Three Court Cases Worth Noting
There are three separate court cases which are making news today, so I thought it'd be worthwhile to take a quick look at all of them, to see the potential impact they might have. The three cases are in very different stages of completion. One was just filed in federal court. One got a just got a ruling from the Ninth Circuit of Appeals. And one is about to be ruled on by the Supreme Court. So let's take them one at a time.
Maryland and D.C. sue Trump
This is the case which was just filed today. The state of Maryland and the District of Columbia are suing President Trump for violating the Emoluments Clause of the Constitution. This case is interesting in a number of ways, and has the potential to have a big impact on Trump's presidency almost irrespective of which side eventually wins in court.
The case will hinge on one very important ruling: standing. Do Maryland and D.C. have the right to sue Trump? They think they do, and they have an interesting argument to make. They are saying that the Trump Hotel in D.C. is taking business that normally would go to publicly-owned convention centers, because foreign clients (and domestic clients as well) are booking Trump Hotel in anticipation of more-favorable treatment by the president. They'll have to prove all of that in court, of course, but the importance of the case may be in two rulings which happen long before the case is ever decided.
If Maryland and D.C. are granted standing to sue, then they are free to demand all sorts of information from Trump. This would include (at the top of the list, really) Trump's taxes and business records. It might also include being able to legally depose the president under oath. Trump may complain that this is nothing more than a gigantic fishing expedition, but in his private life before he entered politics, he certainly was no stranger to the idea of throwing lawsuits around as leverage (or even intimidation). So it's not like his own hands are clean in this regard.
This is why I say the bigger importance may be in the discovery phase of the trial rather than in any eventual ruling. If D.C. and Maryland ultimately prevail in court, it could force Trump to completely divorce himself from his business holdings (something that he has so far refused to do). But no matter what ruling is eventually made on the merits of the case, if it resulted in Trump's tax forms becoming public it would already have had a major political impact.
Political gerrymandering
The Supreme Court has (as of this writing) not released its ruling on this case, but will rule at some point in the next few weeks. This could provide a definitive answer or it could be rather inconclusive (if the high court rules very narrowly and sends the whole case back to the lower courts, for instance). But if a sweeping ruling is announced, it could have as big an impact on national elections as Citizens United.
The case comes from Wisconsin, and unlike most rulings on gerrymandering it does not even involve race. Racial gerrymandering is a tricky legal subject, because a state can either have too little racial gerrymandering (splitting a group's vote so they can never hope to elect one of their own to the House of Representatives), or too much (when a state crams all minorities into one district, so they won't have any effect on any other district). But that's not what this case is about.
In Wisconsin, the lower court ruled gerrymandered districts were unconstitutional on the grounds that it was partisan gerrymandering. This could be a precedent-setting case, since the courts have never before ruled this sort of thing illegal.
Gerrymandering is as old as America, really. The term was first used in a newspaper (with the cartoon we all remember from school) in March of 1812. The "Gerry" in "Gerry-mander" was Massachusetts Governor Elbridge Gerry. He had approved a district with wide-flung geographic borders (which looked, to the cartoonist, like a salamander), to benefit his own political party.
The practice still continues today, to state the obvious. Except for a few states like California and Arizona, the post-Census reapportionment of congressional districts is treated as a free-for-all by both major political parties, depending on who controls which state. There are both red and blue gerrymandered districts, in other words. But if the Supreme Court upholds the lower court's ruling, such electoral hanky-panky could become a thing of the past.
If blatant partisan gerrymandering is ruled unconstitutional, it probably won't have any immediate effect (outside of Wisconsin, that is), but it will definitely begin affecting the House of Representatives starting in the 2022 midterm congressional elections. After the 2020 Census, all the states with more than one representative would need to redraw their House district lines without regard to partisan politics. At the very least, this would mean the most obvious and blatant examples of gerrymandered districts would have to change.
It would require a deep dive into the demographics of almost all of the 435 House districts to figure out which party this would benefit more. In states like Pennsylvania, Democrats would benefit. In states like Maryland (right next door), Republicans would benefit. The only districts unaffected would be the at-large statewide House seats (for states which only rate one House member), and the districts already being drawn without regard to partisanship (in states like California, which have already made partisan gerrymandering a thing of the past by having a non-partisan board draw the lines rather than the politicians).
On balance, the Democrats would likely come out ahead of this game, although we really won't know the scope of it until it happens. Republicans masterfully used the gerrymander after the 2010 Census, and Democrats are still paying the price. No matter who wins and who loses, though, if the Supreme Court decided that blatant partisan gerrymandering were no longer legal, it would bring about a monumental shift in American politics.
The Ninth Circuit strikes down Trump's travel ban (again)
At first glance, this doesn't seem to be all that newsworthy. After all, it just continues the losing streak Trump's travel ban (or, as he likes to call it, the "TRAVEL BAN") has been having in the courts so far. What's one more ruling after we've already had so many which have denied Trump his ban?
This ruling was different in a number of ways, which is why it's worth discussing. Every other ruling up to this point has addressed the constitutionality of Trump's stated goal to institute a "complete ban on Muslims" entering the country. Such religious discrimination by the federal government is patently unconstitutional, no matter how hard Trump's lawyers tried to cram that bias into an executive order which could be considered legal. This time around, however, the Ninth Circuit judges (the ruling was from a three-judge panel, not the whole court) skipped over all of that and ruled that an injunction against Trump that was issued as a result of a case from Hawai'i should be largely upheld, because Trump didn't provide enough information to support his stated reasoning.
It's the equivalent of an umpire ruling that a run didn't count because the runner failed to touch second base, to use a sports metaphor. Trump's second travel ban tried to make his case on national security grounds, but failed to provide any evidence or findings that backed this case up. In fact, there was evidence from the government that was completely contradictory to the claims Trump's executive order claimed, as the ruling pointed out. [Note: these excerpts are taken from the PDF version of the court ruling, which refers to Trump's initial executive order (the first travel ban that was overturned) as "EO1," and his second executive order as "EO2".]
Two versions of a report from the Department of Homeland Security ("DHS") surfaced after EO1 issued. First, a draft report from DHS, prepared about one month after EO1 issued and two weeks prior to EO2's issuance, concluded that citizenship "is unlikely to be a reliable indicator of potential terrorist activity" and that citizens of countries affected by EO1 are "[r]arely [i]mplicated in U.S.-[b]ased [t]errorism." Specifically, the DHS report determined that since the spring of 2011, at least eighty-two individuals were inspired by a foreign terrorist group to carry out or attempt to carry out an attack in the United States. Slightly more than half were U.S. citizens born in the United States, and the remaining persons were from twenty-six different countries -- with the most individuals originating from Pakistan, followed by Somalia, Bangladesh, Cuba, Ethiopia, Iraq, and Uzbekistan.
Of the six countries included in EO2, only Somalia was identified as being among the "top" countries-of-origin for the terrorists analyzed in the report. During the time period covered in the report, three offenders were from Somalia; one was from Iran, Sudan, and Yemen each; and none was from Syria or Libya. The final version of the report, issued five days prior to EO2, concluded "that most foreign-born, [U.S.]-based violent extremists likely radicalized several years after their entry to the United States, [thus] limiting the ability of screening and vetting officials to prevent their entry because of national security concerns" (emphasis added).
It went on to further note that over the past 15 years, "only four nationals from the six designated countries have been convicted of attempting or plotting a terrorist attack in the United States," and that of the twelve people who succeeded in carrying out fatal domestic terror attacks since 9/11, none of them came from the six countries Trump banned. Therefore, Trump's second travel ban "does not provide a rationale explaining why permitting entry of nationals from the six designated countries under current protocols would be detrimental to the interests of the United States."
They didn't touch second, in other words. There were no findings of fact, there was no proof offered, and the Department of Homeland Security even admitted how weak Trump's case was. This does open the door for a third travel ban executive order (one with the requisite findings), but it's doubtful Trump will take another bite at this apple.
Before I get to why, there was one interesting footnote in the ruling. This may be the first time a Trump tweet was used against him in a court case. In an extended segment on how Trump was directing his ire at the countries involved (rather than nationals from those countries), the court pointed out that Trump himself used such language while tweeting: "That's right, we need a TRAVEL BAN for certain DANGEROUS countries, not some politically correct term that won't help us protect our people!" Immediately following this quoted tweet was a reference to a CNN story:
see also Elizabeth Landers, White House: Trump's tweets are "official statements", CNN (June 6, 2017, 4:37 PM)... (reporting the White House Press Secretary's confirmation that the President's tweets are "considered official statements by the President of the United States").
This may be the first time Trump's tweets undermine his legal case, but (knowing Trump) it likely won't be the last.
The Ninth Circuit did give Trump a partial victory, which is the real reason why the whole court fight over the travel ban (and the travel ban itself) may just whither away in the end. While the restraining order issued in Hawai'i was largely upheld (meaning the travel ban will not go into effect any time soon), one part was ruled overbroad. The Trump administration was restrained from moving forward on developing its "extreme vetting" rules, and the court agreed that this part of the restraining order should be overturned.
