ChrisWeigant.com

Aiding And Abetting The Enemy

[ Posted Thursday, June 13th, 2019 – 16:55 UTC ]

President Donald Trump just made news by admitting what everyone already knew or suspected -- that he'd be just fine with Russia feeding him dirt on a political opponent during a presidential election campaign. He wouldn't see any necessity to inform the F.B.I. if a foreign government offered up negative information, and he furthermore insisted that any other American politician would do exactly the same thing. He's trying to normalize his own amorality, in other words.

To put it mildly, Trump is receiving some pushback. Democrats, of course, are outraged. But the interesting thing is that Republicans are also speaking out against Trump's position. In fact, no Republican senator has yet tried to defend Trump's position. Perhaps because he tried to rope them all in with his claims that congressmen routinely get dirt on their political opponents from Russia, but for whatever reason this was clearly a bridge too far for most congressional Republicans.

Democrats, from the presidential candidates on down, should make as big a stink about this as is humanly possible. But they should train their fire not only on Trump but also on his chief henchman in election interference, Mitch McConnell. Because McConnell is refusing to bring up any election reform bill in the Senate before the 2020 election happens. And, as Trump just proved beyond a shadow of a doubt, this means aiding and abetting any foreign election interference which may happen in the meantime.

This is a very big deal, and goes beyond Donald Trump. The fact has gotten somewhat lost in all the drama surrounding the Mueller Report, but Russia directly interfered in an American election in as many ways as they could get away with. This is not "meddling," this is a direct attack on our democracy. By an adversary. And Trump just gave Russia a big green light to repeat their attack over the next year and a half.

So what will Republicans do now? It is not enough to politely disagree with Trump's stance. That's a good start, but it does absolutely nothing to solve the problem. The real question is whether they'll put pressure on their own leadership to begin formal debate on what we should be doing to protect American elections and our democracy. To not hold such a debate is now not some sort of theoretical exercise -- the leader of our country just gave Russia full permission to feed him dirt on his political opponents. Current election laws are too weak or too vague to address this very real problem. Which is why legislation is being written to strengthen and defend our electoral process. There are bills which have passed the House as well as bipartisan bills awaiting action in the Senate, but Mitch McConnell refuses to move on any of them.

McConnell is standing with Trump, who is standing with Putin. That's a pretty easy political equation to make. Any Republican senator who is not publicly calling on McConnell to begin action on election protection bills has to also be seen as aiding and abetting this continuing attack on American democracy. Every Democrat should challenge the Republicans every chance they get on their shameful inaction in the face of danger. This isn't all that hard to do:

"When America has been attacked in the past, politicians in Washington have put aside partisan differences to meet these dangers head-on, standing together. We unite in times of crisis to battle America's enemies. That has been a bedrock of our democracy for over two centuries. But now we are under attack again, and one party seems content to just sit back and let it happen. This is a disgrace. I'd like to ask all Republicans in the Senate what they think Ronald Reagan would say about standing up to a Russian attack on our elections, if he were still alive today. What would Ronnie do? Allow Mitch McConnell to aid and abet the Russians by refusing to even consider legislation to protect the foundation of our democracy -- our free and fair elections? Or would Reagan fight back against Russia? Which do you think is more likely? For over a half-century, one of the Republican Party's core beliefs was the existential threat Russia posed to America. They have thrown all that out the window, folks. They are now content to allow Moscow to attack our elections with impunity. There are House bills waiting for action in the Senate to fight back against these attacks, but Mitch McConnell doesn't want to give the Democrats a political 'win' by bringing them to a vote. There are bipartisan bills written by Senate Democrats and Republicans together which are also being ignored by McConnell. This is an absolute disgrace. Every member of Congress swears an oath to protect and defend the Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic, but Republicans are allowing Mitch McConnell to shirk this defining duty. We call on every Republican who cares about defending America from foreign attack to demand that Mitch McConnell end his petty partisan posturing and allow the United States Senate to get to work on legislation to protect American elections. Anything less is a blatant dereliction of duty."

Donald Trump doesn't have a moral center to appeal to. He is incapable of understanding why what he just admitted he'd do is wrong. He has no shame, so it is impossible to use it as leverage against him.

Mitch McConnell, however, knows full well what is going on. He is capable of being shamed. But the only way he'll listen is if that shame is coming at him from within his own party. Democrats need to point this out, as many times as it takes. To do nothing in the face of a very real danger is aiding and abetting those who would do us harm. More than that, it is also nothing short of cowardice in the face of the enemy.

-- Chris Weigant

 

Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant

 

98 Comments on “Aiding And Abetting The Enemy”

  1. [1] 
    Michale wrote:

    President Donald Trump just made news by admitting what everyone already knew or suspected -- that he'd be just fine with Russia feeding him dirt on a political opponent during a presidential election campaign. He wouldn't see any necessity to inform the F.B.I. if a foreign government offered up negative information, and he furthermore insisted that any other American politician would do exactly the same thing. He's trying to normalize his own amorality, in other words.

    And yet, NO ONE here has a problem with Hillary receiving dirt from Russian Intelligence on Donald Trump...

    Why is that????

    You see why it's IMPOSSIBLE to get all hysterical about ya'all's claims..

    Because HILLARY did the EXACT SAME THING..

    And ya'all don't care a bit...

  2. [2] 
    Michale wrote:

    but Russia directly interfered in an American election in as many ways as they could get away with.

    And yet, it's a universal FACT that their attempts had NO EFFECT on the election..

    That's the story from EVERY Dumbocrat up to AND INCLUDING Odumbo...

    So, why are you so upset??

    Oh, that's right.. Hillary lost.. THAT is why ya'all are so upset.. :eyeroll:

  3. [3] 
    Michale wrote:

    McConnell is standing with Trump, who is standing with Putin. That's a pretty easy political equation to make.

    ONLY to those suffering from HHPTDS....

  4. [4] 
    Michale wrote:

    Basically, ya'all lost with the Mueller report..

    And yer trying to keep the Russia Collusion delusion alive because ya'all have NO OTHER RECOURSE...

    Democrats have FAILED at each and every juncture...

    So it's natural ya'all would keep the bullshit of Russia Collusion alive...

    But it's a deceased equine and you'll only hurt yerselves and yer chances by continuing to beat on it...

    And the fact remains..

    Hillary received oppo research on Donald Trump from Russian Intelligence...

    And ya'all don't care one bit..

    So, why should anyone listen to Dumbocrat hysterics???

  5. [5] 
    Michale wrote:

    Apparently, the cat's got yer tongues.. :D

    Or, in this case, the FACTS got yer tongues..

    See ya'all in the morning.. :D

  6. [6] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Too bad that journalists don't take an oath to protect and defend our Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic.

    Then you wouldn't be aiding and abetting the big money interests (the domestic enemy that dwarfs anything the Russians have or might do) by not exposing the big money politicians for aiding and abetting (let's face reality- selling out to) the big money interests instead of defending the constitution and democracy against them. (providing you didn't break your oath as the big money polticians have.)

    Who cares if the big money Democrats want to pretend they are outraged aboot the Russians.

    This is just another "look here" while the real trick is happening somewhere else bullshit so that citizens will not pay attention to the big money politicians selling out.

    Why do you keep working for the enemy?

    It is as transparent as Trump and you should be ashamed for continuing the lie while pretending that you are protecting and defending our Constitution and democracy.

    Get real.

  7. [7] 
    Paula wrote:

    "Aiding and Abetting the enemy" - YEP.

    This is not "meddling," this is a direct attack on our democracy. By an adversary. And Trump just gave Russia a big green light to repeat their attack over the next year and a half.

    YEP.

    And McConnell is helping by blocking every effort to deal with elecion interference?

    YEP.

    McConnell is every bit the traitor Blotus is.

  8. [8] 
    neilm wrote:

    McConnell is setting himself and the Republicans up for a lot of payback. The shortsightedness of believing any means justifies the end of stuffing the SCOTUS for a generation is short sighted. The SCOTUS is far more influenced by the prevailing attitudes than the whacky right think, and they will be disappointed when they lose the culture wars all over again. We are becoming a post-Christian society whether McConnell and the wing nuts want it or not. The more they try to pull America back to their 1950s dreamland, the more they will create a backlash that propels the progressive agenda.

    There was an interesting article I'll try to find that speculated on the sudden shift in acceptance over the last 20 years for gay marriage, and the premise was that the gay community came out in force and suddenly most Americans realized they already knew and liked gay people already, and the bigotry became personal.

