March 20, 2017
"We have no information to support those tweets. All I can tell you is that we have no information that supports them."
Said F.B.I. director, James B. Comey, testifying today before the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, about Trump's assertion that Obama wiretapped Trump Tower.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
487 comments:
1 – 200 of 487 Newer› Newest»Comey's kind of a flake, isn't he?
Wiretapping no, surveillance...we aren't going to talk about...
Let's not forget the news that Judge Andrew Napolitano's supposed source has bailed on the story Napolitano was peddling:
http://money.cnn.com/2017/03/19/media/larry-johnson-napolitano-fox-news/
And then recall that Trump's own "story," such as it was, was directly linked by Trump himself back to the Fox News Channel's "very talented legal mind."
http://news.sky.com/story/donald-trump-on-gchq-wiretapping-claims-i-was-quoting-legal-mind-10805394
On the other hand, they did find Tom Brady's Super Bowl Jersey. In Mexico. Stolen by a Mexican journalist. Yes the FBI was heavily involved in tracking down this cross border criminal.
This should have a Trump versus Reality tag, not Trump versus Obama. Obama is just a bemused spectator like the rest of us.
In other news, why does that lumbering galoot Comey still have a job at all?
After Comey's performance on the Hillary server, I have a really hard time taking anything he says seriously. It isn't that I think he was either right or wrong so much as I think he was willing to abandon all principle to cover his ass and try to keep his job. Every time he now opens his mouth I think the same thing is happening.
When Schiff asked his question quoting Trump's tweet he didn't put the word "wire tapped" in quotes. Therefore the broader term "surveillance" was not ruled out. Schiff was dishonest in his question.
"Consumed by his paranoia about the deep state, Donald Trump has disappeared into the fog of his own conspiracy theories. As he rages in the storm, Lear-like, howling about poisonous fake news, he is spewing poisonous fake news."
"He trusts his beliefs more than facts. So many secrets, so many plots, so many shards of gossip swirl in his head, there seems to be no room for reality."
"His grandiosity, insularity and scamming have persuaded Trump to believe he can mold his own world. His distrust of the deep state, elites and eggheads — an insecurity inflamed by Steve Bannon — makes it hard for him to trust his own government, or his own government’s facts."
Maureen Dowd, NYT, 3/19/2017
Hmm....believe the FBI/CIA/IRS/DOJ/EPA....ah probably not.
Thanks, Inga. I really wanted to know what Maureen Dowd thought about all this.
Now, we can all relax.
Meanwhile, Trump is working with Congress to pass legislation. That is a phenomenon not seen in years.
I know nuffink! Except for Flynn was the only guy surveilled. Ever. And that was completely different.
So all the prior MSM stories, including on NYT front page, about intercepted communications were phony as well?
It was a narrative displacement. Nobody cares except lefty headline writers.
Politicians are trying for a free ride on it but nobody cares.
Politicians talk for lefty headline writers.
It's a narrow audience.
I really enjoy watching Trey Gowdy operate in these settings.
"James Comey, the F.B.I. director, publicly confirmed an investigation into Russian interference in the presidential election and whether associates of the president were in contact with Moscow."
NYT, 3/20/17
Ah, poor Trumpies.
So, Trump was not wire tapped. So, all that evidence of kompromat or whatever pseudo fancy spy speak we learned about wire tapping Trump and his allies, but that no one has seen but totes exists is back to being Fake News again, right?
Sebastian: "So all the prior MSM stories, including on NYT front page, about intercepted communications were phony as well?"
"lifelong republican" Chuck "forgot" to ask that question as well as "forgot" to address the implications that the entire, ENTIRE, MSM/Dem/Lefty/"lifelong republican" narrative of Trump Campaign collusion with Russia has just been s***canned.
We are left with li'l adam schiff railing about "circumstantial evidence"!
And is this an appropriate time to remind our dem/lefty/"lifelong republican" commenters about how they ran so far so fast with a certain "dossier" not that long ago?
I'm afraid all of that is already half-way down the patented Leftist/"lifelong republican" Memory Hole, right next to all those dead Kulaks and Chinese intellectuals and Cuban "counter-revolutionaries".
No information. Except the recordings and the transcripts. It depends on the meaning of support. And information. And tweets. Can I keep my job?
so trump is a genius. make wire tap suggestion, force house to do investigation, house does investigation on first day of gorsuch confirmation hearings, overshadow gorsuch, make gorsuch look normal, so gorsuh eventually confirmed.
well-played
the congressional republicans are so terrible at playing to win even when trump gets the pitcher *by shear genius) to throw a softball
I think Trump plays so much golf to keep his conversations off record while the FBI investigates possible collusion between Flynn, Paul Manafort and others with Russian interference in our last election. We can expect more alternative fact tweets.
Unknown said...
"James Comey, the F.B.I. director, publicly confirmed an investigation into Russian interference in the presidential election and whether associates of the president were in contact with Moscow."
NYT, 3/20/17
Ah, poor Trumpies."
LOL
Once again, Unknown is at least 36 hours behind in talking points.
Hey Unknown, you apparently don't realize that we already know the outcome of any investigation that might have taken place.
Which is why the republican side is so anxious to uncover and make public the justification for that investigation and what probable cause was cited for an on-going investigation by a sitting administration into their political opponents!
This is precisely what we have been asking for.
Don't worry, in about 2 days you'll figure it out.
Until then, you and "lifelong republican" Chuck can enjoy your reruns of the "Maddow: Trump Tax Big Reveal 2 - Electric Boogaloo"
Michael K said...
...
Meanwhile, Trump is working with Congress to pass legislation. That is a phenomenon not seen in years.
Man, I wish that was all that Trump did. Instead of Tweeting about "wire-taps" and the failing media, and instead of jetting to Mar-a-Lago every weekend.
From a man who doesn't know what "gross negligence" means after thoroughly describing it.
roesch/voltaire: "I think Trump plays so much golf to keep his conversations off record while the FBI investigates possible collusion between Flynn, Paul Manafort and others with Russian interference in our last election."
Yes, an obambi supporter just wrote that. Without irony.
Again, for the lefties History always begins anew each day and nothing that has happened before is allowed to be rememebered!
Well played R/V! Next up, R/V complains that Trump might, MIGHT, be caught on camera soon promising to be "more flexible" for "Vlad" after the next election!
"lifelong republican" Chuck: "Man, I wish that was all that Trump did. Instead of Tweeting about "wire-taps" and the failing media, and instead of jetting to Mar-a-Lago every weekend."
So, let's see....oh right, Monday.
On Mon/Wed/Fri "lifelong republican" Chuck complains about Trump being distracted from the business of legislating.
On Tue/Thu/Sat "lifelong republican" Chuck complains about Trump being involved too heavily in the business of legislating.
On Sunday, "lifelong republican" Chuck complains about both simultaneously.
You do have to love the irony of the Left insisting that we all trust the word of the FBI and CIA. I mean, it's not like the Left has been saying those agencies were untrustworthy and should never be believed for the last, oh, 6 decades or so, is it?
The FBI, CIA, NSA, DIA, and I guess even law enforcement in general now has a "right to be beleived" though, I guess. Funny ol' world, huh?
Drago do you remember what Trump said when the Obama long-form birth certificate was belatedly produced? Trump was "very proud" of his efforts to get it produced. He thought that he alone had gotten an important job done. Notwithstanding the fact that it didn't prove anything whatsoever of consequence. Trump claimed that he had done something that "Hillary" and Johm McCain couldn't get done. (Forgetting the fact that neither Hillary Clinton or John McCain ever wanted to see the Obama birth records.)
That is how I feel about Trump's tax returns. A battle that needs to be waged, non-stop. We can start with Trump's 2016 return, which will be filed soon and won't be under any audit cloud at the moment that they are filed. And so there won't be any "audit" excuse.