What this means is that the 90-day (or 120-day) clock can start ticking again. The stated purpose of both Trump's travel ban executive orders was that it was to be only temporary, to be replaced in a few months with beefed-up extreme vetting. What this means is that the Trump administration can go ahead and develop new vetting and implement the new procedures, no matter what happens in the courts with the travel ban.
I've written several times that this is probably how this court fight will end. Trump will give up on defending his travel ban and just move ahead with the extreme vetting. The Supreme Court is about to wrap up its session in a few weeks, so if they don't take up any expedited challenge to all the rulings against Trump's travel ban in that period, then Trump will have to wait until the court's next session opens in October.
That, as you can see, is a long time to wait for what was supposed to be an extremely urgent new policy that had to be implemented as fast as possible. Especially one that was only supposed to last either 90 or 120 days in the first place. So Trump likely won't even bother trying to craft a third executive order to address the concerns in today's ruling, or continue fighting by taking it to the Supreme Court. By the time a ruling is likely to happen, Trump could have his extreme vetting in place, making the whole issue moot.
Correction: As I noted in a later article, part of this article is just flat-out wrong. The Wisconsin gerrymandering case has not actually been heard by the Supreme Court, what they were pondering was whether to hear the case in the first place. They have now done so, meaning the case will be a big one in next year's court session. But there's no other way to put it, what was written here is just completely wrong on the facts. My apologies for this gross editorial error. Mea culpa maxima.
-- Chris Weigant
Cross-posted at The Huffington Post
Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant
And another ruling:
https://thinkprogress.org/youth-climate-lawsuit-trump-appeal-denied-db0f6a811c08
Trump is sounding out firing Mueller. Smart move. Not.
Hey CW
Off topic, but probably of interest-
Illinois Unions Endorse Billionaire Jay Pritzker for Governor
http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2017/06/12/illi-j12.html
Hyatt Hotels heir worth $3.5 billion... and Rahm Emmanuel buddy likely to continue the pattern of attacks on workers begun by former Dem Governor Quinn...
"A report from the Center for Tax and Budget Accountability shows that since the 2000, adjusted for inflation and population, spending on higher education has fallen 41 percent, spending on human services by 34 percent, and spending on health care by 22 percent."
... using the "reasoning" that getting rid of Republican Governor Rauner (who won because of Quinn's attacks on worker pensions alienating voters) is the top priority.
Apparently, they've learned nothing from the 2016 debacle.
A
It went on to further note that over the past 15 years, "only four nationals from the six designated countries have been convicted of attempting or plotting a terrorist attack in the United States," and that of the twelve people who succeeded in carrying out fatal domestic terror attacks since 9/11, none of them came from the six countries Trump banned. Therefore, Trump's second travel ban "does not provide a rationale explaining why permitting entry of nationals from the six designated countries under current protocols would be detrimental to the interests of the United States."
If the reasoning was that countries who had terrorists come from them in the past is the basis for the list of banned travel from countries today....
You would have a point..
But it's not, so yada yada yada yada... :D
There is two points ya'all utterly and completely ignore when it comes to the President's immigration restriction...
1.. The entire basis for Obama's list.
and
B.. It's OBAMA'S LIST!!!!
Until ya'all acknowledge these FACTS and understand the basis for them, ya'all will always be fact-less in the hysterical attacks on President Trump's travel ban...
That, as you can see, is a long time to wait for what was supposed to be an extremely urgent new policy that had to be implemented as fast as possible. Especially one that was only supposed to last either 90 or 120 days in the first place. So Trump likely won't even bother trying to craft a third executive order to address the concerns in today's ruling, or continue fighting by taking it to the Supreme Court. By the time a ruling is likely to happen, Trump could have his extreme vetting in place, making the whole issue moot.
Which was my point to JL... That's why whether or not the SCOTUS implements the ban is not a fair test of my argument...
Neil,
Trump is sounding out firing Mueller. Smart move. Not.
Considering that Mueller is stacking his team with Democrat sycophants, I would consider it a VERY smart move as it is obvious that President Trump is not going to get a fair investigation but rather just a witch hunt...
On another note...
Coal jobs not coming back????
Pennsylvania coal mine, first in Trump era, praised as lifeline for local economy
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/06/12/pennsylvania-coal-mine-first-in-trump-era-praised-as-lifeline-for-local-economy.html
Are you SURE about that??? :p heh
1.. The entire basis for Obama's list.
No one here wants to talk about the basis for Obama's list because if ya'all understood the exact parameters, ya'all would say, "Hmmmmm That IS reasonable, logical and necessary for national security"
At least the logical and rational ones would.. :D
On the Comey Is A Leaker front...
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/06/12/comey-admitted-single-trump-leak-but-were-there-others.html
Looks like there is a lot of factual evidence that indicates Comey was responsible for a good portion of leaks coming out of the FBI/DOJ....
Now that Comey is out the leaks should stop...
And regarding ya'all's claim that Kathy Griffin was an aberration, wasn't mainstream Left Wingery....
https://news.fastcompany.com/the-new-york-times-vows-to-stand-by-theater-despite-trump-julius-caesar-controversy-4040493
The facts clearly say otherwise...
It's general Left Wingery philosophy that this country would be better off if someone stepped up and off'ed POTUS....
As I have said time and time again and have ooodles of facts to support...
The Left is acting EXACTLY as they accuse the Right of acting...
Speaking of the travel ban...
Ya'all have stated that the US Constitution applies to non-US citizens not on US Soil..
There was a case where a US Border Patrol agent shot and killed a 15yr old Mexican boy on the Mexico side of the border..
The parents tried to sue in US courts, but the federal court threw out the lawsuit because the US Constitution doesn't apply to non-US citizens on non-US soil...
Coming to the United States is a privilege, NOT a right..
It's a privilege that can be suspended at any time for any reason at the direction of the President Of The United States..
That's Donald Trump, in case ya'all missed it.. :D
Gregg Jarrett: Are Mueller and Comey ‘colluding’ against Trump by acting as co-special counsel?
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2017/06/12/gregg-jarrett-are-muller-and-comey-now-acting-in-concert-as-co-special-counsel.html
This is exactly why President Trump should fire Robert Mueller...
There is a clear concise law that says that a Special Prosecutor MUST recuse themselves if there is a clear conflict of interest...
Mueller's conflict of interest is clear and undeniable..
If Mueller doesn't do what is legally binding, then President Trump is well within his rights, legally, ethically and morally to show Mueller the road...
It's clear from Mueller's team that he intends to turn the case into a witch hunt....
President Trump?? Fire Mueller... Sooner rather than later...
Comey was stunningly wrong when testified that his memo of the conversation with the president was his personal property. It was not. The Federal Records Act and the Records Management regulations at the DOJ and FBI state that anything done in the course and scope of government employment is the property of the government, not the employee. Comey was acting as the FBI Director when he conversed with Trump about a pending case. He wrote the memo in his official capacity. It was not Comey’s to keep personally or give away to someone outside the government without permission.
It is a crime for an employee, such as Comey, to convert government property to his own personal use. Yes, 18 USC 641 makes it a felony to “steal, sell or convey” it to someone else. That is exactly what Comey did by giving it to a professor at Columbia University Law School for the sole purpose of leaking it to the media. Comey’s ultimate design was for the leak to prompt the appointment of a special prosecutor which, conveniently, is his good friend Robert Mueller.
Comey, and ya'all incidentally, are "stunningly" wrong...
Mueller? You're fired!!! :D
Liz,
Why do some Americans refuse to believe what the Russians are up to, in America and throughout the West?
For the same reason Obama et al refused to believe what the Russians were up to in 2012 and actually ridiculed people who said otherwise....
Party loyalty.. Party agenda...
That is *ALL* what it boils down to...
Russ,
During his meeting with Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov and Ambassador Sergey Kislyak last week, President Trump told the men that fired FBI Director James Comey was a “nut job,” and that his removal would relieve pressure on his administration over its ties to Russia.
Bullshit..
It was ALL based on anonymous sources and the sources claimed are not even in the government and were not present at the meeting..
Of course YOU believe it because you *WANT* to believe it...
Kick,
I have had a problem both at work and at home where FLASH will quit and lock up the system for as long as 60 seconds..
Really annoying when yer trying to type a comment...
Anyone else having any issues??
Not enough information to diagnose your problem, but try this:
https://www.howtogeek.com/103292/how-to-fix-shockwave-flash-crashes-in-google-chrome/
THank you very much...
I'll give it a shot...
A question totally unrelated to politics..
Doesn't exist. ;)
Touche' :D
Cabinet does what Mellania won't.
Sorry 'bout the double tap.....dinky glass keyboard :(
Let's look to a possible future...
It's going to be HILARIOUS if President Trump is impeached and removed from office..
Democrats will have, for all intents and purposes, APPOINTED President Mike Pence!!!
Ya'all will have absolutely NO MORAL FOUNDATION to complain about ANYTHING President Pence does!!! :D
Won't that just be a hoot!!???