    Obviously Trump needs to go to prison to restore the dignity of the country. As for his cronies, some are already in prison, more also need to go.

    Found it:

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/social-issues/americans-views-flipped-on-gay-rights-how-did-minds-change-so-quickly/2019/06/07/ae256016-8720-11e9-98c1-e945ae5db8fb_story.html

  9. [9] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale,

    And yet, NO ONE here has a problem with Hillary receiving dirt from Russian Intelligence on Donald Trump...Why is that????

    Because, what the Hillary campaign did wasn't illegal. Her campaign engaged in glorified "oppo esearch", as Trump would say.

    Hillary's campaign retained an American law firm which in turn retained an American research firm which in turn tasked a former UK intelligence operative who, in turn, went to the FBI with his findings. (Russia government? No. FBI? Yes.)

    All of this was perfectly legal and most decidedly NOT what the Trump campaign did. Russian government? Yes. FBI? No.

    So, you can see that one campaign sought to violate election law and the other acted within the law.

    The law is very clear on this. Perhaps you can provide a link for it.

  10. [10] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale,

    And yet, NO ONE here has a problem with Hillary receiving dirt from Russian Intelligence on Donald Trump...Why is that????

    Because, what the Hillary campaign did wasn't illegal. Her campaign engaged in glorified "oppo esearch", as Trump would say.

    Hillary's campaign retained an American law firm which in turn retained an American research firm which in turn tasked a former UK intelligence operative who, in turn, went to the FBI with his findings. (Russia government? No. FBI? Yes.)

    All of this was perfectly legal and most decidedly NOT what the Trump campaign did. Russian government? Yes. FBI? No.

    So, you can see that one campaign sought to violate election law and the other acted within the law.

    The law is very clear on this. Perhaps you can provide a link for it.

  11. [11] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    oppo easearch? Good God.

    Guess I'm still too excited to tap out a few words due to a certain group of raptors.

    Congrats to the Warriors, though, for a phenomenal series!

  12. [12] 
    Michale wrote:

    <I.Hillary's campaign retained an American law firm which in turn retained an American research firm which in turn tasked a former UK intelligence operative who, in turn, went to the FBI with his findings. (Russia government? No. FBI? Yes.)

    And where did the "findings" that UK Intelligence Operative got come from??

    Russian Intelligence..

    All of this was perfectly legal and most decidedly NOT what the Trump campaign did.

    Even if that was factually accurate (which it's not) that's not the issue..

    CW went on a rant because President Trump said he wouldn't mind hearing about dirt on the 2020 Dim candidate from Russians..

    And THAT is no big deal because THAT is exactly what Hillary did in 2016..

    Got dirt on Candidate Donald Trump from Russians..

    So, you can see that one campaign sought to violate election law and the other acted within the law.

    And yet, Mueller said that there was not sufficient evidence to show that one campaign sought to violate the law..

    So, President Trump is COMPLETELY innocent of that accusation...

    Mueller hisself said so... :D

    If that was the current point.. which it's not..

  13. [13] 
    Michale wrote:

    FEC chairwoman warns candidates not to accept help from foreign governments

    Federal Election Commission Chairwoman Ellen Weintraub released a statement Thursday making clear that candidates for public office may not receive help from a foreign government, in an apparent warning to President Donald Trump, who said he would consider taking information about an opponent from another country.

    Tweeting her statement, Weintraub wrote, "I would not have thought I needed to say this."

    The head of the agency responsible for campaign finance laws clarified that any campaign that accepts help from a foreign government "risks being on the wrong end of a federal investigation."

    "Let me make something 100% clear to the American public and anyone running for public office," Weintraub wrote. "It is illegal for any person to solicit, accept, or receive anything of value from a foreign national in connection with a U.S. election. This is not a novel concept."
    https://www.sfgate.com/news/article/FEC-chairwoman-warns-candidates-not-to-accept-13992362.php

    And yet, it's EXACTLY what Hillary did in 2016...

    No one wants to concede that...

    The old double standards again...

  14. [14] 
    Michale wrote:

    Dems' Selective Outrage Over Foreign-Sourced Oppo Research on Full Display

    The selective outrage from the left surrounding foreign interference in U.S. elections is beyond hypocritical -- it's absurd.

    Dems' Selective Outrage Over Foreign-Sourced Oppo Research on Full Display
    . By Adriana CohenJune 14, 2019
    Dems' Selective Outrage Over Foreign-Sourced Oppo Research on Full DisplayAP Photo/Evan Vucci
    The selective outrage from the left surrounding foreign interference in U.S. elections is beyond hypocritical -- it's absurd.

    Take President Trump's interview with ABC's George Stephanopoulos on Wednesday. When asked by the TV anchor if his campaign would accept information from foreign nations, including China or Russia, that could damage his opponent, Trump said, "I think you might want to listen. There's nothing wrong with listening." He continued. "If somebody called from a country, Norway -- 'We have information on your opponent' -- oh, I think I'd want to hear it."

    The president downplayed the notion that such a gesture amounts to foreign election interference.

    The response, however, from scores of Democratic presidential hopefuls was piercing. They excoriated Trump's comments, with several candidates amplifying calls for impeachment. Frontrunner Joe Biden tweeted: "President Trump is once again welcoming foreign interference in our elections. This isn't about politics. It is a threat to our national security. An American President should not seek their aid and abet those who seek to undermine democracy."

    Sen. Bernie Sanders said, "We have a president who thinks he is above the law. The House should immediately begin impeachment inquiries."

    California Sen. Kamala Harris said on MSNBC, "what we hear tonight is that he is yet again open to the idea of working with foreign governments to undermine the integrity of our election system. It's outrageous."

    Sen. Elizabeth Warren also reiterated calls for impeachment while other 2020 Democratic candidates including Beto O'Rourke tweeted, "When the President of the United States openly welcomes foreign help to win an election, he threatens the very core of our democracy. If we are to secure justice and ensure this never happens again, we must impeach him."

    Many other prominent Democrats, lawmakers and biased media made similar utterances.

    Of course, there was no such outrage from the left or the #FakeNewsMedia when the Democratic National Committee and Hillary Clinton's 2016 presidential campaign paid millions for Russian disinformation against Donald Trump. Former British spy Christopher Steele procured the propaganda from foreign "informants" for what's known as the "dirty dossier." That foreign-sourced opposition research wasn't just obtained and listened to by Team Hillary. It was used by former FBI Director James Comey, Democratic lawmakers and the highest echelons of the justice system to derail the Trump campaign and current administration via counterintelligence investigations and other underhanded tactics.

    Two sets of rules? Clearly.

    Then there's former President Barack Obama's Department of Justice, which used the foreign-sourced dossier -- despite it being unverified and salacious, per James Comey -- to obtain FISA warrants to spy on the Trump campaign and launch several ongoing investigations into the administration.

    Democrats aren't bothered by any of that, as they only care about foreign meddling in our democracy and elections when it hurts them politically. When it benefits them, however, they look the other way.

    Then there's the high-paid DNC contractor Alexandra Chalupa who, as Politico reported in 2017, sought dirt on Paul Manafort from the Ukrainian government to harm Trump's 2016 campaign -- and help Hillary Clinton. Politico said: "Ukrainian government officials tried to help Hillary Clinton and undermine Trump by publicly questioning his fitness for office. They also disseminated documents implicating a top Trump aide ... And they helped Clinton's allies research damaging information on Trump and his advisors."

    Any outrage from the left? Not even a smidgen.

    Then there's Trump nemesis Rep. Adam Schiff, a ranking Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee who is laser-focused on investigating the president and removing him from office -- at any cost. Democrats' feathers weren't ruffled in 2017 when Schiff solicited dirt on Trump from Russians, who offered nude photos of Trump.

    But when Trump says he'd listen to information from a foreign government -- not necessarily act on it -- or inform the FBI, the left goes ballistic, illustrating how morally bankrupt and ethically challenged Democrats have become in their unbridled quest for power.
    https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2019/06/14/dems_selective_outrage_over_foreign-sourced_oppo_research_on_full_display_140562.html

    If Democrats didn't have double standards, they would have no standards at all.. :eyeroll:

  15. [15] 
    Michale wrote:

    Damn... I didn't mean to post the entire article..

    Sorry, CW... If you want to delete that, I'll repost just the excerpts I wanted..

  16. [16] 
    Michale wrote:

    Axios reported surprising results Monday from a focus group of voters in Erie, Pa., made up of eight people who cast ballots for President Barack Obama in 2012 and for Trump in 2016. It turns out the focus group attendees are sticking by the current president.
    https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/colin-reed-pennsylvania-could-be-a-key-battleground-in-2020-presidential-race

    Ya'all are gonna get caught in the PENNSYLVANIA Trap again, like Kick did in 2016..