Did he also confirm an FBI investigation into Man Eating Trees, the really real ones, not the ones seeded by Aliens from outer space that we are so familiar do exist from reading the fiction in the NYT.
Trump had better pray that Twitter doesn't stop his account. That his last tool to speak truth to Fantasy BS.
On Sunday, "lifelong republican" Chuck complains about both simultaneously.
I'm seriously starting to believe that Chuckles is the reincarnation of Garage......
"(Forgetting the fact that neither Hillary Clinton or John McCain ever wanted to see the Obama birth records.)"
-- Bitherism started from the Clinton camp. So, John McCain didn't get involved with it, but it was a political hit job that originated from the left, specifically with Clinton, that Trump ran with.
Unknown: "the congressional republicans are so terrible at playing to win..."
Hmmmmmmmm,
http://www.npr.org/2016/03/04/469052020/the-democratic-party-got-crushed-during-the-obama-presidency-heres-why
You keep using this phrase "the congressional republicans are so terrible at playing to win..."
I do not think it means what you think it means.
Watching the hearing with rapt attention. I suggest you folks tune in.
Chuck: "Drago do you remember what Trump said when the Obama long-form birth certificate was belatedly produced?"
I'm sorry.
My ears are still ringing from your gloating and celebrating over the hilariously fake and easily dismissed "dossier" with which you used to bash Trump voters.
Perhaps you'd now like to address how stupid you've been?
Wait, don't do that. You'll never finish....
I was thinking this morning how much I enjoy hearing NPR and other Media outlets use the phrase "without any evidence." Over and over again they use that phrase when talking about President Trump's claims. It's accurate, of course, insofar as Trump has not himself put forward any evidence to support his claims (other than to point at Media reports, etc).
Now, what we must INSIST upon is that the Media continue using that phrase where appropriate. For example, the next time some Democrat asserts that HeadStart makes a long-lasting improvement in a child's life they must stay "Democrat X says, without any evidence, that Head Start..." When a Democrat says cutting this or that program will cause deaths the Media must say "X says this minor reduction in the rate of growth of agency X's budget will cause Y deaths, but of course that assertion is without any evidence."
I mean, it's really quite a handy phrase. For some reason I don't remember hearing it used all that much--I DO remember President Obama asserting that Obamacare would reduce family health insurance costs by $2.5k/yr, for example, and that certainly didn't have any evidence (just conjecture)--but I'm sure now that it's a common Media habit we'll see it applied evenly across the political spectrum. I'm super-sure.
Unknown: "Watching the hearing with rapt attention. I suggest you folks tune in."
Thanks for your status update. You don't have to share every shift in position on your many, many, cat pillows.
Or stay ignorant and rely on conspiracy theories, makes no difference to me.
Why would Putin want Trump in the White House, when Hillary (and Obama) would give him the store??? I mean, more flexibility, uranium ect...what did Trump have to offer?
So without actually doing any surveillance or looking in any way, whatsoever, evidence that the Russians influenced the election and compromised Trump magically appeared as if on the wings of a snow-white dove.
Substantial evidence. That we can't share. Not without compromising our sources the snow-white doves. But trust us. It's there. It's been in all the papers since last year.
Yeah, right.
Unknown: "Or stay ignorant and rely on conspiracy theories, makes no difference to me"
Oh yes!!
Turn on the TV RIGHT NOW or remain ignorant for-ev-uh!!
If only there were groups and/or organizations who made it possible to watch videos at whatever time one might be available or who could perhaps take a few notes about what is going on and share that with us at all hours of the day or night.
Perhaps through a cool medium whereby electronic signals can be converted to words and pictures.
Alas, without those basic capabilities and tools we are all lost!
What will become of us?
Drago said...
You keep using this phrase "the congressional republicans are so terrible at playing to win..."
I do not think it means what you think it means.
3/20/17, 10:55 AM
You have to admit though, the Republicans have one hell of a track record of snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. Just so happens that the current "opposition" team is just so much worst that they can't help but win some. I mean really, review the game tapes from the last 8/10 years. These guys have acted like they play to tie, not win.
Chuck said...That is how I feel about Trump's tax returns.
Why?
Just kidding, we all know why. Now: why don't you "wage [that] battle" by pressuring Congress to pass a law making Presidents release tax returns once in office? Seems like such a law would be Constitutional and could apply to the current President. Seems also like there are enough anti-Trump people in Congress to get such a law passed, no? It could even be a nice bargaining chip for the Repubs--we'll pass that law (designed to hurt/embarrass a President of our party) if you'll pass law X. That'd be a win-win for a long-time Republican, I'd think.
Personally, I don't at this point care much about Trump's tax returns, past or current. The nation voted already, and Trump won. I wanted to see his tax returns during the election, and I think not seeing his returns (and not getting the info therein) was a good reason to vote against him, but now that he's President all that is "baked in." Unless he's committed a crime what should his tax info matter now? If he's committed a crime the IRS/DOJ should already be going after him, returns released or not, so that shouldn't actually matter either.
All of Adam Schiff's questions are innuendo.
Todd: "Just so happens that the current "opposition" team is just so much worst that they can't help but win some."
It would not be the first time that a team was able to chant, happily, "We're not the worst"!
Gahrie said...
...
I'm seriously starting to believe that Chuckles is the reincarnation of Garage......
Then you: a) don't have any recollection of my commenting history when garage mahal was an active commenter; b) can't distinguish between "criticism of Trump" and "left-wing advocacy," and c) ignore every post I make on a political topic that doesn't mention Trump.
And none of that surprises me. That sort of myopic ignorance is what I expect from you.
David Begley: "All of Adam Schiff's questions are innuendo."
All of every dems questions and comments are innuendo.
But "necessary" innuendo, lest anyone think that Hillary actually lost an election.
I'll start caring about Trump's tax returns the day after all of Obama's college records are released.
Drago I take my tweeter style clues from Trump, but post them in a more ironic tone, although I do believe the FBI is investigating the collusion between Manafort, Flynn, Stone and the Russians because something smells cheesy in this operation and its not Swiss cheese--hint more like Bauskas gone rotten.
Gahrie: "I'll start caring about Trump's tax returns the day after all of Obama's college records are released."
I'll start caring about Trump's tax return the day after we know precisely which democrat/lefty/"lifelong republican" in our security agencies committed the felonies that resulted in the leaking of the Flynn information.
Rep. Sewell, "Director Comey I know you can't comment but" [long list of assertions that she spins as innuendo].
New form of McCarthyism.
On NPR this morning someone [didn't catch who, presumably a journalist or Democratic politician] outlining the evidence of Trump's supposed interactions with the Russians included the lie that Trump called on Russia to hack Dems / the Clinton campaign.
If there were actual evidence they wouldn't include this sort of nonsense.
Then you: a) don't have any recollection of my commenting history when garage mahal was an active commenter;
Possible...you really didn't enter my radar until the Trump Derangement set in.
b) can't distinguish between "criticism of Trump" and "left-wing advocacy,"
Sure I can. Your hysterical Trump Derangement can't be ignored. I wouldn't say you advocate for the Left wing....you just constantly defend the Left wing.
and c) ignore every post I make on a political topic that doesn't mention Trump.
I honestly wasn't aware of any........
roesch/voltaire: "Drago I take my tweeter style clues from Trump, but post them in a more ironic tone, although I do believe the FBI is investigating the collusion between Manafort, Flynn, Stone and the Russians because something smells cheesy in this operation and its not Swiss cheese--hint more like Bauskas gone rotten."
"...although I do believe the FBI is investigating the collusion between Manafort, Flynn, Stone and the Russians..."
Hmmm, not even an "alleged".
Which is hilarious. I guarantee no 3 people have had their actions more closely scrutinized than those 3 for a very long time and the result is: nuttin.
Which is why we will need to see the not so "probably cause" (political in nature) which drove this fake investigation which then inevitably yielded nothing.