"Ya know, it IS funny!! It's a hoot!!"
-Tony Stark, AVENGERS-CIVIL WAR
:D
Kick,
"The president's power to exert executive privilege is very well established; however, in order to facilitate a swift and thorough examination of the facts sought by the Senate Intelligence Committee, President Trump will not assert executive privilege regarding James Comey's scheduled testimony."
Let me repeat the RELEVANT PART for the cheap seats..
President Trump will not assert executive privilege regarding James Comey's scheduled testimony."
President Trump exerted his right to suspect Executive Privilege for a very specific time frame in a very specific setting...
Comey leaked the government owned confidential documents prior to Trump's announcement.. An announcement that was very specific as to time and place that EP was waived..
You have no case to claim that President Trump waived EP so Comey had the permission to leak the documents..
Further, one can correctly argue that President Trump was not WAIVING EP, he was merely not going to exercise EP in the very specific time and place of Comey's testimony...
These are the facts that clearly prove beyond any doubt that Comey did not have ANY authority to leak the government documents...
The mere fact that Comey did it in the most cowardly fashion imaginable PROVES beyond ANY doubt that Comey himself knew that he was dirty and that leaking the documents was illegal..
It's no coincidence that his "friend" has now gone into hiding due to Comey's confession...
Kick,
I'm going to ignore that utter nonsense because it doesn't apply. I'm also going to go on record that you were not long ago singing the praises of Director Mueller because them "R's" stick together, but you'll soon be referring to him as serving the "Democrat Party" too.
My sung "praises" of Director Mueller was tongue in cheek, using ya'all's opinions of Republicans in general...
It's becoming clear that Mueller's friendship with Comey is making him more sympathetic to Comey's case...
Comey's own statements prove that Comey illegally leaked the documents so that a Special Prosecutor would be appointed.. It's entirely likely that Comey knew that his mentor and bestest buddy Mueller, would be the one chosen...
A case can be made that Comey intentionally and illegally leaked the government documents so as to get his mentor a really good paying gig.....
It's clear that Comey is not the honorable altar boy I thought he was...
But that should come as no shock to ya'all??? The entirety of the Left Wingery has been demonizing and castigating Comey as Satan himself...
RIGHT UP TO THE POINT that it was ideologically dependent to make Comey the Left's bestest buddy..
"Director Comey is an honorable man.. Director Comey has ALWAYS been an honorable man."
:^/
Kick,
Credit where credit is due...
http://www.chrisweigant.com/2017/06/09/ftp440/#comment-102467
You had an opportunity to really slap me down.
You chose not to..
I won't forget that... :D
Probably... :D
President Trump exerted his right to suspect Executive Privilege for a very specific time frame in a very specific setting...
suspect = suspend
Grrrrrrr
CW,
OK, freed a few comments, and (thanks, michale)
"What can I say except 'Yer Welcome!!'"
-Maiu, MOANA
:D
fixed the problem that would flag any comment with the word "accounting" in it.
Sorry 'bout that...
Yea, what's up with that!??
"What can I say except 'Yer Welcome!!'"
-Maiu, MOANA
https://scontent-lga3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/18119319_1293274007374768_9163800286366729781_n.jpg?oh=3c1d6167f9ff7078e70c4bd3a3616733&oe=59E83069
heh :D
https://static01.nyt.com/images/2017/06/13/arts/13CAESARPUBLICJP/13CAESARPUBLICJP-master768.jpg
Ahhh yes.. The peace and tolerance and respect of the Left Wingery.... :^/
I remember when the Left went hysterically apeshit because Lucifer in THE BIBLE mini-series had a "passing resemblance" to Obama.
By "passing resemblance" I mean that they were both black... :^/
But, apparently, it's perfectly acceptable to simulate the KILLING of a sitting President....
As long as said POTUS has a '-R' after his name.. :^/
Kathy Griffin an aberration, my left arse cheek!! Kathy Griffin is the norm for the Left Wing...
Regarding the second case, the problem is not just partisan gerrymandering but BI-partisan gerrymandering. Both parties collude to create "safe" districts for each other.
Regarding the second case, the problem is not just partisan gerrymandering but BI-partisan gerrymandering. Both parties collude to create "safe" districts for each other.
Exactly...
As is with the case of most partisan issues, there is now "FALSE" equivalency... :D
now = no
Grrrrrrr......
"Your good and your evil employ the same methods to achieve the same goals."
-Yarnek/General George Washington, STAR TREK
Russ,
During his meeting with Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov and Ambassador Sergey Kislyak last week, President Trump told the men that fired FBI Director James Comey was a “nut job,” and that his removal would relieve pressure on his administration over its ties to Russia. The NY Times reported this and the White House did not deny it.
So, what you are saying is that SILENCE GIVES ASSENT
Is THAT what you want to go on record as saying??
And, since SILENCE GIVES ASSENT, anyone who DIDN'T object to this is ALSO agreeing that SILENCE does indeed GIVE ASSENT...
You see my point, JL??
Ya'all have ONE set of standards when it comes to the LEFT and another completely different, oft times diametrically OPPOSITE set of standards for the RIGHT...
When it a RIGHT winger is silent, that means it DOES give assent...
When a LEFT winger is silent, that DOESN'T mean it gives assent...
I swear to the gods, one needs a frakin' playbook to keep up with ya'all's "principles" and standards...
But, Michale, they weren't 'silent' ... they just didn't deny it while saying other things about it.
For the purposes of this comment section and, just to be crystal clear, silence does by no means imaginable mean consent.
For the purposes of this comment section and, just to be crystal clear, silence does by no means imaginable mean consent.
And yet, because President Trump was "silent" on denying it, according to Russ that means that President Trump is assenting to the accusation... IE he is admitting it..
Either silence gives assent or it doesn't..
Ya'all can't have it both ways...
Now, if you say silence DOES NOT give assent and President Trump was silent on the accusation, that means that the *ONLY* evidence the Left has on that accusation is ANONYMOUS sources who are not even in government and were not at the meeting in question...
Would that be an accurate summation???
OBTUSE!
You see my point, JL??
yes, and it's still wrong. just because i didn't reply to russ's post doesn't mean i agree with it. the fact that the white house did not deny reports has zero bearing on their veracity.
JL
JL,
yes, and it's still wrong. just because i didn't reply to russ's post doesn't mean i agree with it.
ANd yet, you quite often dispute MY claims that involve SGA.....
What's the difference between my claims and Russ' claims???
the fact that the white house did not deny reports has zero bearing on their veracity.
I completely agree.. Apparently, it's RUSS who disagrees... :D
OBTUSE!
"Just the facts, ma'am... Just the facts.."
:D
What's the difference between my claims and Russ' claims???
Other than the fact that Russ' claims are ideologically acceptable to you and mine are not.....
:D
from a washington post analysis:
"Democrats won in nine of the 10 most-gerrymandered districts. But eight out of 10 of those districts were drawn by Republicans."
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2014/05/15/americas-most-gerrymandered-congressional-districts/?utm_term=.f9757f6896ee
House Democrats battle behind the scenes over impeachment
http://thehill.com/homenews/house/337572-pelosi-dems-push-back-against-sherman-impeachment-push
DEMOCRAT CIVIL WAR!!!!! :D
You people are lucky to have me around...
If it wasn't for me, ya'all wouldn't have a CLUE how badly yer Party is frakin' up!! :D heh
Well,of course, there is Altohone... :D
What's the difference between my claims and Russ' claims???
you claim outright that silence gives assent, which is demonstrably false.
in the case of russ's post, he doesn't explicitly suggest that the white house's silence on the issue means they accept the reports as true.
so perhaps that's not what he meant. if that is what he meant then he's wrong. maybe the white house staff have learned, based on their experience with the travel ban and the reasons for comey's firing, that it's best not to deny anything unless they're certain, since the president may make liars of them.
JL
you claim outright that silence gives assent, which is demonstrably false.
in the case of russ's post, he doesn't explicitly suggest that the white house's silence on the issue means they accept the reports as true.
So we're back to defining what the definition of 'is' is.. :^/
I love how you equivocate to hell and back to give anyone with a -D after their name the benefit of the doubt.. :D
I admire such loyalty, I really do... :D
A01 [217] FTP
EO's is all you mentioned... as if the far worse can be ignored... the way the Dems are doing because their billionaire donors support the warmongering and deregulation agenda btw.
Congratulations, you are debating like Michale (no offense Michale, but he is). I mentioned Trump's signing of EOs is largely symbolic. You commented back that you are "disturbed that" I "argue it's ONLY executive orders." Once again, nowhere did I argue that's it's ONLY executive orders, and now you respond with this utter nonsense that "all I mentioned was EOs... as if the far worse can be ignored."
Yes, Michale... excuse me, Punk... I did not provide an exhaustive list of the shirt show and/or circus going on currently in Washington, DC, but your argument that mentioning some of it equals ignoring the rest of it by omission is complete and utter BS logical fallacy... argumentum ex silentio which I actually thought would have been beneath you... but alas... apparently NOT.