    Kick swore up and down that Pennsylvania is reliably blue and that there is NO WAY that then Candidate Trump could win Pennsylvania..

    Now ya'all are making the same mistake she did.. :D

    Thass OK... Just makes my victory so much sweeter.. :D

  17. [17] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    First, to rebut that ridiculous article:

    Former British spy Christopher Steele worked with the FBI on several occasions previous to the one in question. He was for hire, and a reputable American firm took him on. The firm was a non-partisan one, that traded information, not politics. We know that because the first time we see them, they're working for Ted Cruz.

    Anyway, Steele put his ear to the ground in Europe and (by phone) collected enough to send to his employer. One thing about Trump bothered him, so he (with his employer's blessing) also sent it on to the FBI. And that was that.

    The "dossier" was never said to be more than rumor. And surely the FBI knew that rumors can be true or not true, but never to pre-judge them. The warrants were on Carter Page, but not the Trump campaign, so the application of 'rumor' was justified.

    Alexandra Chalupa brought forward publicly the journals that proved that millions of dollars were paid from the President of Ukraine to Paul Manafort. Hillary Clinton had nothing to do with it.

    Each attempt to point toward Hillary and say "she did it!" is nothing more than an attempt to justify the President's ignorance. Nothing more.

  18. [18] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    And let me be the first to congratulate you on the roll-out of the new republican line:

    Sure we colluded, but it doesn't matter!

    Of course.

  19. [19] 
    Michale wrote:

    Former British spy Christopher Steele worked with the FBI on several occasions previous to the one in question. He was for hire, and a reputable American firm took him on. The firm was a non-partisan one, that traded information, not politics. We know that because the first time we see them, they're working for Ted Cruz.

    Irrelevant to the point. He was a foreign national. He gave information to Hillary's campaign..

    Anyway, Steele put his ear to the ground in Europe and (by phone) collected enough to send to his employer. One thing about Trump bothered him, so he (with his employer's blessing) also sent it on to the FBI. And that was that.

    Yes, he got information from Russian intelligence sources..

    Something YOU claim is "bad" when President Trump is accused of doing it..

    The "dossier" was never said to be more than rumor.

    And yet, it was the basis for the FISA warrant..

    YA'ALL said it was "factual"...

    Alexandra Chalupa brought forward publicly the journals that proved that millions of dollars were paid from the President of Ukraine to Paul Manafort. Hillary Clinton had nothing to do with it.

    At the time, Hillary owned the DNC... Hillary had EVERYTHING to do with it..

    Each attempt to point toward Hillary and say "she did it!" is nothing more than an attempt to justify the President's ignorance. Nothing more.

    To YOU and the rest of the Trump/America haters.. of course..

    But in the world of FACTS and REALITY, Hillary was ass deep in "collusion" and getting dirt on Trump from Russian sources..

    And let me be the first to congratulate you on the roll-out of the new republican line:

    Only in your fevered Trump/America hating imagination..

  20. [20] 
    Michale wrote:

    You can't win, Balthy..

    I have the facts and reality on my side.

    You have nothing but your Russia Collusion delusion.. :D

  21. [21] 
    Michale wrote:

    Texas border town declares itself sanctuary city for the unborn: 'Here we will no longer murder our babies'
    https://www.foxnews.com/us/texas-abortion-border-town-sanctuary-city-unborn

    Good on them...

  22. [22] 
    Michale wrote:

    Former British spy Christopher Steele worked with the FBI on several occasions previous to the one in question.

    Yea.. Another "self less" hero, like ya'all cast Mueller as..

    And yet.. The FACTS are quite different... As they always are with you Trump/America haters...

    Another Media-Fueled Collusion Narrative Falls Apart

    It’s a familiar pattern in the Trump era: A partisan figure tasked with thwarting the president—say, Special Counsel Robert Mueller or former FBI Director James Comey—is portrayed as a fair-minded arbiter of truth and justice, a vanguard of our highest democratic institutions, bravely taking on the Bad Orange Man. Such figures are cast as heroes impervious to political bias. Every move they make, we are told, is for our own good. We are not to question their unimpeachable integrity, their stellar reputation or their motives.

    Such was the case with Christopher Steele, the author of the infamous dossier that served as the raison d’etre for the FBI’s investigation into Donald Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign.

    In order to legitimize the dossier’s dubious claims, the media characterized Steele as an objective player in the nascent Russian collusion plotline, a former British intelligence officer leveraging his long-time Kremlin connections to root out a corrupt scheme between Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin to steal an American election. His work was a profile in courage, we were told; he was a highly-regarded compatriot in America’s fight to make sure our new president was not in fact a covert Russian stooge.

    But now that Steele faces questioning by a federal prosecutor assigned to investigate the corrupt origins of the FBI’s probe into the Trump campaign, it’s obvious that the early hype about Steele was just one more example of the media’s complicity in the Russian collusion coup.

    Steele’s dossier, often glorified in the media as “raw intelligence,” is a collection of vague, anonymous, inaccurate and unproven allegations, yet it captured the attention of the most powerful people in the world both before and after the election. The dossier was the critical piece of “evidence” cited in a warrant presented to a secret court as justification to spy on a Trump campaign aide. Steele and his longtime associate, Fusion GPS owner Glenn Simpson, circulated the dossier amongst their journo-pals in the D.C. media claque beginning in the summer of 2016.
    https://www.amgreatness.com/2019/06/11/another-media-fueled-collusion-narrative-falls-apart/

  23. [23] 
    Michale wrote:

    Another Democrat "hero" (think Michael Avenatti) goes down in flames...

    But as Congress zeroed in on the political origins of the dossier, the media-constructed facade around Steele began to disintegrate. In October 2017, the Washington Post finally confirmed what Republican lawmakers—and most journalists—already knew: Steele wasn’t just a former British spy but a hired political gun, paid partially by none other than Trump’s campaign rival, Hillary Clinton. Testimony by Glenn Simpson would later reveal that Steele was paid around $180,000 to dig up Russia-related dirt on Trump.

    Even after that damning detail was revealed, news reports continued to identify Steele as a “former British intelligence officer” rather than “paid Democratic operative.” (He left MI6 in 2009 to start his London-based consulting business.)

    After Representative Devin Nunes (R-Calif.), then-chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, issued his memo in February 2018 detailing how the dossier was cited as evidence in an application presented to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court without disclosing its political benefactors, the media still ran cover for Steele. (The memo also disclosed that Steele had been fired by the FBI for lying about his contacts with the press.) “Christopher Steele is a hero and Americans owe him their thanks,” insisted Washington Post editor Christian Caryl, presumably with a straight face.

    But as Steele began to face real scrutiny, including a criminal referral for lying to the FBI and defamation lawsuits, the narrative quickly shifted from hero to victim. The New Yorker’s Jane Mayer lamented how Steele—the “ex-spy [who] tried to warn the world about Trump’s ties to Russia”—was being unfairly targeted by Trump, Putin, Nunes, and the Fox News cabal. “They’re trying to take down the whole intelligence community!” Mayer reported Steele telling his friends. “And they’re using me as the battering ram to do it.’”

    It’s clear now that Steele is not a victim, despite the media’s whitewash. Congressional testimony by former Justice Department official Bruce Ohr exposed his decade-long relationship with Steele; Ohr’s wife, Nellie, worked with Steele as a contractor for Fusion GPS on Trump opposition research.

    Newly-released emails further reveal that Steele had ties to Obama’s State Department. And while Steele was working for Clinton and the Democratic National Committee, he also was representing Oleg Deripaska, the Russian oligarch tied to Putin and sanctioned by the U.S. government. Steele also was a paid FBI informant in 2016. Quite a shady network.

    Now the author of the most infamous opposition research file in American political history is the target of a federal investigation into FBI misconduct in 2016. A full accounting of his role will prove that the Clinton campaign, not the Trump campaign, colluded with the Russians through Steele to interfere in the election. Steele also could be in legal trouble for lobbying the U.S. government on behalf of a foreign entity (Deripaska) without disclosing his relationship. Other charges could involve perjury and presenting false evidence to law enforcement.

    And the media will once again be guilty of its own kind of perjury: Misleading the American public about a key perpetrator of the collusion hoax, all in the service of their crusade to get Donald Trump.

    All of the incompetence, malfeasance and outright treason of Odumbo and his minions is going to come out..