"You keep using this phrase "the congressional republicans are so terrible at playing to win..."
I do not think it means what you think it means."
They are good at getting elected. Then ...
Known Unknown: "They are good at getting elected. Then ..."
To be more precise, at the US congressional level they are good at getting elected over the last 3 election cycles while obambi was in office.
I wouldn't go any further than that. And there is certainly a different dynamic going on at the state level.
"All I can tell you" - and what can't he tell us? Hmm.
You have to consider what the meaning of "is" is and the position of every comma (or the lack of a comma) with every one of these guys.
Comey is just trying to steer the FBI between Scylla and Charybdis. It is politics, but agency politics. Republican or Democrat is beneath them. Survival of the agency and preferably dominance is what matters.
All this proves is that Comey is in on it! I suggest we all change our identities before the Deep State gets us next.
And has the DOJ responded to Comey's demand that they declare Trump wrong? Last I checked, they hadn't.
Meanwhile, the denials continue to be careful and lawyerly while the insistance that we accept the denials continues to be broad and all encompassing.
Trump as Snowden. Rh nailed it.
Gahrie said...
I'll start caring about Trump's tax returns the day after all of Obama's college records are released.
What about Trump's college records? How many times has Trump claimed to be a graduate of Wharton? I don't think that's true. I'm fairly certain that it isn't true. (This may be a technicality; is Trump's degree actually a Penn undergraduate degree, after having taken some classes within Wahrton?) How many times has Trump claimed to have been a good, or even an award-winning student? I think those claims are untrue as well. Trump, I have read, claimed to the New York Times to have graduated first in his class. That isn't true. Trump has on at least one occasion claimed to have an MBA from Wharton. That also is untrue.
http://www.rawstory.com/2017/02/trump-claim-of-being-first-in-his-class-at-wharton-was-another-lie-report/
Blogger Unknown said..."Watching the hearing with rapt attention. I suggest you folks tune in."
Watched a big chunk of it. What struck me is the focus on the crime committed by whomever leaked the Michael Flynn conversation. In a just world, that person or persons would be sitting in jail for 10 years. Here's hoping for justice.
When Obama was POTUS the important issue to the narrative pushers was not that wiretapping was being done but that it could be done. Now that Trump is POTUS the issue with the narrative pushers is not whether it could be done, but whether it was done at all. I guess that's why it's called biased.
The FBI is, of course, all clued in to all operations by the rest of the seven intelligence agencies and co-operating foreign counterparts. Any of you use Siri or Alexa? Do you realize that these services are listening to you all the time so that they will be able to respond when you have a question or prompt? Can you imagine an intelligence service taking advantage of that? How about those cameras/gun-shot detectors all over major cities. Do you know the sensitive microphones are working constantly? Carry on.
"lifelong republican" Chuck links to rawstory!
Hilarious. I guess Dan Rather didn't have anything available!
AReasonableMan said...
This should have a Trump versus Reality tag, not Trump versus Obama. Obama is just a bemused spectator like the rest of us.
Before: Trump is a Russian agent on the verge of being impeached.
After: Obama is a "bemused spectator."
Comey refused to answer whether or not he briefed Obama on the Flynn recordings. I will take that as a "Yes."
No leaker will ever be caught. If the FBI questions the journalist, they will refuse to answer. Will go to jail for contempt. Martyr. If Brennan or Clapper were questioned, they would take the Fifth.
did Obama ever e-mail Hillary's private e-mail?
What about Trump's college records?
You see Chuckles...this is your problem......you turn everything into an attack on Trump, and refuse to hold the Democrats responsible for anything.
A true lifelong Republican would have simply agreed with me.
Your hysteria is preventing you from performing effectively..
It's becoming clear what is happening.
A political "investigation" looking for a smoking gun and, since it is too problematic to create a smoking gun particularly with a new sheriff in town, the best we can do is continue an "investigation" forever and have the obama plants keep leaking essentially the same innuendo about every 2 weeks to set the appropriate lefty/"lifelong republican" narrative.
As expected.
There will be no prosecutions for leaking since the "leakers" are the insiders themselves. On the other hand the insiders/leakers dare not actually level charges against any of their targets since then a case would actually have to be presented and won, and there is clearly no evidence.
So, not surprisingly, more of what we've seen for the last 40 years.
Unknown said...
"James Comey, the F.B.I. director, publicly confirmed an investigation into Russian interference in the presidential election and whether associates of the president were in contact with Moscow."
NYT, 3/20/17
Ah, poor Trumpies.
No evidence of collusion between Russia and Trump campaign.
How pundits fucked up the story.
Democrats warning base not to expect evidence of collusion.
Have fun with that narrative that is based on nothing rube. Your leaders have been lying to you purposely.
What we learned from Comey is precisely this:
We're not going to learn anything from Comey.
Levi Starks: "What we learned from Comey is precisely this:
We're not going to learn anything from Comey."
Let's be honest here.
Comey is in a no-win situation.
The "investigation" was politically motivated but he can't allow that to become the story. The Trump/Russia collusion charge is non-sense so he can't allow that to get out of hand but he has to weigh that against giving away the game on the political investigation.
It's undeniable that his FBI/obama-minions have been doing some leaking and he needs to get that stopped but he knows that if he goes too far those guys can spill the beans on "other stuff".
Comey is screwed. How long can he keep all the balls in the air?
Darrell said...
Any of you use Siri or Alexa? Do you realize that these services are listening to you all the time so that they will be able to respond when you have a question or prompt? You do understand that intelligence services take advantage of that, don't you?
3/20/17, 11:40 AM
Edited slightly to improve accuracy...
Drago said...
"lifelong republican" Chuck links to rawstory!
Right; well I read it, and it seemed like a report based on published info. Nothing sketchy about it. Are you saying that there is something sketchy about the story I linked? Apart from the news outlet in question, which you seem to hate. Tell me what is dubious about the rawstory link. Right now.
So to, uh, grind on this point, here is the Washington Post on much the same subject:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/answer-sheet/wp/2015/07/17/yes-donald-trump-really-went-to-an-ivy-league-school/?utm_term=.c2c998e74849
And here is the Penn school newspaper, The Daily Pennsylvanian:
http://www.thedp.com/article/2017/02/trump-academics-at-wharton
Here is Politico:
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/11/donald-trump-2016-wharton-pennsylvania-214425
And here is WaPo "Fact Checker" Glenn Kessler writing in the Chicago Tribune:
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/
And Fortune:
http://fortune.com/2015/08/14/donald-trump-wharton/
And philly.com, the combined webpage of the Phiadelphia Inquirer and the Daily News:
http://www.philly.com/philly/blogs/real-time/Questions-linger-Donald-Trump-academic-record-Wharton.html
If the House was serious then drag Susan Rice, James Clapper and John Brennan into a hearing and start questioning them. "I refuse to answer based upon my rights under the Fifth Amendment."
One or all three of them are the leakers.
Unknown said...
Or stay ignorant and rely on conspiracy theories, makes no difference to me
There is this magical website called youtube that catalogs leftists activities and highlights their attempts at revisionism.
Todd said...
Darrell said...
Any of you use Siri or Alexa? Do you realize that these services are listening to you all the time so that they will be able to respond when you have a question or prompt? You do understand that intelligence services take advantage of that, don't you?
3/20/17, 11:40 AM
Edited slightly to improve accuracy...
Oh and the captured communications are also used for marketing and any other uses the manufacturer can dream/think up to do with the data. Just so you know...
So Coney said the FBI has been investigating Trump since July 2016 _and_ he said there is no evidence to backup Trump's claim that the last Aministration was investigating g him. Wrap your head around that.
Gahrie said...
What about Trump's college records?
You see Chuckles...this is your problem......you turn everything into an attack on Trump, and refuse to hold the Democrats responsible for anything.