This tactic to dismiss everybody on the left who doesn't buy into the Clintonite blame shifting narrative that coincidentally serves their ongoing and undeserved dominance of the Democratic party and the warmongerers too is getting old.
Your obsession with Hillary Clinton and warmongering is again duly noted. I don't wish to alarm you, but you need to entertain the idea that not everyone is uniquely focused on these subjects in quite the manner you exhibit so frequently. More succinctly: That's your thing... NOT mine. Continuing to project that attitude onto me is just repetitive and monotonous silliness.
And the DNC and Podesta leaks are at the heart of the charges by the Clintonites and their election meddling narrative. Forgive me for stating the obvious when discussing the issue.
No problem, but many of us have moved on and don't wish to have that attitude projected into our comments where it doesn't exist: That's your thing... NOT mine.
I am not wishing away the threat... I am wishing away the fear mongering by the Dems that is increasing the threat and actively preventing reasoned discussions with Russia to actually disarm more warheads... not to mention making the wasteful trillion dollar nuclear weapon "modernization" plan approved by Obama unnecessary. Silly me for such concerns eh?
I am disturbed that you argue that it's ONLY Obama's wasteful trillion dollar nuclear weapon plan. <---- See what I did there?
Did you read the responses to his tweet?
The few establishment Dems defending MacFarlane were the ones dwelling in the past.
But the vast majority were criticizing him for his rehash of the "Better than Trump" approach that failed for Hillary so miserably.
That is the reality I was referring to, and it remains relevant.
Punk, get over your obsession with Hillary, please. If you insist on focusing on the past and losses, figure out why Bernie failed so miserably; blaming Democrats for voting for the Democrat and blaming the DNC for Saint Bernard's loss and intentionally not engaging on the real reasons behind the loss is the issue. ;)
But going back, ask yourself, what if all the Dem candidates in 2018 or even worse 2020 are STILL harping about Russia at the expense of other issues, and Mueller comes out with a report that finds no evidence to support the Russia election meddling claims?
*LOL* M'kay. You are free to continue to prattle on and on about the lack of "evidence to support the Russia election meddling claims."
https://www.dni.gov/files/documents/ICA_2017_01.pdf
I do realize that the Greenwald lefties and their ilk actually admitting that Russia did attack our election would mean that they'd also have to come to grips with the fact that Russian trolls spoon-fed them anti-Hillary lies while they gleefully spewed them back and became Putin's useful idiots. Like I said: When it fits the narrative or worldview, no evidence is required, but when it doesn't, no amount of proof is sufficient.
With all the assertions being made, and all the leaks we've seen, aren't you the slightest bit disturbed that no actual evidence has been revealed, and disturbed about the potential consequences if none ever is?
You'd be better served to concern yourself with the "potential consequences" of continuing to deny the evidence. There needn't be evidence of collusion to prove evidence of meddling. Keep this up and you might as well be begging to have your nickname changed from "Punk" to "Punked." ;)
But let's go to the horse's mouth, so to speak..
Russ...
Are you implying that, since President Trump didn't deny the ANONYMOUS SOURCES that says he called FORMER Director Comey a "nut job", that the accusation is factual??
A simple yes or no is all that is required... :D
And unless we learn from history, we are about to do it all over again.
ADVERTISEMENT
Special prosecutor Ken Starr and the Republicans went overboard. Rather than just censuring the president, they tried to use Clinton’s personal transgression as an excuse to challenge his legitimacy and undo the re-election. His personal behavior, while inappropriate, was not a crime, and so the special prosecutor created a crime by entrapping him at his Paula Jones deposition.
Former FBI Director James Comey followed in Ken Starr’s footsteps. Failing to find a crime in nine months, he worked to create one. It was Comey who, after sending senior intelligence leaders out of the room, initiated the private discussion with President-elect Donald Trump on Jan. 6, 2017, about the unverified “salacious” dossier (that would then leak almost immediately) and volunteer to Trump that he was not under investigation.
It was Comey who then accepted further one-on-one conversations that he shared with no one but perhaps some of his staff. It was Comey who agreed to say the Hillary Clinton email investigation was a “matter,” but then refused to clarify publicly that Trump was not under investigation.
http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/the-administration/337372-opinion-dont-repeat-the-mistakes-of-clinton-and-1998
I gotta say, michale...
You're sounding awfully worried about all this stuff.
Tired of "winning" yet, maybe?
Heh.
-CW
michale [18] -
Yeah, the GOP seems to pick VPs based on how awful they would be for Democrats, as insurance against possible impeachment. Quayle, Cheney, Pence... starting to become a pattern.
Heh.
But you're right, it certainly does give rise to second thoughts, I'll admit that much.
-CW
michale [23] -
Your post proves the filter's OK now. "Accounting" has been freed!
I have to thank you for the work you did to isolate the problem (all those comments you instructed me to delete, where you narrowed it down to one or two possible words). That made fixing the problem a piece of cake. So thanks for the assistance.
If anyone else notices comments with one particular quote or word or phrase are getting blocked, let me know and I'll try to fix the problem.
-CW
nypoet22 [26] -
Yeah, that's exactly what took place here in CA before the change. Dems were dominant, but they played footsie with the GOP so each party got mostly safe districts, with very few competitive districts left over (we have 53 total).
We passed a ballot initiative to wrest this power away from the governor and legislature. They both fought back, and we passed another one which did the same thing. Every so often, they try again with an initiative to overturn the non-partisan redistricting commission, but that's been shot down. The politicians -- from BOTH parties -- fought this tooth and nail, but the people's will prevailed. In AZ, the GOP took the whole thing to SCOTUS, and lost. So in both states, the process has become much less (but not entirely) divorced from politics. Gerrymandered districts are going the way of the dodo here.
To other states: get on board! End the process with ballot initiatives!
:-)
-CW
@cw
the filter also seems to have issues with some variants of "dictionary"
CW,
You're sounding awfully worried about all this stuff.
I don't think I would characterize my feeling as "worried"....
Life gives me lemons, I make lemonade... With a healthy dose of Mango Rum... :D
I am just pointing out that ya'all with impeachment are like the dog chasing the car...
What are ya'all going to do when you catch it and you find President Pence in the driver's seat?? :D
But you're right, it certainly does give rise to second thoughts, I'll admit that much.
I know, right!??
Yer better than practically every other Lefty... You at least give thought to it...
Everyone else can't get past their hatred of President Trump... They are so blinded by their hate and bigotry, they can't see the consequences of their actions..
They are like Bartleby in DOGMA....
They just want to prove god wrong and don't care that doing so would destroy creation and the totality of the universe..
I have to thank you for the work you did to isolate the problem (all those comments you instructed me to delete, where you narrowed it down to one or two possible words). That made fixing the problem a piece of cake. So thanks for the assistance.
"One is honored to be of service"
-Robin Williams, BICENTENNIAL MAN
:D
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/
michale [27] -
There's no "false" equivalency. BOTH parties are guilty of this, which I've always said. They are equally at fault, nothing false about that at all.
The only imbalance is who controls what. In Dem states, the gerrymanders favor the Dems, in GOP states, they favor the GOP. The GOP had more states after the 2010 Census, so they've largely been the winners this particular decade. If the positions had been reversed, I have no doubt the Dems would have done much the same.
Nothing false about that. They're both at fault, and the only inequality is built into the system (by who is in charge of which states) and swings like a pendulum over time.
-CW
okay, that one worked. still trying to figure out what exactly the filter doesn't like. feel free to delete my last 3 posts.
nypoet22 [48] -
Thanks, let me check it out...
-CW
nypoet22 -
Couldn't find dictionary, but I did find "supplement" (put there to block vitamin supplement spam), which I removed. Maybe that was in a dictionary url you were trying to use? Dunno...
-CW
@cw[47],
florida passed two citizen initiatives to make gerrymandered districts illegal, and the state legislature mostly ignored them, forcing a protracted legal battle.
JL
OH, HOW FAR WE HAVE COME
LET'S REVIEW
http://www.chrisweigant.com/2017/05/18/scandalpalooza/#comment-100271
michale wrote:
"Actually, having Mueller appointed is the BEST thing that could have happened to President Trump...
Mueller, a loyal Republican, will be able to re-open the NOT-45 Email scandal, find out why Obama ordered surveillance on Trump and his campaign and why Susan Rice ordered the unmasking of Americans in fragrant violation of the law... :D
Ya'all are rejoicing about a Special Prosecutor but, in the throes of ya'all's PTDS, ya'all don't realize how bad it's going to be for Democrats when all THEIR secrets are exposed..
Because, as CW has said, the SP can GO ANYWHERE... INVESTIGATE ANYTHING..
So, here we have a LOYAL and DEVOTED Republican with a blank check and carte blanche to go ANYWHERE and investigate ANYONE...