    Everything ya'all claim about the Trump campaign (which Mueller completely and utterly dismissed as bullshit) is factually accurate when it comes to the Clinton campaign..

    Dumbocrats had their chance to kill the king, but they missed..

    Now it's the king's turn...

    :D

  24. [24] 
    Michale wrote:

    I beat those who claimed Iran was a stable and worthy partner in civilized circles are feeling mighty embarrassed right now... :D

    James Carafano: Iran’s incredibly stupid blunders and terrorist aggression continue, while US responds wisely

    Iran’s way of pushing back against complaints that it’s a terrorist state is to act more like a terrorist state. Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei might as well take out a Times Square billboard proclaiming that he and his gang are the bad boys of the Middle East.
    https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/james-carafano-irans-incredible-blunders-and-terrorist-aggression-continue-while-us-responds-wisely

  25. [25] 
    Michale wrote:

    Aiding And Abetting The Enemy

    How can Russia be the "enemy"??

    Did Odumbo (and ya'all incidentally) ridicule Mitt Romney when he claimed that Russia was the number #1 geopolitical foe???

    Oh.. Wait.. Now that it serves your agenda, NOW you concede that Mitt Romney was dead on ballz accurate...

    It's all about the Democrat Agenda..

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

    That's the Dumbocrat Party...

  26. [26] 
    Michale wrote:

    OPINION: The Faux Outrage Over Trump’s Comments on Opposition Research

    (The Washington Post) -
    President Donald Trump said the wrong thing again Wednesday, and of course some in the media – and practically all the Democratic presidential candidates – are spun up about it. Specifically, he told ABC’s George Stephanopoulos that he might listen to a foreign government offering opposition research on his political opponents at home and not tell the FBI. His exact words when asked whether his campaign would accept damaging information on his opponents from foreign governments – such as China or Russia – or hand it over to the FBI were, “I think maybe you do both. I think you might want to listen, there isn’t anything wrong with listening.” That was the wrong thing to say. No campaign should accept compromising information from a foreign government.

    That said, the media’s tunnel vision and failure to pursue the natural line of questioning about foreign influence in the 2016 campaign are surreal. Think for a moment if Hillary Clinton had to answer a similar question truthfully. If she were honest, she would have to answer something like, “Why, yes, my campaign would, through the general counsel’s law firm, employ a foreign national to contact sources in the Russian government and try to develop opposition research to use against my opponent, and then take it to the FBI and the media in order to disrupt my opponent’s campaign.” Is there something about this I am missing?
    https://hamodia.com/2019/06/13/opinion-faux-outrage-trumps-comments-opposition-research/

    No matter how you want to slice it...

    Ya'all are being hysterical, SOLELY based on a Partisan agenda...

    Not a single rational or relevant fact to be found...

  27. [27] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Irrelevant to the point. He was a foreign national. He gave information to Hillary's campaign..

    Your point falls apart on this one. You see, the Hillary campaign paid - PAID - for this information. It was a campaign EXPENDITURE, not a campaign contribution or thing of value given to the campaign for free.

    I thought you would have posted the election law by now. Oh, wait ...

  28. [28] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    And where did the "findings" that UK Intelligence Operative got come from?? Russian Intelligence..

    Michale, the election law says that is perfectly legal.

    This is NOT what the Trump campaign did.

    Post the law!

  29. [29] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    And yet, Mueller said that there was not sufficient evidence to show that one campaign sought to violate the law..

    Actually, the Mueller report says that the law wasn't violated because, number one, the thing of value turned out not to be very valuable, and, number two, it couldn't be determined if Don Jr. KNEW he was violating the law.

    Read the law!

  30. [30] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale,

    And THAT is no big deal because THAT is exactly what Hillary did in 2016..Got dirt on Candidate Donald Trump from Russians..

    This does not violate the election law. Furthermore, the actual person who found the dirt took his findings to the … wait for it … FBI!

  31. [31] 
    Michale wrote:

    By the bi..

    HAPPY BIRTHDAY TO PRESIDENT TRUMP!!!!!

    Thank you Mr President for Making America Great Again and allowing me to be PROUD of my country once again, after the debacle and decimation that was 8 years of Democrat Party BS...

  32. [32] 
    Michale wrote:

    This does not violate the election law.

    Only when President Trump does it, eh?? :D

    So, when President Trump said he would listen to opposition research from "the enemy" it's no big deal, right??

    Furthermore, the actual person who found the dirt took his findings to the … wait for it … FBI!

    AFTER giving it to Hillary Clinton..

    Actually, the Mueller report says that the law wasn't violated because, number one, the thing of value turned out not to be very valuable, and, number two, it couldn't be determined if Don Jr. KNEW he was violating the law.

    So, one campaign did NOT violate the law....

    I am glad we agree...

    Michale, the election law says that is perfectly legal.

    THen why are Dumbocrats all up in a tiddle over President Trump's statements??

    If it's NOT against the law to get oppo research from ANY source, why are ya'all cappin' on President Trump??

  33. [33] 
    Michale wrote:

    According to the head of the FEC, it IS illegal to get anything of value from foreign governments..

    So, if you are saying it's not illegal....

    What is the problem with what President Trump said yesterday???

    Why did CW devote an entire commentary to condemning what President Trump said??

  34. [34] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale, you should know by now that your act doesn't work with me. I'm done with you on this issue.

  35. [35] 
    Michale wrote:

    Landslide polls spark angst: These geniuses saw Clinton as 'unstoppable'
    https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/448447-landslide-polls-spark-angst-these-geniuses-saw-clinton-as-unstoppable

    So... The same morons who said that Hillary Clinton was "unstoppable" are NOW saying that Trump can't win re-election..

    And ya'all believe it SOLELY because ya'all *WANT* to believe it..

  36. [36] 
    Michale wrote:

    Michale, you should know by now that your act doesn't work with me.

    By "act" you mean the FACTS...

    Sorry that the FACTS don't work with you, but that's the only "act" I have..

    I call it The FACT Act....

    Like it?? :D

  37. [37] 
    Michale wrote:

    Don't get me wrong, Liz..

    I completely and 1000% agree with you...

    In a campaign, getting oppo research on your opponent is NOT illegal, no matter the source...

    You and I are in complete agreement..

    I am simply trying to reconcile this FACT (a fact we both agree on) with the hysterical whines and cries of the Democrat Party and CW's entire rant about it...

    If it's NOT illegal (which you and I agree that it's not) why all the hysteria and hoopla???

  38. [38] 
    Michale wrote:

    Personally, I think it's simply a case of "Oh this SOUNDS bad so let's beat President Trump over the head with it.."

    That's my guess...

  39. [39] 
    Michale wrote:

    For those who want to believe the latest polls???

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9mYVi7WHyiU

    There's your morning wake up call...

    Yer welcome..

  40. [40] 
    Michale wrote:

    Watch this...

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K7_tMNxozZQ

    And then tell me how happy ya'all are at the poll numbers ya'all are squawking about...

  41. [41] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    Come on people, get real, there is not a single politician running for any office in the world, who would not welcome political "dirt" on his/her opponent REGARDLESS OF THE SOURCE!

    Stephanopolous, himself an ex politician "gone straight" so to speak, is perpetuating Kick's old BS nonsense, claiming that if something/anything is 'helpful' to you in winning your campaign, that it automatically becomes a "thing of value", in the same league as money, as defined by election campaign rules.

    That is utter nonsense. Democratics are pushing that definition because it rationalizes Hillary's loss of the election it was impossible for her to lose. and it delegitimizes Trump's 2016 victory.

    Equating intel/info with money would NEVER survive a challenge in the SCOTUS!

  42. [42] 
    Michale wrote:

    Funny thing about that last video..

    At about the 12:45 mark, you have some air-head bimbo yammering on and on about sexism, yet she's wearing a top that lets her tits hang out... Apparently, she doesn't mind playing to the sexists with her tits hanging out...

    Reminds me of the time one of those pop divas whined and complained about men who leer at her and treat her like an object, yet does a photo spread that leaves NOTHING to the imagination.. Yo bimbo! If you don't want to be leered at as a sex object, then quit ACTING like one..

    DUH..... :eyeroll:

  43. [43] 
    Michale wrote:

    Come on people, get real, there is not a single politician running for any office in the world, who would not welcome political "dirt" on his/her opponent REGARDLESS OF THE SOURCE!

    Yep... But when it's President Donald Trump.... Well.. THAT'S different...

    That is utter nonsense. Democratics are pushing that definition because it rationalizes Hillary's loss of the election it was impossible for her to lose. and it delegitimizes Trump's 2016 victory.