I didn't start anything, about college records. You started it, asking about Obama's college records as a deflection from the Trump tax returns. I didn't much care about anybody's college records. But since you brought up Obama's records, now I am using the issue of Trump's college records.
I am happy to hold Democrats to any standard that candidates on my side can readily meet.
Why did you bring up Obama's college records, when Trump's own educational record is probably more dubious (especially with regard to Trump's own inflated claims about them)?
What I really want to know is if anyone applied for a FISA warrant to tap John Miller's phone.
I want all the info on John Miller; address, telephone numbers, SSN, job history, all of it.
Wait, are you seriously talking about Trump's college transcripts Chuck?
We are in the middle of a scandal where a now former but then sitting president was involved in government surveillance on a political opponent using the entrenched bureaucracy to undermine his successor and you bring up garbage like Trump's college transcripts after Obama refused to release his transcripts for 9 years?
You should try harder when you claim to be a "life-long republican." You are a liar and disingenuous in every way, shape, and manner.
I've seen too many examples lately where words from speaker A are similar to (in definition, common belief, etc.) words from speaker B.
Therefore one can say they agree with both or A is a liar, or B is a liar.
Nope wire tapping,listening devices, surveillance.
Conflated or distinguished depending on your mood.
(Plus, consider all the twists and turns out of that horses.....mouth.)
I didn't start anything, about college records. You started it, asking about Obama's college records as a deflection from the Trump tax returns.
I didn't ask a question...I made a statement.
I didn't much care about anybody's college records. But since you brought up Obama's records, now I am using the issue of Trump's college records.
Which is precisely my point. Whenever anyone says anything about a Democrat, you immediately launch an attack...on them and on Trump.
Why did you bring up Obama's college records, when Trump's own educational record is probably more dubious (especially with regard to Trump's own inflated claims about them)?
See Chuckles...this is defending a Democrat. Even indulging in your anti-Trump hysteria you took time out to defend Obama.
I brought up Obama's college records because he has refused to release them with less justification than Trump not releasing his tax returns. Something a lifelong Republican would know.
roesch/voltaire said... [hush][hide comment]
I think Trump plays so much golf to keep his conversations off record while the FBI investigates possible collusion between Flynn, Paul Manafort and others with Russian interference in our last election. We can expect more alternative fact tweets.
You are a retired teacher. Another reason to applaud the appointment of DeVos. Hopefully she can actually get things done so parents can pull kids out schools that employ educated propagandists and put them where they will learn something.
Naturally, teachers unions will do everything possible to keep the poor kids in failing schools, while people like you wring cheer them on.
Meanwhile, Trump's popularity continues its downward spiral. Can't he issue an executive order banning FAKE NEWS and giving him exclusive power to decide what is and is not FAKE?
"There will be no prosecutions for leaking since the "leakers" are the insiders themselves. On the other hand the insiders/leakers dare not actually level charges against any of their targets since then a case would actually have to be presented and won, and there is clearly no evidence. "
We can only hope. There was leaking, it was illegal, and done by insiders. My guess by career employees (but could have been Obama appointees). What must be remembered is that the investigation into the leaks was quid pro quo for the investigation into the Russian hacking and Trump's claim of being wiretapped. If they want answers bad enough, not that hard to get - look at the list of those who had access to the information (shouldn't, by law, be that long - and if it is, go after those who expanded it) and hook them up to lie detector machines. If they refuse, fire them for cause, and move them up the list of suspects. Refusal to take a lie detector test is presumably grounds for revocation of security clearances, which are likely a requirement for the jobs of most of the potential leakers. If there is a will, there is a (legal) way, and I think that Trump has the will, even if Congressional Republicans do not.
I see "lifelong republican" Chuck is in full-blown lefty-deflection mode!
Gee, that's not too obvious is it?
"Comey is screwed. How long can he keep all the balls in the air?"
He doesn't have the help that Mark Felt had with those two stenographers at WaPo. You know, Woodward and Bernstein.
The Trump hatred seems to be continuing at the temperature of aluminum melting.
steve uhr: "Meanwhile, Trump's popularity continues its downward spiral."
steve uhr crawls out of his safe-space just long enough to stop sucking his thumb and picking up the latest lefty polls which are designed to soothe his damaged lefty ego.
Hang in there Steve!!
Donald Trump has no path to 270 electoral votes in 2020!
Achilles said...
Wait, are you seriously talking about Trump's college transcripts Chuck?
We are in the middle of a scandal where a now former but then sitting president was involved in government surveillance on a political opponent using the entrenched bureaucracy to undermine his successor and you bring up garbage like Trump's college transcripts after Obama refused to release his transcripts for 9 years?
As I already stated, I didn't raise the issue of college records and transcripts. Gahrie did, at 11:08 blog time.
And, I don't believe that Obama had any personal involvement in in any surveillance of Trump. But Trump has been such a prick, I might forgive Obama if he did.
As with most Trump/Obama comparisons on personal matters (I would make no such statement about policy matters), it is an awful case study for Trump. All of the pointless bloviating over Obama's records, when Donald Trump is pretty much a confirmed public liar about his college days, from false claims about graduating first in his class to his draft dodging.
If there is a will, there is a (legal) way, and I think that Trump has the will, even if Congressional Republicans do not.
Sessions may have, too. Especially after they went after him on the same topic.
It'd be nice to know how closely that has to be parsed - or more accurately exactly what parsed-out claim Comey is denying having evidence for.
(n.b. I have no idea whether or not "some kind of eavesdropping" happened against the Trump Campaign from US intelligence at some level; it's neither obviously true nor implausible.)
I mean, it may be that if one interprets "the tweets" (how many? which ones exactly?) as being a claim that President Obama personally ordered a wiretap of Trump Tower, that that is absolutely false (in fact, I'm sure that's false).
But as we know from elsewhere, President Trump's tweeting is basically spoken-word, not composed-writing, and it seems much more likely that his intent was "some party on the Democrat side, possibly indirectly under the President's authority, intercepted some communications or other from the Trump team" - which is how everyone on Team Red seems to interpret it, exactly the opposite of Team Blue's interpretation, above.
That's a much broader (and much weaker and less criminal-accusatory) claim, and one that, if true, might not be anything the FBI would have access to anyway, e.g. if it was a "wiretap" on foreign-party communications under FISA authority.
Blogger Todd said...
Todd said...
Darrell said...
Any of you use Siri or Alexa? Do you realize that these services are listening to you all the time so that they will be able to respond when you have a question or prompt? You do understand that intelligence services take advantage of that, don't you?
3/20/17, 11:40 AM
Edited slightly to improve accuracy...
Oh and the captured communications are also used for marketing and any other uses the manufacturer can dream/think up to do with the data. Just so you know...
Because a friend has been diagnosed with type 2 diabetes, I Googled info. Lately, I have noticed commercials on TV related to diabetic medications. Maybe coincidence, but kinda creepy.
Incidentally, those people in all the medication commercials sure seem to be having fun all the time.
@begley - my reading of FISA minimization would suggest that those three would have been too high up to legitimately have. seen the names of those inadvertently wiretapped under that act. We shall see. Of the three - we know already that Rice is a lying political hack.
You guys want an "Undo" button for the election. There isn't one. You guys want to find a reason to impeach Trump, but it really, really doesn't look like there is a legitimate reason. So you guys seem happy to settle for making accusations, demands, and taking actions you think will somehow permanently harm Trump's ability to get anything done. Even life-long Republicans apparently have that as their goal, so great is their hatred of Trump. Maybe you'll get your wish, there, but it sure seems like the price of that wish is co-equal permanent damage to important institutions (like the Federal judiciary/widespread respect for Federal Appeals courts, etc).