I wonder how ya'all are going to feel about the SP when NOT-45 or Obama is subpoenaed?? :D
Do ya'all HONESTLY think that a loyal and devoted Republican is going to concentrate SOLELY on his President?? :D
If ya'all honestly believe that, I have some swampland down here in FL I would dearly love to sell ya'all.. :D
And, again as CW pointed out, ALL of this Demcorat malfeasance is going to come out right before the 2018 mid-terms..
Democrats will be lucky if they can get elected dog-catcher!! :D
If ya'all could get past ya'all's PTDS, ya'all SHOULD be very VERY scared about what Director Mueller(R) will uncover about Democrats.. :D
I can picture Director Mueller's first meeting with President Trump..
"Don't worry, Mr President.. Yer in the clear. Now, with this blank check I have, let's see what we can dig up on the Democrats, shall we?!?"
:D
And the Democrats, and ya'all incidentally, will *HAVE* to accept EVERYTHING that Director Mueller comes up with because they (and ya'all) have gone on record as touting the integrity and honesty of Director Mueller...
It's going to be a fun time for Michale... :D
******************
I see all that "winning" is turning into all that "spinning" today. :)
michale [in general] -
Boy, you really do seem worried! Wasn't it just last week you were begging us all to just "let it go until Mueller finishes" and drop the whole matter?
And yet here you are -- bringing up all the details, and making what you believe (hey, whatever helps you sleep at night) are exoneratory arguments that Trump has never done a single thing wrong in his life, etc.
I mean... if you're looking for people who "can't let it go" maybe you better start with your own mirror?
Just sayin'...
Heh.
-CW
Daniel Richmond has turned over Comey's notes to the FBI.
nypoet22 [37] -
OK, now that sounds interesting! I will check it out...
-CW
nypoet22 [55] -
Yeah, it took court battles and lots of political battles here, too. From memory, I think it was while Ahhh-nold was our Governator.
AZ had to go all the way to SCOTUS, but the people won in the end.
If I ran the universe (boy, there's a scary thought!), all districts would be drawn by computer programs which just looked at population, where it was on maps, and where it lumped together as communities. That's really all the data that is needed to draw districts neutrally.
-CW
Kick [58] -
Wasn't he supposed to give them to the Senate Intelligence Committee? The FBI's already got copies, and Comey gave his to Mueller.
That seems to be my cue to stop commenting and go check on the breaking news... for now, ta ta everyone.
-CW
CW,
Boy, you really do seem worried! Wasn't it just last week you were begging us all to just "let it go until Mueller finishes" and drop the whole matter?
Again, that's not what I was thinking..
I was more asking ya'all to quit being hysterical over every anonymous source that says exactly what ya'all want to hear and let's ALL wait until FACTS become available..
Ya'all seem to attached to ya'all's hysterical Party bigotry to even entertain such a revolutionary idea as FACTS.... :D
And yet here you are -- bringing up all the details, and making what you believe (hey, whatever helps you sleep at night) are exoneratory arguments that Trump has never done a single thing wrong in his life, etc.
And once again, you are saying things I never said.. I get my wee-wee whacked when I do that.. :D
I simply ask that ya'all come to this forum with FACTS and not hysterical Party bigotry and anonymous sources that couldn't POSSIBLY know the things they are claiming to know...
Is that too much to ask?? Facts???
I mean... if you're looking for people who "can't let it go" maybe you better start with your own mirror?
I am not the ones in the hysterical throes of PTDS.... :D
Kick,
Re 56....
Yea, like I said.. I was banking off of ya'all's hysterical hatred of anything and anyone GOP... I made that clear in subsequent comments, which you conveniently left out.. :D
http://www.chrisweigant.com/2017/05/18/scandalpalooza/#comment-100377
Right there.... :D
Looks like ya got played a second time.. :D
Look how fast Balthy back-pedaled and said, "Oh THIS Republican is OK.. THIS Republican is honorable!!!"
:D
Much of the same things he said about Comey **AFTER** President Trump fired Comey...
BEFORE that, Comey was scum of the earth and couldn't be trusted at all..
Like I said, it's impossible to keep track of ya'all's good guys/bad guys without a playbill...
Sometimes, like in the case of Comey, the guy is a BAD GUY until he does something that is ideologically desired or acceptable.. THEN he is a good guy.. :D
CW,
There's no "false" equivalency. BOTH parties are guilty of this, which I've always said. They are equally at fault, nothing false about that at all.
That's the point I was making...
But those who are ensla.... zealot'ed by Party would call ANYTHING like that a "false" equivalency...
Much of what the WPG calls a "false" equivalency really isn't false....
https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-06-13/trump-fired-comey-why-not-mueller-too
I really hope President Trump fires Mueller....
I would love to see the entirety of the Left Wingery's heads explode en masse.... :D
And the great thing is, Democrats would be totally and COMPLETELY impotent to stop it!! :D
What's that??
The people would rise up, you say!!??
Which "people" would those be??
The "people" that the entirety of the Left Wing has been insulting and calling them names like "racist" and "deplorable" and "irredeemable" for the last year!??
THOSE are the "people" that are going to rise up and help the Left further their anti-US, anti-Military, anti-Cop agenda???
Shirley, you jest.... :D
You people truly are living in a fantasy world....
michale [4] It's OBAMA'S LIST!!!!
According to Politifact, the basis of the list is found in the Visa Waiver Program Improvement and Terrorist Travel Prevention Act of 2015, a bill sponsored by Republican Candice Miller (R-MI).
The bill was originally meant to address the problem of european citizens, eligible for the visa waiver program, who had gone into Iraq and Syria to join Isis. It added an extra layer of scrutiny to the program which apparently included coordination with Interpol and other international law enforcement to screen euro citizens who had visited those countries. The scope of this screening was later widened to include Iran, Sudan, Libya, Somalia and Yemen.
So to call this "Obama's List" is not only misleading, but beside the point, since the list not only didn't apply to citizens of those countries, but was never intended to restrict travel to or from those countries.
So face it, the real problem with the 'travel ban' is that Trump's bumbling rookie team seized on language it found in a bill that addressed an entirely different problem, and half-assed stuck it into a bill designed entirely and solely to appease Trump's Basket of Deplorables.
And they wonder why the courts have a problem with it?
According to Politifact, the basis of the list is found in the Visa Waiver Program Improvement and Terrorist Travel Prevention Act of 2015, a bill sponsored by Republican Candice Miller (R-MI).
Politifact is a well documented Left Wing rag..
You might as well quote DailyShit, HuffPoop or WaPoop for your source...
So, you are still ignorant of the reasoning behind Obama's list...
addressed an entirely different problem, and half-assed stuck it into a bill designed entirely and solely to appease Trump's Basket of Deplorables.
Way to go!
Way to insult tens of millions of Americans whose sole "crime" is that they think different than you do and believe in different things...
How "tolerant" of you... :^/
Which "people" would those be? The "people" that the entirety of the Left Wing has been insulting and calling them names like "racist" and "deplorable" and "irredeemable" for the last year!?
Naw, I gave up on those folks a long time ago. I'll go with the 60% or so of the voting population that doesn't approve of Trump.
Way to insult tens of millions of Americans whose sole "crime" is that they think different than you do and believe in different things..
You mean the way that those people insult and demean the tens of millions of Americans that THEY don't agree with, and actively work to undermine every day, often not on the basis of political opinion, but because of skin color, origin, sex or economic status?
Yer darned tootin'.
Michale
63
Re 56....
Yea, like I said.. I was banking off of ya'all's hysterical hatred of anything and anyone GOP... I made that clear in subsequent comments, which you conveniently left out.. :D
Oh, that! Nope, that explanation doesn't fly. You were actually spewing the exact same thing they were talking about in the majority of the right-wing rags at that time... that Trump wouldn't allow a Special Prosecutor to be appointed if he didn't have him in his back pocket... and Mueller was a Republican.
While it's true that you did try to claim that you were kidding later, you didn't post that utter nonsense that you were kidding until after I had earlier that day posted this comment that I like to think made you rethink your position.
LET'S REVIEW SOME MORE
[89] Kick wrote:
Paula
56
Note: Sgt. Schultz has no compunction about asserting Mueller will simply take his assignment as an opportunity to skip investigating 45 and turn it into an anti-Democrat investigation.
I know, right? He's also failed in epic fashion to factor in the fact that Director Comey is also a Republican, not of the Trumpian variety, of course, and a great friend of Director "Three Sticks" Mueller. As fate would have it, it turns out that Republicans aren't a monolithic block who just roll over for a chump like Trump; anyone who's watched the saga playing out between the White House and the IC should easily be able to recognize that, and these two men belong to a very exclusive club, even more exclusive than that long list of presidents of the US.
https://www.fbi.gov/history/directors
They also share service/appointments by President Obama, Mueller being reappointed by Obama to a special 2-year term and serving under PO from 01/2009 until 09/2013, whereupon Director Comey was then appointed by President Obama. There's a cute picture of the three of them together in the Rose Garden circa June 2013. To be perfectly clear here, I'd say there's a better case that Obama is behind the scenes pulling the strings than the moron who thought it would be a good idea to tweet:
Donald J. Trump @realDonaldTrump
Intelligence agencies should never have allowed this fake news to "leak" into the public. One last shot at me. Are we living in Nazi Germany?