    Which ignores the FACT that Hillary herself was the beneficiary of oppo research from foreign entities..

    The fact that it couldn't help her because she was such a shitty person and shitty candidate is beside the point..

  44. [44] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    It seems that the back and forth here on whether, how or where a candidate gets dirt on their opponents misses the important point.

    The important point is that when a candidate is so dirty and emenates a cloud of dirt that would allow them to be Pig-Pen at Halloween without putting on a costume that is a dirty candidate.

    Somehow it's how someone got dirt on a dirty candidate that matters and not that the candidate is dirty.

    You seem to be arguing over which fantasyland is better, Disneyworld or Disneyland when they are both owned by Disney.

    I guess the escapism that CW wrote aboot yesterday is more appealing than dealing with reality.

  45. [45] 
    Michale wrote:

    The important point is that when a candidate is so dirty and emenates a cloud of dirt that would allow them to be Pig-Pen at Halloween without putting on a costume that is a dirty candidate.

    The problem with that assessment is what's dirty to one person may not be dirty to another..

    This back and forth is a perfect example..

    According to the Trump/America haters, President Trump is dirty for saying he would take oppo research from a foreign power..

    Hillary DID take oppo research from a foreign power but she is NOT dirty...

    Dirt is relative and based on Party loyalty..

    You seem to be arguing over which fantasyland is better, Disneyworld or Disneyland when they are both owned by Disney.

    Tough call.. But I lean more towards Disney World.. Better stuff.. :D

  46. [46] 
    neilm wrote:

    As Elizabeth anticipated recently, we now have so much doubt in our governments veracity that we question if the claims about Iran are just more lies.

    This is why it is so important that our government is trusted, and with Trump in charge and a culture of lying about everything, if American citizens can't trust our President and his chosen staff, how do we expect anybody else to.

    Trump is destroying our country in ways that are obviously too difficult to understand for the Trumpkins, so they will gin up false equivalencies, whataboutism, etc. but the proof is in the pudding: we can't automatically create a coalition to push back on Iran because we've been lying about them. don't get me wrong, their regime is worse than ours because we have some checks and balances on Trump, but we are meant to be the international beacon, not playing in the lying games of the 4th rate nations.

    Company president Yutaka Katada said Friday he believe the flying objects seen by the sailors could be bullets, and denied possibility of mines or torpedoes because the damages were above the ship’s waterline. He called reports of mine attack “false.”

    The Japanese are not usually so definitive (trust me, I spent a lot of time trying to pin them down in negotiations - they are very careful about being committal - and their Government is taking a wait and see approach, sensibly collecting more information before sending off any accusations.

    Lying about the crowd size at an inauguration set the tone - nobody takes Trump, and thus America, seriously any longer.

    And nobody believes that Trump is representing the Intelligence Community findings accurately, and even if he was nobody would know because Trump backs foreign governments over American intelligence agents when it suits him personally.

    This clown show needs to end. Republicans need to grow a pair and get rid of this disgrace. The rest of America can vote him out and throw him in jail as a warning to the next delusional reality star who wants to play King, but we could short circuit this if Republicans would finally put America ahead of petty politics.

  47. [47] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    Don (Q) H

    You gotta join the real world, man. Politicians are like the chimney sweeps from Mary Poppins- they're ALL dirty!!

    Some my be more or less dirty, and there may be different types or degrees of dirt, but there ain't no clean politicians!

  48. [48] 
    Michale wrote:

    This is why it is so important that our government is trusted, and with Trump in charge and a culture of lying about everything, if American citizens can't trust our President and his chosen staff, how do we expect anybody else to.

    Same could be said for Odumbo..

    But, of course you ignore that..

    Trump is destroying our country in ways that are obviously too difficult to understand for the Trumpkins, so they will gin up false equivalencies, whataboutism, etc. but the proof is in the pudding: we can't automatically create a coalition to push back on Iran because we've been lying about them.

    Now look who is lying..

    We can't create a coalition against Iran because the vast majority of the rest of the world is in bed with Iran...

    This clown show needs to end. Republicans need to grow a pair and get rid of this disgrace. The rest of America can vote him out and throw him in jail as a warning to the next delusional reality star who wants to play King, but we could short circuit this if Republicans would finally put America ahead of petty politics.

    You have a recourse.. Impeachment..

    But Dumbocrats can't impeach because they don't have the FACTS to back it up..

  49. [49] 
    Michale wrote:

    Company president Yutaka Katada said Friday he believe the flying objects seen by the sailors could be bullets, and denied possibility of mines or torpedoes because the damages were above the ship’s waterline. He called reports of mine attack “false.”

    Eyewitness testimony is the WORSE kind of testimony there is.. ESPECIALLY when it comes to combat related issues and with those ignorant of operations..

    What the crew likely saw was the shrapnel flying thru the air AFTER the explosion??

    Bullets? Yea?? From where??? The sky!!???

    I know, I know.. I get it.. You want to protect Iran and side with Iran (THE NUMBER ONE terrorist state on the planet) against your own country..

    Like I said.. Trump/America hater thru and thru...

  50. [50] 
    Michale wrote:

    You gotta join the real world, man. Politicians are like the chimney sweeps from Mary Poppins- they're ALL dirty!!

    Some my be more or less dirty, and there may be different types or degrees of dirt, but there ain't no clean politicians!

    Uhhh yup.....

  51. [51] 
    Michale wrote:

    FYI - "Gov. Ron DeSantis will sign legislation tomorrow to ban so-called sanctuary cities in Florida, a proposal that was one of the most controversial issues of the 2019 legislative session and a top priority of the governor."

    Florida does things right...

  52. [52] 
    Michale wrote:

    Company president Yutaka Katada said Friday he believes the flying objects seen by the sailors could have been bullets. He denied any possibility of mines or torpedoes because the damage was above the ship's waterline. He called reports of a mine attack "false."
    https://www.cbsnews.com/news/oil-tanker-attacks-gulf-of-oman-tanker-owner-seems-to-dispute-us-account-of-gulf-of-oman-attack-today-2019-06-14/

    Yea... Cuz a person can see "bullets" flying thru the air.. :eyeroll:

    Seriously, Neil?? You call that CREDIBLE!!????

    He denied any possibility of mines or torpedoes because the damage was above the ship's waterline. He called reports of a mine attack "false."

    And yet, we have VIDEO evidence of Iranians removing an un-detonated limpet mine from the side of one of the ships...

    What is MORE likely is that this corporate stooge is looking at some incompetence and/or malfeasance if it was a mine and/or torpedo attack..

    So he is denying the facts...

    "Oh yea.. The crew saw bullets in the air!"

    BBBWWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

    Jeezus, Neil... You'll believe ANYTHING.. :eyeroll:

  53. [53] 
    neilm wrote:

    You know, sometimes I wonder if Fed Chairman Powell is planning on trolling Trump in the most spectacular way.

    Don't get me wrong, I want to see no signs of partisanship creep into the Fed, but since the Republicans have spent decades turning the SCOTUS into a political body, it would be deep karma if Powell started playing with interest rates to screw Trump's chances for 2020 with some unusual moves.

    Trump has made it clear he expects Powell to be his bitch, but he might have tried it on with the wrong person this time. Powell does not need to be elected, and he is pretty certain Trump can't fire him:

    “The law is clear that I have a four-year term, and I fully intend to serve it,” Powell told the news magazine show [CBS's 60 Minutes]. Asked directly if he thought Trump could fire him, he said, “no.”

    Trump should have left the Fed alone - leaving Yellen in charge would have given his claims of political decision making by the Fed more weight with the Trumpkins than against his hand picked choice. Also, Trump should have kept his mouth shut in public about his thoughts on interest rates.

    But then, Trump should keep his mouth shut about just about everything.

  54. [54] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    As I've commented before, presidents get the credit when the economy is good and they get the blame when the economy is bad, and rarely do they deserve either. (Trump might turn out to be the exception, being as ignorant of economics as he is.)

    The Fed might not quite rank with the rest of the 'political' establishment in impotence/irrelevance, but it ain't far off. Interest rate tinkering is normally far more injurious (in terms of misallocating resources) than it normally is beneficial in providing stimulus. It's one thing to flood the economy with fiat money, and quite another thing to get people to borrow it - kinda sorta like the old "Youcan lead the horse to water . . ." thing.

  55. [55] 
    neilm wrote:

    It's one thing to flood the economy with fiat money, and quite another thing to get people to borrow it

    Basically the impact the Fed has is as a brake - it doesn't have an accelerator - for that they rely on human greed and stupidity - no shortage of fuel there.