Chuck, if you want this stuff, start passing some damn laws, man. I don't see what's stopping anyone from passing a law saying Presidents must release their tax returns while in office. You'd probably need a Constitutional amendment to make release of college records, or tax returns, or anything else a requirement to run for office, but so what--get started on passing that Amendment. If you're serious about it, I mean. Why not?
Further, if you think Trump's refusal to release his old tax returns, or his new ones, is an impeachable offense, start impeachment proceedings already. Short of agitating for a law or for real action you're just talking out your ass. "I think Trump should have released them." Great, so do I--so what? Enough voters disagreed and voted for the guy anyway. My ballot didn't have a box for "vote for Trump, but after he's elected he has to release his returns or this vote doesn't count," did yours? No? Well, the guy got elected. The SLIVER of an argument re: the secret Russian invasion is that foreign interference tipped the election and therefore the election was invalid. That doesn't work, of course, since all sorts of OTHER foreign interference was going on at the same time and no Russian actions prevented the Clinton team from campaigning in key "blue" states she blew...but see how the tax return question doesn't even rise to that low level of applicability re: why Trump's election isn't valid?
Me, I think all of this is fantasy--the fantasy of somehow undoing the Trump election. Not only do things not work that way, but God help us if we make a change so that, now and in the future, things do. If you assholes get what you want and torch Trump on this kind of thing what do you think will happen to the next President, and the next? Ah, who am I kidding, none of that matters to people--it's all about baggin' Trump. Well, get to it--pass some laws already.
Bruce Hayden: "...(shouldn't, by law, be that long - and if it is, go after those who expanded it)..."
Wrong.
Obambi's significant changes made to the rules for wider sharing of raw intelligence as well as the altering of when in the process the names of American citizens incidentally caught up in those captured communications would be redacted, guaranteed the astonishingly wide dissemination of information that the lefty/dem/"lifelong republican" holdovers used for their leaks to the lefty/"lifelong republican" MSM.
You will never, ever, get to the bottom of it.
All you can do now is reestablish the stricter rules and go from there moving forward.
Is the Fox News poll a "lefty poll"? Has Trump's popularity at 43%, down from 48% last month.
Gahrie said...
...
I brought up Obama's college records because he has refused to release them with less justification than Trump not releasing his tax returns. Something a lifelong Republican would know.
I did a seven (I think) point list on why there is real, current relevance to the production of Trump's tax returns. Besides Trump having repeatedly promised that he'd release copies at the appropriate time. Look it up.
I am just like the overwhelming number of Americans (something like 74%) who think that Trump needs to release copies of his tax returns.
"Meanwhile, Trump's popularity continues its downward spiral. Can't he issue an executive order banning FAKE NEWS and giving him exclusive power to decide what is and is not FAKE?"
His popularity isn't a problem right now. This far from 2020 the only popularity numbers that matter for Trump are his numbers among Republicans, and those are still high. So GOP reps and Senators aren't going to oppose him.
steve uhr said...
Meanwhile, Trump's popularity continues its downward spiral. Can't he issue an executive order banning FAKE NEWS and giving him exclusive power to decide what is and is not FAKE?
Yeah, was all those helpless seniors starving to death after Trump destroyed meals on wheels that caused the slide
But since you brought up Obama's records, now I am using the issue of Trump's college records.
Literally only a Democrat would do that.
steve uhr: "Is the Fox News poll a "lefty poll"? Has Trump's popularity at 43%, down from 48% last month."
Ah yes. The polls, the polls.
"Khartoum...Khartoum......"
We lost our lease! Everything must go!!!
(...but we haven't stopped looking for it!)
What you can expect is that as more and more of the Trump checklist becomes reality "lifelong republican" Chuck, by necessity, will have to move in the direction of the ever increasingly unhinged far left.
As you can see by his linking to the insane bunch at rawstory. And this, mind you, just a day or so after his Sidney Blumenthal defense.
It will be interesting to watch as the lunatic left and "lifelong republican" trajectories continue to move closer to full merger.
"Me, I think all of this is fantasy--the fantasy of somehow undoing the Trump election."
What are you talking about? Even if Trump was impeached and removed--which is not going to happen, period--that would undo nothing. It would mean President Pence. Is that something liberals want? A less easily distracted, experienced conservative with a better working relationship with conservatives in Congress who will if anything have a better shot at enacting their agenda? Trying to put myself in their shoes, that sounds like a bad idea. Imagine impeaching an inexperienced, easily distracted, pretty unpopular (and yes unpopularity doesn't matter much right now) president so their shrewd, competent leftist understudy can ram through an agenda we fear. Bad idea!
Hoodlum:
I didn't suggest that any new disclosure law is needed. All it takes, right now, is a majority vote in the House, and they could force the release of Trump's tax returns. I think it would be a bad idea, and mostly a bad precedent, to do it for political reasons. I think it would be a good idea, if it were done for legitimate legal and/or ethical reasons. A majority of House Republicans, doing it to a sitting Republican president, would do a lot toward squelching any presumption of "politics" in the vote.
I am not suggesting any bases for the impeachment of President Trump. I would only like to see an impeachment if the grounds were so clear that even the Hannity/Limbaugh crowd would be forced to believe it. Just like an assassination. I'd hate to see Trump turned into some kind of martyr to whatever "cause" he might represent. (Which seems to be not much other than the cause of Trump-worship.)
I do not see any basis for anyone to challenge the results or the meaning of the election. The Russians did not "hack" the election in any cognizable way. Trump won. He won narrowly. But he won, and there is no sensible questioning of it, and no diminishing that particular result.
I just cannot believe anything coming from the "Intelligence Community" anymore. Selected leaks, interpreting actions based on assumptions that are vague to get the result you want, innuendo, and I believe down right lies. What a mess.
Brando: ""Me, I think all of this is fantasy--the fantasy of somehow undoing the Trump election."
What are you talking about? Even if Trump was impeached and removed--which is not going to happen, period--that would undo nothing. It would mean President Pence. Is that something liberals want?"
Hey, who are you to rain on their parade?!!
It's very straightforward from here for the Leftists/"lifelong republicans":
1) Say a bunch of stuff
2) ????
3) ????
4) ????
5) Election between Ryan and Hillary
6) President Chuc...er...Hillary!!
Chuck said...And, I don't believe that Obama had any personal involvement in in any surveillance of Trump. But Trump has been such a prick, I might forgive Obama if he did.
Wow, if that's not hyperbole you've pretty much discredited yourself on this topic, Chuck. I am stunned.
Your argument that Trump's tweet regarding Obama wiretapping Trump tower is wrong rested in part on a very precise definition of wiretapping. Lots of us argued that "wiretapping" should be taken metaphorically, and mean something closer to "surveillance" (similarly "Trump Tower" could be synecdoche for "Trump organization & associates," but that's more of a stretch). That reading leaves room for everyone to be correct in a way--if the Obama Admin ordered or approved surveillance of Trump and/or his associates Trump would be correct (and that's certainly what the Media wanted us to believe over the last few months--that Trump people were under investigation and being surveiled) but since the type of surveillance used was not an old-style "wiretap" and the order didn't ORIGINATE w/Obama himself the DOJ/FBI denials of that specific parsing of the tweet would also be correct. That's pretty much what I think is going on, although I don't have a ton of concrete evidence one way or the other. I think asking for a "smoking gun" in the form of some personal Obama signature on a direct order is a deeply stupid standard--normally we hold Presidents accountable for the actions of their Administrations, and it's absolutely ridiculous that the Media & Left suspended that standard just for Obama (as they did with the IRS scandal, the VA scandals, etc). I wouldn't think a life-long Republican would buy it, either, but what do I know?
Turns out anyway, though, you don't really care. You don't care if a sitting President allowed the national government/US law enforcement and intelligence agencies to conduct operations against a Presidential candidate of the other political party. You don't care because, even though you must know what a terrible, dangerous precedent that would set, Trump himself is "such a prick" that it's ok.