6:48 AM - 11 Jan 2017
while at the same time repeatedly praising one Vladimir Putin. In case anyone forgot, the IC investigation into that whole mess precedes the election by several months.
Grand juries are convening and doing their jobs, and indictments being put under seal. The FBI is on the job. You know the FBI? They're not goobers who served their country for a few years and asserting that it somehow bestows upon them the title of "patriot;" they're a group of tens of thousands of men and women around the world who've dedicated decades of their lives in service to their country... the real patriots. Oh, and why so many leaks lately from the IC? They're protecting their country from the biggest threat to democracy they've seen in decades. They're the oath keepers. :)
[ Friday, May 19th, 2017 at 10:59 PDT ]
************************
So you know how I keep saying there is another shoe that is going to drop; it's a really big shoe... like a Michael Jordan size shoe... big, big shoe... big long centipede with some bigly big shoes.
Lordy, I hope there are shoes.
Politifact is a well documented Left Wing rag.
Really? That's news. I know a lot of progressives who won't go near Politifact because of its well-known tendency to give righties more leeway than lefties.
Well, since there's obviously no fact-checking on WorldNet Daily...
michale [65] Look how fast Balthy back-pedaled and said, "Oh THIS Republican is OK.. THIS Republican is honorable!!!"
Believe it or not, Michale, there are some Republicans who are honorable, and have not drunk the Trump Kool-aid. While I may not agree with everything they say, I will at least give them the benefit of the doubt.
Believe it or not, Michale, there are some Republicans who are honorable, and have not drunk the Trump Kool-aid.
And THERE it is....
Any Republican, ANYONE who backs Trump simply CANNOT be "honorable"....
Pure, unadulterated bigotry... :D
EM
32
OBTUSE!
Amen... and cannot be reiterated enough.
Any Republican, ANYONE who backs Trump simply CANNOT be "honorable"..
If it helps any, I have the same opinion of anyone who thinks that Pauly Shore is funny.
C'mon, Trump is an overprivileged effete boor of a man, and that's before we even get to his politics. So, no, I do not think highly of those who think him qualified to hold America's highest office.
Now I shall pause to go watch the AG bury himself.
Sorry for the delay in getting back on here... We had to put down our retired narcotics K9 officer, Diesel, after having him in our lives for 14 years, so my mind has been elsewhere. We will see him waiting for us at the Rainbow Bridge one day, I have no doubt!
So as for my questions about Russia:
An article from the dailycaller on 5/19 said:
A U.S. official read notes taken of the conversation to The Times’ reporters. Another government official confirmed Trump’s general comments, according to the newspaper.
Trump’s comments provide further evidence that he fired Comey because of the investigation into possible ties between his campaign and the Russian government.
White House press secretary Sean Spicer did not dispute the contents of the notes from the Oval Office meeting.
“By grandstanding and politicizing the investigation into Russia’s actions, James Comey created unnecessary pressure on our ability to engage and negotiate with Russia,” Spicer told The Times.
When asked directly about whether or not this was said by Trump, Spicer did not deny it to be the truth. Furthermore, he chose to explain what Trump supposedly meant by the comments! THAT is affirmation as far as I am concerned!
Plus, you have H.R. McMasters claiming that he didn't remember the exact words used, but acknowledging that what the Times reported had been gist of what had been said.
I trust McMasters more than anyone else on Trump's team.
So are we done trying to find ways to avoid having to address the question I asked you?
Liz
delayed response to comment 234 from FTP
We see the world very differently.
Your justifications for dismissing sources contrary to the establishment based on "critical thinking", "common sense" and an ability to "cut through the noise in the corporate media" when you adopt the narrative they espouse is indeed novel.
"a tendency on your part toward wholly misguided assumptions based mostly on a total misread of my comments"?
You use that as a justification for not discussing these issues when you completely refused to comment on the issues?
Since that is a fact, you must be holding a grudge about previous discussions.
Isn't it possible that a lack of clarity on your part is a contributing factor?
Are you perfect, thus making others always responsible for not grasping your point of view?
Isn't it also possible that your inability to convince me is playing a role?
Anyway, let's get to the heart of the claims about the issues you refuse to discuss.
When Trump issues a demand that NATO countries increase military spending and what ten days later the Trudeau government announces a 70% increase in military spending... and then you follow the corporate media narrative by claiming the increase is a way for Canada to be seen as acting independently of Trump, I have to wonder how you square that circle in your head.
When Trudeau's Foreign Minister says "War must be part of Canada's future", a neoliberal militarism fully in line with Trump, I have to wonder how you square that circle in your head.
When the neoliberal agenda of weakening unions results in a supposedly Liberal government making it criminal for construction workers to go on strike, I have to wonder how you square that circle in your head.
When you praise the governor of Hawaii for adopting the Paris Accords, and then take offence at criticism of Trudeau for supporting the extraction of tar sands oil (just like Trump)... the dirtiest fossil fuel on the planet... and Trudeau's support for the pipelines across environmentally sensitive ecosystems into the US (just like Trump) and a pipeline through British Columbia for export to China, I have to wonder how you square that circle in your head.
So, which of the criticism of these policies in my comments and the links I provided qualifies as "crazy"?
Which of these stories isn't "relevant" or "credible"?
You didn't specify, but those are the stories to which I linked, and you must support one or more of those policies to consider criticism of them crazy... you must believe one or more of the issues to be irrelevant... and you must also believe that there were falsehoods reported for the stories not to be credible.
Are you worried about how it would look to go on record regarding the specifics?
A
Politifact is a well documented Left Wing rag.
perhaps that's because facts have a left-wing bias. calling politifact a bad name is a fallacious (ad hominem) argument, and does not somehow make their fact checking suspect.
conservatives are right to be unhappy that a higher percentage of facts run counter to their claims than claims made by the left. however, they would be better served by making claims that are more accurate than criticizing those who do the fact-checking.
JL
LWYH...
Sorry for the loss...I was a wreck when I put down mine of 16 years...
Not much else worth getting in a circular FACTS argument.. especially when no supporting docs are provided.
Gotta jet and see
Argggg...
Hate mobile phone coding...BTW CW for some reason the comnent window doesent like to scroll on android..
As I was saying...
Gotta jet and see if I can't get a 50 year old cutter back out on the water and catching me some more drug runners.
in a recent duke university study of attitudes toward fact checking,
"conservative sites were much more likely to criticize fact-checks and to allege partisan bias."
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BxoyrEbZxrAMNm9HV2tvcXFma1U/view
Poor Jefferson Beauregard Sessions III is one shifty little liar. Sessions, in contradiction of his earlier testimony, now says it's "conceivable" he had a conversation with Kislyak at the Mayflower Hotel. Trump said he assumed Russia taped him whenever he traveled there. Why didn't any of these "players" assume the Russians were being taped in America? Hmmmmm.
Why doesn't somebody ask him what his answer would be if he knew Kislyak was taped?
Missed opportunity!
Kick
41
Ouch.
I admit your point, but the rationalizing about EO's to make the focus on Russia appear acceptable was an omission I felt was worth mentioning.
I will strive for more carefully worded objections in the future.
Your acknowledgement that the more important issues were not spelled out without commenting on the relevance of those issues is not what I was hoping for, but that's probably my fault too.
"Your obsession with Hillary Clinton and warmongering is again duly noted. I don't wish to alarm you, but you need to entertain the idea that not everyone is uniquely focused on these subjects in quite the manner you exhibit so frequently."
Well, "Clintonite" was a reference to corporatist Dems (not Hillary) spewing the narrative she created to distract first from the content of the DNC and Podesta leaks, then as an excuse for losing to Trump, and finally as an excuse by the corporatist wing to avoid the needed discussion about the real reasons the Democratic party lost the presidency and over a thousand elected positions and is a "smoking pile of rubble" as one pundit put it.
I find it rather amusing that you claim to have moved on, while dwelling on that narrative endlessly.
And my expression of concern about them making nuclear war more likely is about you when you do as they do.
You may not be concerned about it, but that won't stop me from criticizing it.
"See what I did there?"
Yeah, you ignored my previous sentence in a cutesy attempt to make an invalid point, all while dodging a response to what I wrote.
"Punk, get over your obsession with Hillary, please. If you insist on focusing on the past and losses"
You ignored what I wrote completely and created a straw man argument. Talk about an obvious comparison to the trumpling (no offence trumpling).
MacFarlane repeating the failed lessor of two evils argument is about the future, not the past as you again falsely claimed, and my comment was about not making the same mistakes again.
Dems seem intent on doing just that.
And, btw, I believe the Dem Unity Commission is meeting again this weekend, because unlike you, there are Democrats who do recognize that the divisions within the party are real and need to be addressed.
I suspect the results will be insufficient, but at least they have a better grasp of reality... probably because of the ongoing discussion in alternative media and events like the People's Summit.