    My basic beef with the Fed is that they focus on inflation (yes, I know CRS) but don't include key price rises in assets (in particular, the capital markets and housing). Thus they apply the brake far too late after asset bubbles have popped.

    Q.E. was a whole new thing, and there I'd suspect stuffing the economy with money (i.e. an accelerator) but they used it to recapitalize the banks (who then used the money to pay bonuses to the people who should have been banned from the industry, at the very least, or put in jail).

    Trump's accelerator was the Tax Bill, but that again just pumped up the capital markets - so great if you have a lot of wealth in stocks, but useless if you are a regular "paycheck and live" person - as the majority of people in the U.S. are.

  56. [56] 
    neilm wrote:

    Trump Says He Has Been Treated Very Unfairly by People Who Wrote Constitution

    More humor from Andy Borowitz:

    https://www.newyorker.com/humor/borowitz-report/trump-says-he-has-been-treated-very-unfairly-by-people-who-wrote-constitution

  57. [57] 
    neilm wrote:

    Trump is thinking of putting tariffs on the 18th Century to get the framers of the Constitution to be fairer to him.

  58. [58] 
    Michale wrote:
  59. [59] 
    Michale wrote:

    Don't get me wrong, I want to see no signs of partisanship creep into the Fed, but since the Republicans have spent decades turning the SCOTUS into a political body,

    Which pisses the Democrats off to no end because THEY wanted to turn the SCOTUS into an offshoot of the Democrat Party...

    But lo and behold, patriotism wins out.. :D

    “The law is clear that I have a four-year term, and I fully intend to serve it,” Powell told the news magazine show [CBS's 60 Minutes]. Asked directly if he thought Trump could fire him, he said, “no.”

    He also thought that Hillary was going to be POTUS..

    See what he gets fer thinkin'. :D

    But then, Trump should keep his mouth shut about just about everything.

    Yea, cuz every time President Trump opens his mouth.. AMERICA keeps winning..

    I know, I know.. You hate it when America wins.. :eyeroll:

  60. [60] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    neilm

    Re: Your 55 , para 4, "QE was a whole", etc.

    I doubt that the insolvent or nearly insolvent banks were able to use the bailout $ for bonuses. Those were loans that had to be repaid, they were not grants. You may be thinking the infamous bonuses Goldman Sachs paid out, which came from AIG's bailout $, and did NOT have to be repaid, as they were legitimate profits earned by buying CDS's (bond insurance) as bets against the CDO's.

  61. [61] 
    Paula wrote:

    First Dem debates determined:
    First will include:
    Booker
    Warren
    Beto
    Klobuchar
    Delaney
    Tulsi
    Castro
    Ryan
    de Blasio
    Inslee

    Next night will be:
    Harris
    Biden
    Bernie
    Pete
    Gillibrand
    Bennet
    Williamson
    Swalwell
    Yang
    Hickenlooper

    Opinions vary on whether Liz Warren is hurt/helped by basically being the only contender in Debate 1, while the other 4 (Biden, Sanders, Buttigieg, Harris) are in #2. Some feel she'll dominate the first one - others feel it's unfortunate there won't be a Warren-Biden comparison possible for the first debate.

    Paul Krugman had a piece up yesterday about why she's so impressive: The surprising power of evidence-based progressivism.

    In that case, however, why haven’t other presidential contenders been rolling out comparable plans? The answer, I’d suggest, is that Warren — herself a significant policy scholar — understood from the beginning something that other candidates are only beginning to grasp: The difference between being serious and being Serious.

    What I mean by being Serious is buying into inside-the-Beltway conventional wisdom — the kind of conventional wisdom that in 2011, with unemployment still catastrophically high and interest rates at historic lows, created an elite consensus that we should stop worrying about jobs and focus on … entitlement reform. What I mean by being serious is paying attention to actual evidence on the effects of economic and social programs.

    What Warren gets is that serious analysis is a lot more favorable to a progressive agenda than Serious conventional wisdom, which is obsessed with keeping taxes low and restraining spending. Leading experts on the economics of taxation favor substantial increases in tax rates on high incomes and wealth. Top economists studying social spending argue that there are huge benefits to higher spending on early child care.

    As a result, Warren has been able to lay out plans that are very progressive but also well grounded in evidence and analysis.

    https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/13/opinion/elizabeth-warren.html?action=click&module=Opinion&pgtype=Homepage

  62. [62] 
    neilm wrote:

    I doubt that the insolvent or nearly insolvent banks were able to use the bailout $ for bonuses.

    I'll defer to you on that - it was a common trope in the City of London, but may have been Banker Beer BS.

  63. [63] 
    neilm wrote:

    OK, I'm having a great time donating a few $$s to the candidates I'd like to see in the debates. There is a "quantity of donors" requirement as well as a funding level requirement (to stop e.g. some clown of a reality TV "star" self promoting him or herself).

    Let's go Pete, Andrew, Jay and Elizabeth!

    The only candidate I'd be disappointed in winning would be Gillibrand (I'm a Franken Fan).

  64. [64] 
    Michale wrote:

    OK, I'm having a great time donating a few $$s to the candidates I'd like to see in the debates. There is a "quantity of donors" requirement as well as a funding level requirement (to stop e.g. some clown of a reality TV "star" self promoting him or herself).

    "Look, it's simple.. Donald Trump can't win.."
    -Steve Oh, Young Turks
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qZR9qoar7RE
    @ 1:25

    You see, this is exactly you people's problem...

    You have blinders to FACTS... You have blinders to reality...

    And then you get all pissy and whiney when yer PROVEN wrong and make up thousands of excuses...

    And ya'all (NEN) think that THAT is the way to win elections..

    :eyeroll:

    The only candidate I'd be disappointed in winning would be Gillibrand (I'm a Franken Fan).

    Sexist molester and yer a fan???

    :eyeroll:

  65. [65] 
    Michale wrote:

    The DNC Has Spent More Money Than It’s Raised This Year

    (Bloomberg) -- The Democratic National Committee has a money problem. And that could hurt its nominee’s chances of beating President Donald Trump in 2020.

    In the first four months of 2019, the party spent more than it raised and added $3 million in new debt. In the same period, its Republican counterpart was stockpiling cash.
    https://news.yahoo.com/democrats-apos-2020-odds-against-080000889.html

    Great look for a Party that wants to run the country..

    :eyeroll:

  66. [66] 
    Michale wrote:

    On another note..

    I am a big DESIGNATED SURVIVOR fan... Was bummed when they cancelled the show..

    Then I heard it got picked up by NETFLIX..

    Season Premiere of Season 3 was awesome...

    It showed President Kirkland telling off Congress at the SOTU speech..

    And I thought to myself, "THAT'S DONALD TRUMP!!!!"

    It was awesome!!!!

    Kirkland tells off Democrats AND Republicans...

    Netflix is chronicling President Trump's administration..

    It's totally awesome!! :D

  67. [67] 
    Michale wrote:

    And let's hear from another Democrat Party hero...

    Michael Avenatti is sued for allegedly siphoning paraplegic's $4 million settlement
    https://news.yahoo.com/paraplegic-sues-michael-avenatti-siphoning-164022761.html

    Pr0n Lawyer Michael Avenatti epitomizes the Democrat Party....

  68. [68] 
    Michale wrote:

    https://youtu.be/5gCG3zENmCQ?t=77

    Ya just HAVE to laugh.. :D

  69. [69] 
    Michale wrote:

    https://www.newsday.com/news/world/oil-tanker-attacks-echo-persian-gulf-s-1980s-tanker-war-1.32361954

    The US has VIDEO of Iranian forces removing an un-detonated limpet mine from one the attacked tankers..

    Yet, there are those so-called {sic} "AMERICANS" who take Iran's side and declare Iran's innocence.. :^/

    It simply boggles the mind that the depth and depravity of the Trump/America haters knows no limit... To those people, I say.. "MOVE to Iran... Your Trump/America hatred will be most welcome in the number #1 terrorist country on the planet..."

    :eyeroll:

  70. [70] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    So, Saudi Arabia wants us to take out their biggest foe, Iran, after fecklessly creating a humanitarian crisis in Yemen.

    Mind you, there are no 'good' guys in this part of the world. The credos of both countries are anti-American.

    But the Saudis have put the full court press on the Trump administration, despite the brutal killing of a journalist (which they'd have us forget).

    Wise leaders would stay out of it. Trump won't.

  71. [71] 
    John M wrote:

    [32] Michale

    "This does not violate the election law.