I hope you realize how unreasonable that is, Chuck. If you really think that I'm not sure what the point of discussing this issue with you any further would be. "Trump's such a jerk that anything is permitted" isn't a standard that leads itself to anything approaching normal arguments, Chuck. If that's what you actually think then anything you put up as an argument is little more than cover for the assertion "Trump is a doody head and no rules apply in opposing doody heads." If that's the case I guess I can save some time by not having to reply, but what a waste.
A turf conflict between the NSA and CIA. Now, the FBI, or just Comey, out of the loop, again.
The acutely phobic response to Trump was predictable. He promised to confront domestic and foreign influence that has disenfranchised Americans. The cover-up by the establishment papers of record to protect global social justice adventurism (e.g. elective regime changes), CAIR (Catastrophic Anthropogenic Immigration Reform), debt-based economics including progressive devaluation of capital and labor, anti-capitalist monopolies and practices, secular prophecies (e.g. Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming), [class] diversity (e.g. apartheid social complex), and the abortion and Planning industry have been remarkable, perhaps unprecedented.
Brando - If (when?) Trump is impeached and removed, seems unlikely that the Republicans will keep control of the Congress. President Pence may not be able to get much done.
Chuck said...
And, I don't believe that Obama had any personal involvement in in any surveillance of Trump. But Trump has been such a prick, I might forgive Obama if he did.
Then why did Obama sign an order allowing the NSA and CIA to "share intelligence" across 16 different agencies?
IF the investigations into Trump/Russia collusion conclude that Trump and cohorts did in fact collude with Russia to affect the US election, pay for play, etc. he/they should not be above the law and should prosecuted. It appears from comments here that there will be many Trumpists who will not be able to handle it. Prepare yourselves. Ask yourselves if it was a Democratic president that engaged in such activity if you would be so quick to dismiss it.
Now, I will wait for Drago to obfuscate and denigrate anything that may not be to his liking.
Chuck said... But he won, and there is no sensible questioning of it, and no diminishing that particular result.
...despite the fact that I, Chuck the life-long Republican, work hard every day to do just that.
But since you brought up Obama's records, now I am using the issue of Trump's college records.
Literally only a Democrat would do that.
See the thing is....the best case scenario for Chuckles is that he really is a lifelong Republican and member of the GOP establishment. But he still acts exactly like a Leftwing tool with hysterical Trump Derangement Syndrome.
Which is exactly why Trump exists.
It is this complete lack of introspection that convinces me Chuckles is a Moby.
Drago you nasty, dishonest, smearmongering troll.
I never "defended" Sidney Blumenthal, and the more you beat that dead horse, the more pathetic you appear.
For the handful of fair-minded readers of these comments pages, the exchange occurs at the end of this comments thread:
https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=6329595&postID=2431899058716641136
"Hey, who are you to rain on their parade?!!"
I gotta admit I'd personally be fine with Prez Pence. But whatever my opinion of Trump I don't want to see anyone railroaded out with a BS impeachment.
But again, impeachment isn't going to happen. This is all sound and fury, signifying nothing. But maybe it'll distract people while other committees figure out ACA repeal and budget.
"lifelong republican" Chuck: "The Russians did not "hack" the election in any cognizable way."
What a weasel formulation!
LOL
How about, the Russians did not "hack" the election. (period)
Hang in there "lifelong republican" Chuck! There might be 1 or 2 sets of new eyeballs on the blogsite that aren't yet on to your schtick!
>>giving him exclusive power to decide what is and is not FAKE?
Don't you know that only the 9th Circuit has that power?
Unknown: "IF the investigations into Trump/Russia collusion conclude that Trump and cohorts did in fact collude with Russia to affect the US election, pay for play, etc. he/they should not be above the law and should prosecuted."
Keep hope alive!!
LOL
And AlGore really won in 2000 too.
And the Bush family "financed Hitler"!
And W was in on 9-11!
And HW met secretly with the Iranians prior to that election!
Achilles said...Then why did Obama sign an order allowing the NSA and CIA to "share intelligence" across 16 different agencies?
It's not just the sharing, Achilles, since that COULD be defended ("oh, we want a broader intelligence operation w/in the government; we want to make sure important intel is shared with any agencies that might have use of it, etc."). It's that the changes also permitted the disclosure of US persons captured, mostly incidentally, in that intelligence. That all but guarantees that sensitive info about US citizens will be leaked--both spreading the intel widely and un-redacting the names of citizens involved really has no legitimate purpose OTHER than to do exactly what you're alleging, namely giving Left bureaucrats the ability to use Government intel to smear people they don't like. It's really disgusting and ought to be a big scandal.
The fun part, of course, is the possibility that a future Repub. administration and/or non-Lefty within in some of those agencies decide that turnabout is fair play and starts leaking embarrassing stuff about some Dems. I predict the current Media line that these changes are no big deal will do a 180 mighty fucking quick if that ever happens. Most of the time that kind of abuse of government power seems to only run one way (witness, again, the IRS scandals), but it's not a law of nature that it must.
"lifelong republican" Chuck: "Drago you nasty, dishonest, smearmongering troll"
Let me guess, you got that from Sidney Blumenthal and your beloved Rachel Maddow, didn't you?
steve uhr said...
If (when?) Trump is impeached and removed, seems unlikely that the Republicans will keep control of the Congress. President Pence may not be able to get much done.
2018 the over-under is 60 republicans in the senate.
2020 the over-under for Trump is 320 EV's.
Keep holding on to your fever dreams of impeachment and "unpopularity." By the way who is the magical democrat that is going to defeat him in 2020? Warren? Booker? Looks like Hillary is making a comeback!
Drago, you come across as the stereotypical disinformation troll. There will come a time that more people here will recognize it.
HoodlumDoodlum: "It's not just the sharing, Achilles, since that COULD be defended ("oh, we want a broader intelligence operation w/in the government; we want to make sure important intel is shared with any agencies that might have use of it, etc.")"
Not in the context of these circumstances.
Not a chance.
And not with that timing.
Oh yeah, it's really important that the expansion of raw data sharing occur, as I, obambi, am literally walking out the door.
Please. Pull the other one.
Unknown: "Drago, you come across as the stereotypical disinformation troll. There will come a time that more people here will recognize it"
Does being covered in cats actually cause you to feel uncomfortable?
Unknown: "Drago, you come across as the stereotypical disinformation troll. There will come a time that more people here will recognize it"
Your lunatic lefty defense of "lifelong republican" Chuck is, again, duly noted.
@Fullmoon - very likely just run of the mill target marketing. TV shows know their demographics, and take them to potential advertisers. My guess is that T2 Diabetes is a Boomer, and maybe now Gen X, problem, and that those most susceptible to those ads are middle class, maybe upper middle class, but less so maybe. People who would be worried about their health, but also willing to ask their doctor if this drug would be right for them. Look at the activities that the actors are engaging in.
There really isn't anything that nefarious going on, or that hasn't been going on for years. I love analyzing the ads for their marketing targets, and pharma ads for their legal disclaimers. I esp enjoy the ones that blithely include "death" as a possible side effect. Death? Can't get much worse than that, but they go on, and list, say, boils, two headed children, etc. So, I notice a lot of ads that have no relevance to us and our health. And, if you don't think that TV ads work, you haven't met my partner. Apparently we are going to drive a half hour each way to The Outback Steak House this month because they have a special on their Blooming Onion dish.
My favorite though are the Viagra single pack ads, showing a maybe 30 something attractive woman doing the talking (and enticing), with a maybe 40 something boyfriend somewhat visible who is going to get lucky tonight. Never mind that at that age, there are probably other serious health issues involved if the guy has ED issues - I think that it is really aimed at guys 10-15 years older, who don't get lucky often enough to justify the cost of a full boat ED prescription.
Drago said...
"lifelong republican" Chuck: "The Russians did not "hack" the election in any cognizable way."