"You are free to continue to prattle on and on about the lack of "evidence to support the Russia election meddling claims.""
When China hacked various government databases back in the Obama years, the actual evidence was released so it could be independently verified by experts.
Nothing close to that has happened with the claims about Russia.
That is a simple fact.
If you have access to some verifiable evidence, please share.
Thus far, you haven't.
Instead, we are witnessing something more akin to the claims made about North Korea hacking Sony, and that turned out to have been an inside job.
"the fact that Russian trolls spoon-fed them anti-Hillary lies while they gleefully spewed them back and became Putin's useful idiots."
That is far from a "fact". Valid criticism from the left and the left wing of the Democratic party being repeated on RT doesn't make it invalid or make anyone a tool of Putin, just as Trump repeating criticism about Hillary from the left didn't make us his.
The sour grapes about Hillary's unconscionable behavior being used against her is simply denial about standard politics in this country and the world... with a heavy serving of hypocrisy on the side judging by the campaign tactics she employed.
Now, the Republicans certainly invented and disseminated lies about Hillary, but conflating the groups in exactly the same way Hillary conflated Republican trolls with Bernie supporters during the primaries is well beneath you.
"You'd be better served to concern yourself with the "potential consequences" of continuing to deny the evidence. There needn't be evidence of collusion to prove evidence of meddling."
Quite the interesting pattern where you dodged answering every single one of the questions in my comment.
Anyway, if Russian media reporting on the election in a slanted manner is the "evidence", then America is guilty of meddling far more often than the direct government actions, bribery, assassinations, coups and regime change wars.
As long as you and the misguided Dems maintain this narrative of blaming Russia with "evidence" rather than evidence, and claims of "meddling" without proof of an impact on the outcome of the election, and all at the expense of needed discussion on the true causes for the Dems losing over 1000 elections (when the supposed meddling only applies to one single election), Trump and the Republicans are more likely to prevail.
And I am being completely sincere when I say I hope actual evidence is revealed, or actually released to the public for analysis by unbiased experts if it already exists.
A
Listen
80
My condolences as well.
I have a good story to tell you when you're ready for a "those were the days" type reflection.
A
The Session's session mostly danced the narrow boundary between:
a) I can't recall
and
b) If I could recall, it would be protected by Executive Privilege
This is functionally about the same as taking the 5th, but without the PR downside.
The small amount of what Sessions could vaguely remember did not provide a very convincing narrative for why Comey was fired, other than the one-size-fits-all mumu of "fresh start."
@ts,
"fresh start" was just the punchline. today, sessions doubled down on his claim that he recommended comey be fired because of clinton's e-mails. sessions criticized comey's handling of the clinton e-mail investigation by claiming that he usurped the justice department's decision on whether or not to indict. this is moose poop because it was AG Lynch who stated prior to comey's announcement that she would abide by the recommendation of the FBI, and that the people deserved an explanation.
JL
"When Mr. Comey declined the Clinton prosecution, that was really a usurpation of the authority of the federal prosecutors in the Department of Justice. It was a stunning development. The FBI is the investigative team. They don't decide the prosecution policies.
That was a thunderous thing. He also commented at some length on the declination of the Clinton prosecution which you should not do. Policies have been historic. If you decline, you decline and don't talk about it."
~AG Sessions
(thunderous moose poop.)
Hey Liz
Here's a take on Trudeau's proposed 70% increase in military spending from a different source.
Canada's Increased Military Budget Will Fuel the US War Machine
http://therealnews.com/t2/story:19296:Canada%27s-Increased-Military-Budget-Will-Fuel-the-US-War-Machine
Run time about 12 minutes
What do you think about his claims that public opinion in Canada ranked increasing military spending near the bottom of their priorities?
(he didn't cite his source unfortunately)
A
So Sessions believes that Hillary should have been prosecuted, and fired Comey for opining otherwise? So why doesn't Sessions prosecute Hillary?
Because he knows that it would fail on the merits, that's why. Comey said there was no evidence with which to reasonably form the basis of a prosecution, not that the Justice Dept couldn't try anyway, if it wanted to. Big difference.
Sessions is caught with his pants down, actively shilling on behalf of Trump, and wants us to believe that Trump's opinion of Comey had nothing to do with it. That's the biggest pile of public dung since Barnum & Bailey's went out of business.
@balthasar,
it was a clever turn of phrase - sessions IMPLIED that hillary should have been prosecuted, without actually saying so. also, by using the word "usurped" he attributed a power-grabbing motive, rather than a motive to serve the country, and ignored the fact that comey's actions followed the directives of the AG at the time.
JL
Al,
I'd rather read about YOUR take on Canada's imperialistic military.
Any thoughts of your own?
A01
87
Ouch.
I admit your point, but the rationalizing about EO's to make the focus on Russia appear acceptable was an omission I felt was worth mentioning.
I remarked it was a lot to juggle. I didn't say a single word about it making the focus on Russia appear "acceptable;" that projection was/is all yours.
Well, "Clintonite" was a reference to corporatist Dems (not Hillary) spewing the narrative she created to distract first from the content of the DNC and Podesta leaks, then as an excuse for losing to Trump, and finally as an excuse by the corporatist wing to avoid the needed discussion about the real reasons the Democratic party lost the presidency and over a thousand elected positions and is a "smoking pile of rubble" as one pundit put it.
Oh, so that was about "NOT Hillary" spewing Hillary's views so therefore not about Hillary at all. I see.
I find it rather amusing that you claim to have moved on, while dwelling on that narrative endlessly.
I find it rather amusing that you can seemingly endlessly project and incorporate your "NOT Hillary" commentary into my responses whilst simultaneously claiming that it is me who is "dwelling on that narrative." I was commenting about the similarities of the lefties and righties and how with just a little tweaking they might close that gap in the horseshoe, and your response to that was the "Clintonite" focus.
And my expression of concern about them making nuclear war more likely is about you when you do as they do.
You may not be concerned about it, but that won't stop me from criticizing it.
Exactly right; you did have to bring up the "NOT Hillary" "Clintonite" issues in order to compare me to them. I truly am not concerned about it, which is why my focus is elsewhere. While you are certainly free to keep "criticizing it," please at least recognize that it's your endless narrative but not remotely mine.
Yeah, you ignored my previous sentence in a cutesy attempt to make an invalid point, all while dodging a response to what I wrote.
Exactly right... all while proving I could channel Michale just like you did.
You ignored what I wrote completely and created a straw man argument. Talk about an obvious comparison to the trumpling (no offence trumpling).
So I see that you did see what I did there. :)
MacFarlane repeating the failed lessor of two evils argument is about the future, not the past as you again falsely claimed, and my comment was about not making the same mistakes again.
Dems seem intent on doing just that.
I'm truly not concerned about it.
And, btw, I believe the Dem Unity Commission is meeting again this weekend, because unlike you, there are Democrats who do recognize that the divisions within the party are real and need to be addressed.
Now aren't you cute? Don't think I didn't see what you did there. If you honestly think that anyone can read your posts and not recognize the divisions, then you're not paying good enough attention to yourself... focus. ;)
I suspect the results will be insufficient, but at least they have a better grasp of reality... probably because of the ongoing discussion in alternative media and events like the People's Summit.
I suspect the results will be insufficient too because those who worship at the altar of Saint Bernard of Sanders {genuflect} have decided they are the "true Democrats" and that the actual Democrats are "neoliberals" and therefore not worthy of their support unless they clear an impossibly high bar of purity set by the revolutionaries and radicals who can't clear their own bar yet shame those who consistently vote for the Democratic candidate as ignorant and brainwashed sheeple. Quite obviously the "results will be insufficient" because there's just no pleasing the purists on any day that ends with a "y."
If you have access to some verifiable evidence, please share.
Thus far, you haven't.
Oh, how I wonder what would qualify as "verifiable evidence" to the Greenwald lefties and their ilk who share a love of WikiLeaks not unlike that of Benedict Donald. <---- See what I did there.
Instead, we are witnessing something more akin to the claims made about North Korea hacking Sony, and that turned out to have been an inside job.
Is there nothing on the planet that can't be simply explained away by that ever present "inside job" theory?
That is far from a "fact". Valid criticism from the left and the left wing of the Democratic party being repeated on RT doesn't make it invalid or make anyone a tool of Putin, just as Trump repeating criticism about Hillary from the left didn't make us his.
Who said anything about RT? Do you think the Russian trolls and their commentary was limited to RT?
Now, the Republicans certainly invented and disseminated lies about Hillary, but conflating the groups in exactly the same way Hillary conflated Republican trolls with Bernie supporters during the primaries is well beneath you.
Well now here's some common ground; you admit that Republicans invented and disseminated lies... better than nothing. I'll just chalk up that other utter nonsense with your refusal to focus on the the real reasons for Bernie's loss.
Quite the interesting pattern where you dodged answering every single one of the questions in my comment.
Picked up on that, did you? Your concerns and my concerns are widely divergent here so I see no point in the attempt. Perhaps the tincture of time might be a remedy.
