Mitch "Nukem" McConnell, if I recall.

    And yet, it was Harry Nukem/Got His Ass Kicked By A Bowflex Reid who set the precedent..

    Funny how you ALWAYS seem to want to forget all the stoopid the Democrats do.. :D

  93. [93] 
    Michale wrote:

    Uh huh.

    Fine..

    Then PROVE it..

    WITH FACTS...

    You can't... And THAT is why ya'all have stopped talking about COLLUSION because A> Collusion is not a crime and 2> you have NO FACTS that proven Collusion, even if Collusion WAS a crime..

    You Lefties are hosed 6 ways from Sunday...

    So, ya'all resort to a coup to nullify a free, fair and legal election..

    By the way, "coup"??

    That was Stig's and JM's word...

    I simply agreed with it..

  94. [94] 
    Michale wrote:

    Balthasar,

    Hillary had a LOT more connections with Russia than Trump did..

    And many of those were POLITICAL connections rather than the simple and logical BUSINESS connections that Trump had...

    So, using YOUR 'logic' of guilt by association???

    Hillary is TONS more guilty than Trump could *EVER* be..

    What about the Podestas?? Their in up to their ASSES in the same Russia connections that Manafort is...

    Why aren't you so all hot and heavy to take THEM down??

    Because *THEY* have a -D after their name.

    And **THAT** is what it's all about... The -D or the -R after a persons name..

  95. [95] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    Balthy Your [91]

    Hell No, we are NOT "supposed to believe" a single one of your litany of the dozens of things he "wouldn't do to win the U.S. presidency".

    I firmly believe he would collude with the devil himself to win anything whatsoever, a tiddlywinks game.

    It's NEVER been that I don't believe he colluded with Russkies, it's always been that such is NOT ILLEGAL.

    You Dems/Libs wouldn't bat an eye at any Dem politician getting political dirt on his opponent from anybody anywhere, but suddenly when you heard some dirt on YOUR candidate came from a Russian, and your candidate unexpectedly lost, it just HAD TO BE ILLEGAL, (even when the dirt turned out to be phony for Gawdsake!!)

  96. [96] 
    Michale wrote:

    You Dems/Libs wouldn't bat an eye at any Dem politician getting political dirt on his opponent from anybody anywhere, but suddenly when you heard some dirt on YOUR candidate came from a Russian, and your candidate unexpectedly lost, it just HAD TO BE ILLEGAL, (even when the dirt turned out to be phony for Gawdsake!!)

    AND WE HAVE A WINNER!!!! TELL HIM WHAT HE'S WON, JOHNNY!!!

  97. [97] 
    Michale wrote:

    And bringing you our latest Darwin Award entry..

    Woman Mistakes Dynamite Stick For Candle In Power Outage, Suffers ‘Extreme’ Injuries
    https://boston.cbslocal.com/2018/09/07/woman-mistakes-dynamite-stick-for-candle-in-power-outage-suffers-extreme-injuries/

  98. [98] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    You Dems/Libs wouldn't bat an eye at any Dem politician getting political dirt on his opponent from anybody anywhere, but suddenly when you heard some dirt on YOUR candidate came from a Russian, and your candidate unexpectedly lost, it just HAD TO BE ILLEGAL, (even when the dirt turned out to be phony for Gawdsake!!)

    Okay, case in point: during the 2000 election cycle, Al Gore advisor Tim Downey found in his morning mail a trove of briefing material -- a videotape and a sheaf of papers -- in an envelope postmarked Austin, Tex., where the Bush campaign has its headquarters. Without hesitation, he first called his lawyer, .
    then the FBI.

    The materials would have been invaluable to Gore, who could have used them to anticipate Bush's answers in their upcoming debate. Everybody, including the candidate, believed that the Gore staffer had done the right thing.

    As to whether the actions of the Trump campaign were illegal or not, that issue will eventually be decided by a court of law. Even if you think that Kavanaugh has your back on this one, there are still eight - okay, six - other independent-minded justices to convince on that bench. Think you're still safe? Keep in mind, then, Roberts' vote on Obamacare.

  99. [99] 
    Kick wrote:

    Balthasar
    85

    So just because you haven't heard about it lately, doesn't mean that it's dropped out of sight. To the contrary: it continues apace. Weigantians are simply holding their tongues until more facts emerge, a practice that our Weigantian conservatives could learn from.

    Very nice post and excellent summation. Well done, sir.

    I would simply add that Trump Organization executives (Trump, Trump Jr., Ivanka, Eric) are under investigation by Feds and facing potential criminal charges for campaign finance crimes. Maybe they'll be charged, maybe not. I wouldn't bet against it since Mikey Cohen has confessed to it and divulged how it was carried out. Perhaps they can swing a deal and avoid prison. We'll see.

    https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-09-07/trump-executives-are-said-to-face-campaign-finance-probe-by-u-s?srnd=premium

    Also, Paulie Manafort is reportedly weighing a plea deal and attempting to avoid another trial in DC wherein Paulie would admit to the multiple crimes he committed in exchange for more favorable sentencing. I wonder if it would require cooperation with the investigation a.k.a. "flipping." If it does, this could get really interesting with Trump suddenly turning on Paulie. Time will tell, as always.

    I'd post a link, but I already did. Search Bloomberg reporting.

    Finally, I would simply add that "our Weigantian conservatives" could also learn that making shit up, putting words in people's mouths via fake quotes, and fabrication regarding events is not necessary for the trolling types desperately seeking a response from "those with no penises." :) #Pathetic

  100. [100] 
    karen rusk wrote:

    [13] M - yes, he was.

  101. [101] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Kick [99]: fake quotes, and fabrication regarding events is not necessary

    It's all polemics, Kick, or what I call 'Ailesian debate', after Roger Ailes, the late godfather of Fox.

    These sorts of arguments aren't intended to convince or enlighten you, but rather to dominate the argument and provoke a reaction, from both you and an imagined audience of like-minded supporters that would applaud an arguer's ability to elicit outrage.

    This is why Tucker Carlson, an adept practitioner, keeps a cup on his desk, which he says facetiously is 'filled with liberal tears'.

    Outrage makes them happy. Remember that.

    .

  102. [102] 
    Michale wrote:

    The materials would have been invaluable to Gore, who could have used them to anticipate Bush's answers in their upcoming debate. Everybody, including the candidate, believed that the Gore staffer had done the right thing.

    Well, bully for him..

    Now consider your scenario in the here and now.. Well 2016..

    Consider that a Hillary adviser got a packet postmarked RUSSIA that had totally decimating info on Trump..

    Do you think that Hillary would have hesitated about using it??

    Of course not. She would have plastered it all over the news..

    You and I both know it's true...

    So let's can the holier than thou, eh? It's NOT a good fit... :D

  103. [103] 
    Michale wrote:

    Karen,

    [13] M - yes, he was.

    Do you have any facts that show that??

    Can you find ANY condemnations from Democrats re: Democrat Donald Trump that are akin to the condemnations we see today??

    Any at all??

    I would be VERY happy to review your evidence, if you have any...

  104. [104] 
    Michale wrote:

    Outrage makes them happy. Remember that.

    Says the guy who is outraged HOURLY by President Trump allegedly doing this or allegedly doing that..

    If you want hate and intolerance and violence, you need only look as far as your fellow NeverTrumpers...

    Clean yer own house, bub.. Then you'll have some cred to point fingers at others..

Comments for this article are closed.