    Only when President Trump does it, eh?? :D

    So, when President Trump said he would listen to opposition research from "the enemy" it's no big deal, right??

    Furthermore, the actual person who found the dirt took his findings to the … wait for it … FBI!

    AFTER giving it to Hillary Clinton.."

    GIVE IT UP Michale. You are NEVER going to win on this one! Despite all your too obvious attempts to to be so stupid, you know perfectly well that that there is NO EQUIVALENCE, and both REALITY and FACTS DON'T SUPPORT YOU.

    The question is not DIRT.

    The PROBLEM is with HOW that DIRT was OBTAINED.

    Hillary PAID an American firm whose findings were reported to the FBI.

    RUSSIAN intelligence operatives (a hostile foreign power) offered dirt as a CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTION, EXPECTING a QUID PRO QUO in return that was NOT reported to the FBI, which when accepted is a FELONY.

    That is the KEY difference. And as much as you try to make the two SEEM like the SAME THING, you CAN'T.

  72. [72] 
    John M wrote:

    [41] C. R. Stucki

    "Come on people, get real, there is not a single politician running for any office in the world, who would not welcome political "dirt" on his/her opponent REGARDLESS OF THE SOURCE!"

    NOT FACTUALLY TRUE. And History PROVES it.

    The GORE Campaign was offered dirt on the Bush campaign, and not only REFUSED it, but reported it to the FBI as well. This is documented historical FACT.

  73. [73] 
    John M wrote:

    [41] C. R. Stucki

    "Equating intel/info with money would NEVER survive a challenge in the SCOTUS!"

    OH REALLY????

    The head of the Federal Election Commission sent out a timely warning to politicians on Thursday, reminding them that it’s illegal to accept information from a foreign national linked to an election in the U.S.

    The notice, posted by FEC Chair Ellen Weintraub, comes one day after President Donald Trump told ABC News? that he would accept dirt on his opponents in the 2020 election from another country, such as Russia or China.

    Weintraub’s warning was direct: “Let me make something 100% clear to the American public and anyone running for public office: It is illegal for any person to solicit, accept, or receive anything of value from a foreign national in connection with a U.S. election.”

    “This is not a novel concept,” she added. In her memo on Thursday, Weintraub said that “electoral intervention from foreign governments” has been unacceptable for as long as the United States has been a country. Quoting a 1787 letter from John Adams to Thomas Jefferson, Weintraub said the Founding Fathers had already “sounded the alarm about ‘foreign Interference, Intrigue and Influence.’”

    Weintraub didn’t name any politicians or presidents on Thursday but she did warn about the consequences of interacting with a foreign national during an election.

    “Anyone who solicits or accepts foreign assistance risks being on the wrong end of a federal investigation,” she said.

  74. [74] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    John M

    Sorry, that "thing of value" part clearly refers to Money or its equivalent. Scandal info (aka "dirt") simply doesn't meet the criterion. Anyway Weintraub is not even on the SCOTUS. Those guys would never buy into her interpretation. If not on semantics alone, the whole idea would fail under th 1st amend. Who the hell has the power to say you cant listen to Russians?

  75. [75] 
    Michale wrote:

    So, Saudi Arabia wants us to take out their biggest foe, Iran, after fecklessly creating a humanitarian crisis in Yemen.

    What does SA have to do with anything??

    Wise leaders would stay out of it. Trump won't.

    Yea?? Like ODUMBO did??

    Giving the Iranians a full on deep throat 450 billion dollar blow job???

    Like I said..I get it.. Iran is anti-Trump so ya'all love Iran.. :eyeroll:

  76. [76] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    as much as you try to make the two SEEM like the SAME THING, you CAN'T.

    They'll keep trying, at least until election day, 2020. Then they'll call foul for a few years.

    They'll say, that we FORCED them to do it, because we weren't LISTENING to them. With Trump, they'll say, that they at least got our ATTENTION.

    Why? Well to do a bunch of things that we'd rather not. Start a war with Iran. Ban abortion. You know, the regular republican shit.

    The whole world will think we're better off NOT listening to these assholes in the future.

  77. [77] 
    Michale wrote:

    GIVE IT UP Michale. You are NEVER going to win on this one! Despite all your too obvious attempts to to be so stupid, you know perfectly well that that there is NO EQUIVALENCE, and both REALITY and FACTS DON'T SUPPORT YOU.

    I have already won..

    Liz bailed when confronted with the FACTS..

    RUSSIAN intelligence operatives (a hostile foreign power) offered dirt as a CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTION,

    Facts to support??

    Nope.. You don't have a single one..

    That is the KEY difference. And as much as you try to make the two SEEM like the SAME THING, you CAN'T.

    I already have....
    Neil bailed when confronted with the FACTS...

    I have the facts and you have nothing but Trump hate..

    The PROBLEM is with HOW that DIRT was OBTAINED.

    No, the problem is oppo research from a foreign power..

    But, if the problem is how it was obtained...???

    Pentagon Papers..

    'nuff said..

    Hillary PAID an American firm whose findings were reported to the FBI.

    Doesn't matter.. It was from a foreign power who's origination was Russian intelligence..

  78. [78] 
    Michale wrote:

    The head of the Federal Election Commission sent out a timely warning to politicians on Thursday, reminding them that it’s illegal to accept information from a foreign national linked to an election in the U.S.

    And yet, even the Mueller report could not equate opposition research with "a thing of value"...

    So, once again.. You lose...

  79. [79] 
    Michale wrote:

    Heellloooooo????

    The Latest: Arab League chief tells Iranians to ‘be careful’

    The British government says it agrees with a U.S. conclusion that Iran attacked two oil tankers in the Gulf of Oman.

    The Foreign Office says in a statement that its own assessment concluded “it is almost certain that a branch of the Iranian military,” the Islamic Revolutionary Guard, attacked the tankers. It said it also believed Iran was behind an attack last month on four tankers near the United Arab Emirates port of Fujairah.
    https://apnews.com/7ef011f352ac4fc38fca04922c226c84

    Ya'all STILL want to side with Iran against the US???

    Backpedal "Oh!!! We weren't siding with IRAN!!!!" in 3.... 2..... 1.......

    :eyeroll:

  80. [80] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    CRS-
    I am well aware of what the real world is.

    After all, I am the one here that recognizes that both the CMPs are corrupted by big money and I have not bought into the lies from either "side" that tries to rationalize the bad behavior on their side with the other side does it too or the other side does the bad things for bad reasons so our side has to do bad things to fight them but it's okay because we do them for good reasons.

    And I am the one here that recognizes that there really isn't two sides, there is just a show put on by the Democrats and Republicans for the rubes with a good cop/ bad cop routine where they play to each others bases while they are both working against all of us because they are both working together for the big money interests.

    So while I do recognize what the real world is, I prefer to try to work to change it rather than join it.

  81. [81] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    And by the way.

    All politicians are dirty except for me. :D

  82. [82] 
    Michale wrote:

    All politicians are dirty except for me. :D

    I can be dirty..

    If the pay is good.. :D

  83. [83] 
    Michale wrote:

    The British government says it agrees with a U.S. conclusion that Iran attacked two oil tankers in the Gulf of Oman.

    So, apparently, the Brits don't have ANY trust issues with President Trump on Iran..

    Don't ya'all feel like total heels, siding with the NUMBER 1 state sponsor of terrorism???

  84. [84] 
    neilm wrote:

    So Israel's take on the oil tanker bombing is probably correct in my opinion - Iranian hardliners determined to sink Abe's talks in Tehran engineered the crisis on the hope that Trump's hardliners would jump in with both feet, which of course they did.

    It seems the Iranian hardliners have read the history of the Gulf of Tonkin even if Trump hasn't.

  85. [85] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Who the hell has the power to say you cant listen to Russians?

    There ya go again, CRS, asking purposefully obtuse questions …

    Your question above, and what it leaves out, leads me to think that you may have no knowledge of the founding of the United States of America.

  86. [86] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    neilm, [8]

    Great article, but I believe it leaves out one of the biggest influences on the whole debate: The Westboro Baptist Church effect!

    WBC accomplished something that is almost impossible to do in this day and age — through their actions and rhetoric they presented us with a definition for EVIL that literally everyone could agree on!

    Think about that feat: It is tough to get a small group of people to all agree on even the simplest of questions! The answer to, “What do you want for dinner?” is rarely unanimous in our house...and there are just two of us! The more people you add, the more opinions will likely differ. So how could WBC get so many people from all walks of life to agree on something?