What a weasel formulation!
LOL
How about, the Russians did not "hack" the election. (period)
The Russians may (or may not) have had a hand in phishing the DNC emails. The Russians may (or may not) have orchestrated the release of that info to Wikileaks. Those facts, still under investigation, seem to have had no calculable impact on votes. There is no evidence, and there has never been any evidence, that any act by the Russians changed a single precinct or the outcome of any election.
And any Democrat who tries to make a case to the contrary should be rhetorically shot down.
And; it would be easier to do all of that work, if Donald Trump were not saying so much stupid stuff on the side, and dealing with so much internal chaos with former staffers like Paul Manafort, Roger Stone and General Flynn.
Meanwhile, Trump is working with Congress to pass legislation.
The Republicans are right in principle, but they need a strong leader to realize positive progress.
By the way who is the magical democrat that is going to defeat him in 2020?
I've been predicting Gavin Newsome and/or Kamala Harris since last November.
FullMoon said...
Incidentally, those people in all the medication commercials sure seem to be having fun all the time.
3/20/17, 12:19 PM
Also, according to the TV all the really tall, handsome older guys have ED. What is with that? So short, butt ugly guys have no problems in the sack? Also, with wives that hot and "daddy" needing a pill, I would first have him stare at a photo of Tom Selleck for a few minutes, you know, as a test. Not that there is anything wrong with that but wify does have a right to know that its not her...
HoodlumDoodlum said...
It's not just the sharing, Achilles, since that COULD be defended ("oh, we want a broader intelligence operation w/in the government; we want to make sure important intel is shared with any agencies that might have use of it, etc."). It's that the changes also permitted the disclosure of US persons captured, mostly incidentally, in that intelligence.
The issue I have here is that this is clearly not within the presidents power. The legislation that protected US citizens was very specific and was the point of the legislation. A president can't just "change" that. I was under the impression that Obama wasn't that stupid and he would let some nameless underlings go to jail for leaking unredacted SIGINT intelligence with the names of US Citizens included.
If the Obama administration "changed" that and pretended it was legal there is going to be a much larger group of people going to jail than I thought. If Obama gave the written OK for that he is going to jail.
Was Obama really that dumb?
Achilles - I was thinking more about the House than the Senate.
As for who is the magical democrat who will run in four years, I have no clue but I don't think it will be one of the three you mention. Maybe Chelsea? How about Kevin Spacey?
Does being covered in cats actually cause you to feel uncomfortable?.
Hey hey Hey!
Be careful here...some of us conservatives own cats.......
How about Kevin Spacey?
Oprah would be more likely.
Chuck says to Gharie: You started it, asking about Obama's college records as a deflection from the Trump tax returns.
Actually, he didn't ask about Obama's college records. He said: "I'll start caring about Trump's tax returns the day after all of Obama's college records are released."
Which is not a question it is a statement of fact or a statement of how he feels.
It is how I feel too. I'll give a shit about Trump's taxes when the Democrats give a shit about Obama's transcripts. Until then.. I don't care about either.
It's a 100% certainty that Trump has been surveilled for years. Dozens of his properties and almost all the upper management of those properties--including financial searches. Daisy-chaining out to people they all had contact with. Trump should double his new worth by suing all of the c-suckers involved.
Unknown said...
Drago, you come across as the stereotypical disinformation troll. There will come a time that more people here will recognize it.
While we are characterizing people you come across as a leftist idiot that will believe anything the NYT's will post on it's front page until it is necessary to forget what was on their front page a week ago.
Drago,
Do you not work for a living? Or is this your job? You appear on these threads almost 24/7. Whether or not you are a professional disinformation troll or do it on your own volition, you pretty much have outed yourself as having a much more than average need to shoot down any information that is negative in nature regarding Trump/ Russia. If you are truly a private troll just doing this for shits and giggles, I'd point out that it's very odd. How many "cats" reside in your fevered brain?
Achilles is a much sadder case than Drago. He's a true believer. No, Trump the Oligarch will not save us from the Oligarchs, I'm saddened to have to once again point that out to you.
No one will take you seriously unknown until you start using your name, or at least a pen name.
You know who I see too much of here? crazy Unknown/Inga/Allie Oop. That's who.
Strangely, there has been no comment made on the EnemyMedia of the aphorism that, " The finding of no evidence of existence is not evidence of non-existence."
So who was the first modern presidential candidate to refuse to release his medical records? Oh yeah, Obama. And the collective media didn't give even one tiny shit about it.
I'll care about Trump's tax returns blah blah etc..
steve uhr said...
Achilles - I was thinking more about the House than the Senate.
Unless democrats have control over more than 4 or 5 states by 2020 and republicans have control over less than 25 states that seems unlikely. The 2020 census is going to be controlled by a republican administration that is unlikely to let democrats inflate district numbers with illegals as well.
After illegals and non-citizens are taken out of the equation good luck with democrats winning the house.
Unknown: "You appear on these threads almost 24/7"
I was unaware that you were the Althouse Blog Monitor.
In the future, please wear your armband more prominently.
And thanks again for your stellar defense of "lifelong republican" and far-left website fanboy Chuck.
I think it is commendable when teammates stick together.
That is how I feel about Trump's tax returns.
Chuck, let me be the one to tell you: Trump is not going to release his tax returns. He doesn’t want to release them; he doesn’t have to release them and he’s not going to release them.
You see, Chuck – Trump NEVER does shit that people like you want him to do. It’s Trump’s hobby – mind-fucking folks like you.
So Chuck, by all means keep up the anti-Trump campaign. You may be a moby but you’re OUR moby, you rascal. You serve a purpose – which is to give me and other Trump supporters some comments to hold up to ridicule. Your comments save us from the need to link to the latest idiotic MSM talking points on Morning Joe – because those are always right there in your comments.
Achilles - Do you seriously believe that the Republicans will continue to control the House if Trump is impeached and removed? Coattails go in both directions.
There is no truth to the assertion that Obama didn't release his medical records. Why do you people fall prey to so many conspiracy theories?
Obama's Records
Unknown said...
Achilles is a much sadder case than Drago. He's a true believer. No, Trump the Oligarch will not save us from the Oligarchs, I'm saddened to have to once again point that out to you.
I may be a true believer, but not in Trump. But he is sure kicking the crap out of the media, the DC bureaucracy and the GOPe and the democrat party is already dead. As long as that is his goal I will cheer him.
The greatest threat to our freedom right now is the omnipresent surveillance of the US citizenry. Every phone conversation tweet email text internet post is being recorded and archived. I know because I was a small part of it. Right now Trump is doing a service by highlighting this.
Because a friend has been diagnosed with type 2 diabetes, I Googled info. Lately, I have noticed commercials on TV related to diabetic medications. Maybe coincidence, but kinda creepy.
*In the car, my phone on the dash in its holder, I mentioned to my husband that I was thinking about buying a membership to our local aquarium to occupy the kids this summer. Later that evening: an ad for said aquarium, which I had never seen before, appeared in my Facebook feed.
*In my home office, my phone sitting on the desk, my teenager asked me who Betty White is. I explained that among other things she'd been on Golden Girls and sang what I could remember of the theme song. Within an hour, an ad for Hulu popped up in my feed, playing the opening sequence to that show, which I have not thought about or discussed in my adult life until that very day.
I could come up with ten more examples.
Facebook on my phone does not have permission to access my microphone, but another app is clearly listening and selling the data to them.
I could fix this by opting out, but what would be the point? We have tablets and smartphones and smartwatches and an Echo and other things I've probably forgotten about. All they care about right now is selling me stuff, so whatever. My husband, however, has expressed interest in running for office, and I told him no, not in this brave new world, where anyone so motivated could doubtless get to our chat logs, emails, sites visited etc, and twist everything out of context and ruin not only his political ambitions but his employability. No thanks.