Anyway, if Russian media reporting on the election in a slanted manner is the "evidence", then America is guilty of meddling far more often than the direct government actions, bribery, assassinations, coups and regime change wars.
Russian media? Reality bounces right off that Teflon layer of denial. You seem to be under the mistaken impression that Russia is limited in their "reporting," and I'm still NOT interested in a "reap what you sow" debate... continuing down that "deserved it" road is proof of something, and I have no interest whatsoever in taking that sharp left turn... none.
As long as you and the misguided Dems maintain this narrative of blaming Russia with "evidence" rather than evidence, and claims of "meddling" without proof of an impact on the outcome of the election, and all at the expense of needed discussion on the true causes for the Dems losing over 1000 elections (when the supposed meddling only applies to one single election), Trump and the Republicans are more likely to prevail.
Don't think I didn't see what you just did there when you moved those goalposts. :)
Balthy,
If it helps any, I have the same opinion of anyone who thinks that Pauly Shore is funny.
So, you cannot allow someone their rights of having a different opinion than you.. You just insult them..
And you call this tolerance???
For the record, I agree with you that Pauley Shore just ain't funny..
But I would never denigrate anyone that things he is...
C'mon, Trump is an overprivileged effete boor of a man, and that's before we even get to his politics.
And yet you cannot reconcile this opinion with the 3 FACTS that I have laid out...
As long as you fail to do that, your opinion is factless and without merit..
So, no, I do not think highly of those who think him qualified to hold America's highest office.
So, in other words, you reek of intolerance...
Gotcha...
Hay, don't get me wrong.. Different strokes for different folks and all that..
If you want to be an intolerant hater, you have that right... Live and let live, I always say...
You see, I am a tolerant person.. :D I acknowledge that every American has the right to hate as they see fit.. And hate whomever they wish to hate..
I just enjoy pointing out the hypocrisy of it all.. :D
Dems rebuff skeptics: We will keep talking about Russia
Great... That guarantees a better GOP majority in the House and Senate...
Talking about Russia is GREAT.... For the Dumbocrat Party...
But the American people want Congress and the POTUS to do the jobs they were hired for...
And if Dumbocrats get in the way of that??
The American people will fire them...
It's THAT simple...
Kick
96
I hope your day gets better.
"that projection was/is all yours."
Take a step back, and accept that when I offer my opinion, I'm not projecting onto you.
I felt it needed to be said.
How is that about you just because my comment is to you?
"Oh, so that was about "NOT Hillary" spewing Hillary's views so therefore not about Hillary at all. I see."
Obviously, you don't.
Hillary's gone... her narrative continues to be used.
And the politically convenient nature of the origins of that narrative matter because they were bullshit from the get go according to all of the available "evidence".
You do realize they didn't dispute the accuracy of the emails on Wikileaks... and that five people lost their jobs right?
But DNC meddling had no impact and is acceptable in your book? Quite the double standard.
"I find it rather amusing that you can seemingly endlessly project and incorporate your "NOT Hillary" commentary into my responses"
You are using her narrative.
It's not projection, it's a fact.
Hillary isn't here at CW repeating that narrative... you and most of the people here are.
"I truly am not concerned about it"
A true Cold Warrior.
How admirable, if outdated.
Bad for the country and the world in my opinion. See?
Not projecting.
"Exactly right... all while proving I could channel Michale just like you did."
"So I see that you did see what I did there. :)"
I admitted fault when I did it by accident.
Is that all I'm getting from you?
"I'm truly not concerned about it."
Interesting.
Dems losing again by failing to learn from history doesn't concern you.
Go Trump?
"If you honestly think that anyone can read your posts and not recognize the divisions"
Well, responding to my comments would help convey the recognition... but learning what I think isn't the issue.
I was kinda hoping that some action could be motivated... but you're not concerned, so, never mind.
"I suspect the results will be insufficient too because those who worship..."
Alienating the left wing of the Democratic party didn't work out well for Hillary... but, oops, I forgot... you're not concerned. Never mind.
Go failed status quo?
"Oh, how I wonder what would qualify as "verifiable evidence""
Focus!
I spelled it out for you.
The same underlying information that was released for the hack by China.
It's there... why won't they release it?
"Is there nothing on the planet that can't be simply explained away by that ever present "inside job" theory?"
Or Russia, right?
"Who said anything about RT?"
Fully half of the "intelligence" report released in December to "prove" Russian "meddling" was about journalism on RT.
The other half was unsubstantiated assertions.
I expected you of all people to be up on the details.
"Do you think the Russian trolls and their commentary was limited to RT?"
Oh, you're referring to online trolls who may be Republicans? Or, maybe you're referring to the fake news coming out of Macedonia, not Russia, which Repubs spread around as facts?
Maybe you should just clarify, because the nationality and motivation of online trolls hasn't exactly been established by anyone.
"Well now here's some common ground; you admit that Republicans invented and disseminated lies... better than nothing."
Channeling the trumpling again?
Come on.
"Picked up on that, did you? Your concerns and my concerns are widely divergent here so I see no point in the attempt. Perhaps the tincture of time might be a remedy."
Yes, it is horrible of me to want your opinions.
What was I thinking?
Or, was there an implied "it's beneath me" in there?
"I have no interest whatsoever in taking that sharp left turn... none"
Who was it that said the facts have a leftist bias?
Do you remember?
I know the establishment types don't like that reality in either party, but I've come to expect better from you... the kick ass researcher.
If there is something other than what you have thus far presented that you are assuming I am aware of, please clarify.
And please don't refer to the empty assertions in the document from Reality Winner.
"Don't think I didn't see what you just did there when you moved those goalposts. :)"
Are you referring to the notion that "meddling" without an impact does concern you? (see above regarding the DNC meddling)
I guess that makes sense... since nuclear war and Dems losing doesn't concern you. Oops... I'm projecting again... no, wait... you actually expressed a lack of concern for those issues.
Who would have guessed?
A
A01
100
I hope your day gets better.
I hope your life gets better. Yes, kidding. My day is fine. My thoughts today are with the victims of violence; a friend of a friend actually got shot so I've been in touch with her. He's fine, though.
Take a step back, and accept that when I offer my opinion, I'm not projecting onto you.
I felt it needed to be said.
How is that about you just because my comment is to you?
Yes, I know you can't project onto me, but that doesn't stop you trying.
Hillary's gone... her narrative continues to be used.
I blame the First Amendment and the fact that as long as the Berners whine incessantly about her, where has she really gone?
You do realize they didn't dispute the accuracy of the emails on Wikileaks... and that five people lost their jobs right?
I do realize lots of things; let's talk about the hanging chads of 2000.
But DNC meddling had no impact and is acceptable in your book? Quite the double standard.
There you go again NOT projecting your obsession onto me. Damn those hanging chads in Florida and that butterfly ballot.
Interesting.
Dems losing again by failing to learn from history doesn't concern you.
Go Trump?
Yes, brilliant. You display a stunning intellect by accusing me of being a Trump supporter. You've figured me out, mate. But seriously: How many times do I have to post that I'm not a Democrat?
Well, responding to my comments would help convey the recognition... but learning what I think isn't the issue.
Witness your handiwork above.
I was kinda hoping that some action could be motivated... but you're not concerned, so, never mind.
You think the focus on Russia is a waste of time and will hurt Democrats; I'm not concerned about that. Conflating that with anything else is your handiwork.
Alienating the left wing of the Democratic party didn't work out well for Hillary... but, oops, I forgot... you're not concerned. Never mind.
Go failed status quo?
Your obsession with Hillary is again duly noted; she is alive and well in you. Meanwhile, I'm still not a Democrat.
Or Russia, right?
Wrong.
Yes, it is horrible of me to want your opinions.
What was I thinking?
Or, was there an implied "it's beneath me" in there?
I'm now going to tell you what I believe Liz has reiterated to you many times over, but in my own words... in my own way. You seem more interested in taking my comments and conflating them to fit your narrative, and your tone... I will stop right there and simply say that if I thought you really wanted my opinion, you'd get it. :)
michale [49] -
Life gives me lemons, I make lemonade... With a healthy dose of Mango Rum... :D
Mango rum? I'm going to pretend you didn't say that.
Meyer's Dark, my friend... Meyer's Dark.
Heh.
-CW
ListenWhenYouHear [80] -
My condolences.
To tell you the truth, we are still in mourning over the loss of our Editor-In-Chief here.
http://www.chrisweigant.com/2015/11/03/requiescat-in-pace-1999-2015/
Four-legged friends are the best! Remember the good times forever with Diesel, and our thoughts are with you now.
-CW
Kick
101
Third time's the charm.
Six straw man arguments, and ten dodges.
The Kick who didn't wake up on the wrong side of the planet was more interesting.
A
A01
104
Six straw man arguments, and ten dodges.
I see you counted some of those twice.
The Kick who didn't wake up on the wrong side of the planet was more interesting.
There is no "wrong side of the planet," mate, just people who think their side of the planet is the right one. Perhaps I'll seem more interesting as the world turns. ;)