    WBC’s hatred of gays led them to protest the funerals of fallen American military personnel holding signs that said, “GOD HATES FAGS!” and that God struck down the deceased because of our government’s tolerance of homosexuals. To prevent WBC’s protests from disrupting the funeral services, citizens rallied started forming human walls that lined the roadways — preventing WBC from being seen by the families of the fallen during their time of grief. Hundreds of citizens — many who had never been involved in any form of civil protest before — would show up hours before the funeral service was to start and stand shoulder to shoulder with others who wanted to send the message that EVIL’s hatred was not welcome in their community!

    What resulted was the bringing together of people from all socio-economic backgrounds, all races, and all religions working for a common cause. Police officers standing with members of biker gangs; pro-life standing with pro-choice; gun reform advocates with NRA members standing together to block out EVIL.

    And what do you do when you have hours to kill standing and forming a human wall??? — You talk. I have had people tell me that they talked and got to know people that they would never have otherwise ever had contact with or been comfortable talking with. People got to focus on what they had in common with strangers, and their differences did not seem to matter.

    WBC became the face for what “homophobia” looked like...and NO ONE wanted to be viewed in that way! WBC made being homophobic such an ugly image that people were more likely to re-evaluate how they viewed homosexuality and the treatment of gays in our communities than ever before.

    Personally, I wish the HRC would have given Fred Phelps an award for his contributions in helping our community in its fight for equal rights.

  87. [87] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    Liz M [85}

    What's your definition of an "obtuse question"? My guess is 'one for which you can't find a rational response', am I right?

  88. [88] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    John M [72]

    I'll have to take your word on the Gore campaign allegedly declining an offer of "dirt" on Bush, tho it doesn't sound realistic.

    BTW, how did the Gore campaign turn out?

  89. [89] 
    Michale wrote:

    So Israel's take on the oil tanker bombing is probably correct in my opinion - Iranian hardliners determined to sink Abe's talks in Tehran engineered the crisis on the hope that Trump's hardliners would jump in with both feet, which of course they did.

    How, exactly, did President Trump "jump in with both feet"??

    Properly assigning blame???

    Look at the facts, Neil.. If Odumbo had not appeased Iran, none of this would be happening..

  90. [90] 
    John M wrote:

    [88] C. R. Stucki

    "BTW, how did the Gore campaign turn out?"

    How exactly is that "relevant" to the point at hand???

    Would you rather have a government that is ETHICAL or a government that BREAKS THE LAW???

  91. [91] 
    John M wrote:

    [74] C. R. Stucki

    "Sorry, that "thing of value" part clearly refers to Money or its equivalent. Scandal info (aka "dirt") simply doesn't meet the criterion. Anyway Weintraub is not even on the SCOTUS. Those guys would never buy into her interpretation. If not on semantics alone, the whole idea would fail under th 1st amend. Who the hell has the power to say you cant listen to Russians?"

    SORRY, but it's NOT ONLY MONEY. Thing of value can be information or an object. Why else do you think the president has to REPORT that he's given an expensive gift such as a watch by a foreign government???

    Surely Stucki you aren't THAT DELIBERATELY STUPID are you????

  92. [92] 
    John M wrote:

    [77] Michale

    You're a total and complete obtuse idiot Michale.

    NUFF SAID

  93. [93] 
    Michale wrote:

    Would you rather have a government that is ETHICAL or a government that BREAKS THE LAW???

    Would you rather have a Democrat President who cheated to win the election??

    Or President Trump??

    :D

    You're a total and complete obtuse idiot Michale.

    "The fact that you resort to name-calling indicates you are defensive and therefore find my argument valid."
    -Spock, STAR TREK 90210

  94. [94] 
    Michale wrote:

    "If you have to resort to name-calling, you have already lost the debate."
    -Kathleen Kennedy

  95. [95] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    John M [91]

    "The reason the pres has to report that he's been given an expensive gift such as a watch" is covered by the relevant part of your definition of what's included in "things of value" (the "object" part).

    Surely you're "not THAT DELIBERATELY STUPID" to believe that if Putin gives him some advice on how to hold his putter on the golf course, or perhaps tells him that Hillary is a closet gay woman, etc., that he has to "report" that to the ethics committee.

    Or, on second thought, perhapes you ARE that stupid!

  96. [96] 
    Michale wrote:

    Or, on second thought, perhapes you ARE that stupid!

    No, JM is NOT that stoopid..

    He just plays that way on a political blog... :D

  97. [97] 
    Kick wrote:

    Michale

    Kick swore up and down that Pennsylvania is reliably blue and that there is NO WAY that then Candidate Trump could win Pennsylvania..

    Now ya'all are making the same mistake she did.. :D

    Thass OK... Just makes my victory so much sweeter.. :D

    As ever, you are a reliable liar and inveterate fraud whose peevish neediness for revisionist history directed at other posters remains intact.

    [125] ... I don't think we have to worry about a President Pence or Trump because:

    *****PENNSYLVANIA*****

    There is still time, of course. :)

    [126] Kick wrote:

    Michale,

    Just as it's possible that Trump will win in a landslide..

    Not that anyone here will acknowledge that... :D

    Wrong again, snowflake.

    I will acknowledge that it's possible that Trump could win in a landslide. It depends on whose definition of landslide, but it's not likely that he would win in a landslide but nevertheless a possibility.

    http://www.chrisweigant.com/2016/09/30/ftp410/#comment-85913

    I never said there was "no way" that Trump could win Pennsylvania. I simply said I thought he wouldn't win the presidency because I did not think he would win Pennsylvania, which actually was reliably blue at that time, the majority having voted for the Democratic candidate for the prior three decades.

    Repeatedly pushing false narratives and making up fake quotes and the constant "y'all said this and were wrong" utter nonsensical BS that you engage in repeatedly on this blog proves only your propensity to fabricate and your pathetic neediness to win at anything.

    As other posters have suggested repeatedly: Seek professional help.

    It's already obvious to the regular readers/posters on this board how pathetic your life in the doublewide in Shithole, Florida actually is... you needn't keep supplying the proof. :)

  98. [98] 
    Kick wrote:

    CRS
    41

    Stephanopolous, himself an ex politician "gone straight" so to speak, is perpetuating Kick's old BS nonsense, claiming that if something/anything is 'helpful' to you in winning your campaign, that it automatically becomes a "thing of value", in the same league as money, as defined by election campaign rules.

    Again with the revisionist history from the trolls!

    Equating intel/info with money would NEVER survive a challenge in the SCOTUS!

    How in world would the SCOTUS ever equate something people pay for every single day with a "thing of value"? Are you seriously that ignorant?

    It would undoubtedly depend on the circumstances. As has been pointed out by multiple other posters every time you spew your ridiculous opinion, your attempt and the Trump campaign's attempt to write this off as just a "First Amendment" right to free speech doesn't in any way match the facts of the case.

    Jun 3, 2016, at 10:36 AM, Rob Goldstone wrote:

    Good morning

    Emin just called and asked me to contact you with something very interesting.

    The Crown prosecutor of Russia met with his father Aras this morning and in their meeting offered to provide the Trump campaign with some official documents and information that would incriminate Hillary and her dealings with Russia and would be very useful to your father.

    This is obviously very high level and sensitive information but is part of Russia and its government's support for Mr. Trump - helped along by Aras and Emin.

    What do you think is the best way to handle this information and would you be able to speak to Emin about it directly?

    I can also send this info to your father via Rhona, but it is ultra sensitive so wanted to send to you first.

    Best

    Rob Goldstone

    Response?

    Jun 3, 2016, at 10:53, Donald Trump Jr. wrote:

    Thanks Rob I appreciate that. I am on the road at the moment but perhaps I just speak to Emin first. Seems we have some time and if it's what you say I love it especially later in the summer. Could we do a call first thing next week when I am back?

    Best,

    Don

    The incriminating information was described as "part of Russia and its government's support for Mr. Trump." The response was: "... if it's what you say I love it...."

    If you think the SCOTUS would find it was a violation of Trump's First Amendment rights and "unconstitutional" to prevent a campaign from accepting what was described as "Russia and its government's support," then you're even more ignorant than I thought. :)

Leave a Reply

[If you have questions as to how to register or log in, to be able to post comments here, or if you'd like advanced commenting and formatting tips, please visit our "Commenting Tips" page, for further details.]

You must be logged in to post a comment.
If you are a new user, please register so you can post comments here.

[The first time you post a comment (after creating your user name and logging in), it will be held for approval. Please be patient (as it may take awhile). After your first comment has been approved, you will be able to post further comments instantly and automatically.]