I'm really surprised that there is few - if any - are identifying the rhetorical technique of innuendo and insinuation that the Dems are constantly using on Trump and Russia. Along with the guilt by association fallacy regarding Trump and Flynn. Schiff also played the Carter Page and Roger Stone cards.
I guess everyone slept through their Rhetoric class or didn't go to a Jesuit school.
tim maguire said...
And has the DOJ responded to Comey's demand that they declare Trump wrong? Last I checked, they hadn't.
Meanwhile, the denials continue to be careful and lawyerly while the insistence that we accept the denials continues to be broad and all encompassing.
Concise and cogent and indisputably true.
steve uhr said...
Achilles - Do you seriously believe that the Republicans will continue to control the House if Trump is impeached and removed? Coattails go in both directions.
The chance that Trump is impeached and removed is exactly 0%.
If what HoodlumDoodlum said above is correct and Obama personally signed off on an EO that allowed agencies to share SIGINT unredacted with the names of US citizens included Obama is very likely going to jail.
What direction would that lead us?
No one seems to be saying anything more about the late-January NYT story that did indeed have the NSA wiretapping Trump aides (albeit not Trump Tower). Was that story accurate, or not? How can there be "no evidence" when the NYT was prepared to run with it?
As for whether Obama himself was behind such actions ... well, remember the "unitary executive"? Everything that comes out of the Executive Branch is supposed to be ultimately the responsibility of the President. That's the way it's meant to work.
grackle said...
...
Chuck, let me be the one to tell you: Trump is not going to release his tax returns. He doesn’t want to release them; he doesn’t have to release them and he’s not going to release them.
I didn't say that I expected Trump to release his tax returns. By all impressions, he is determined and maybe even desperate to not release them. I do not expect it to happen.
More likely (and still basically unlikely), things will get so bad between Trump and the House, that they will order them released. On that front, it may be seen as an intraparty crisis in Trumpkin Land, but still since about 74% of the public (and growing, perhaps) also wants them released, it might not be a problem for a House majority. The hard core Trumpies can still vote no.
And, as I have already mentioned, it is going to be an interesting explanation out of the White House when Trump files his 2016 taxes. Which won't be under "audit" when they are filed. And so why not release those?
How long can he keep all the balls in the air?
Well, at least they are his balls.
"Also, according to the TV all the really tall, handsome older guys have ED. What is with that? So short, butt ugly guys have no problems in the sack? Also, with wives that hot and "daddy" needing a pill, I would first have him stare at a photo of Tom Selleck for a few minutes, you know, as a test. Not that there is anything wrong with that but wify does have a right to know that its not her..."
Funny thing is that, in real life, it is fat guys who have the biggest ED issues. Diabetes hurts there, and obesity + obesity is esp bad (and, of course, obesity is a prime cause of T2 Diabetes). Also bad is high blood pressure, lack of exercise, alcohol, tobacco, etc.
As for Brother Selleck, my partner met him a couple times back in his Magnum PI days, down here in PHX and was in love back then, but now? We watched some Blue Blood reruns last night, and she admitted that he is now even hotter, in her view, after having filled out a bit. Probably one of the few guys she would drop me for. Not back then - her husband at the time was notably bigger. Mustache doesnt hurt either (she tells me I need to cut mine off, now that it is gray, but every serious guy, starting with her father has had one). So, every time we go to Kallispell or White Fish, she has her eyes open for him, JIC.
Sooooo...If there is no record of Russian Hacking of the election, why then did President Obama and his administration RUSH to preserve evidence??? WHAT evidence???? https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/01/us/politics/obama-trump-russia-election-hacking.html
"I did a seven (I think) point list on why there is real, current relevance to the production of Trump's tax returns."
It's almost like you don't give a damn about the country, Chuck. ObamaCare, illegal immigration, economic growth, national defense; none of that matters. What matters is "get Trump".
Achilles - If you believe the odds of impeachment/removal is 0%, I suggest you take your life savings to the UK and place a bet:
"While Las Vegas doesn’t allow betting on any events other than sports, U.K. bookies are happy to take bets about Trump’s longevity in office. Paddy Power currently has the odds of a first-term Trump impeachment at 2/1. Ladbrokes is much more pessimistic about Trump’s prospects and currently lists the odds that Trump will “leave office via impeachment or resignation before end of first term” at even."
Donald Trump could shoot someone on 5th avenue and you old fat freaks would justify it.
Dust Bunny Queen said...
...
I'll give a shit about Trump's taxes when the Democrats give a shit about Obama's transcripts. Until then.. I don't care about either.
In almost every imaginable case of a President of the United States, I would care far, far more about their tax returns, than their collegiate records. In every case I can picture, a POTUS would be 20 or 30 years removed from college life. I can't imagine how Barack Obama's college records would have been relevant to his presidency.
I also can't imagine how Trump's college records -- particularly since Trump never went to grad school and was never a member of a state licensed profession -- would be relevant to his presidency. I personally thought the Trump records would make for an interesting interview with Trump, given the large number of lies and misstatements from Trump on that subject (as with Trump on most subjects).
Collegiate transcripts =/= tax returns.
Original Mike said...
...
It's almost like you don't give a damn about the country, Chuck. ObamaCare, illegal immigration, economic growth, national defense; none of that matters. What matters is "get Trump".
I'd be a LOT more comfortable if Trump took care of business on those things.
Remember the glowing national praise Trump got, from his scripted address to the Joint Session of Congress? That's what I'm talking about. It lasted almost exactly 80 hours. From 10 pm on a Tuesday evening, until 6 am on a Saturday morning. When we learned from a Trump Tweet that he thought that Obama tapped his "wires" (?!) in Trump Tower. "Bad (or sick) guy!"
Sad!
Unknown said...
Drago,
Do you not work for a living? Or is this your job? You appear on these threads almost 24/7"
It's really funny to see a person who posts here obsessively attack someone else for posting on Althouse too much.
Inga, tell us some more about Germany "the leader of the Free World."
You're always good for a laugh.
"Achilles - Do you seriously believe that the Republicans will continue to control the House if Trump is impeached and removed? Coattails go in both directions."
The thing is steve that the GOP will simply not impeach him, for one simple reason--he's popular among the voters they count on the most. Their calculus is not "what do most Americans think of Trump" or even "what do most voters in my district think" but instead "of the voters in my district who I need to keep my job, what do they think and could they stop voting for me if I impeach or don't impeach". And while Trump hovers around 40% nationally, he's in the 80s among Republicans. So, until that changes--and in this evenly divided country, that's not likely to change--there will be no impeachment.
Now, I should amend that a bit--it is POSSIBLE that something happens to cause impeachment. If the economy takes a major hit, if ACA repeal is a complete disaster from a conservative perspective, and 2018 produces a big wave for the Dems as a result of divided GOP and mad as hell Dems, then a Democratic Congress could certainly impeach (and as the GOP noted 20 years ago, the standard for impeachment is "whatever Congress decides" so don't worry about whatever pretense they come up with--they'll come up with something if their voters are mad enough). But even then, impeachment isn't removal, and you'd have to see a crazy wave to make the Dems somehow pull off 67 seats (we're talking deep red states going to not just Dems, but Dems partisan enough to impeach).
So considering all that, the likelihood is very, very low. There's a better chance of Trump just quitting because he's tired of the job than him getting impeached. And virtually 0% chance of actual removal.
Unknown said...
IF the investigations into Trump/Russia collusion conclude that Trump and cohorts did in fact collude with Russia to affect the US election, pay for play, etc. he/they should not be above the law and should prosecuted. It appears from comments here that there will be many Trumpists who will not be able to handle it. Prepare yourselves. Ask yourselves if it was a Democratic president that engaged in such activity if you would be so quick to dismiss it.
Well Inga, I would say, Obama DID do that. He's on tape PROMISING to have more flexibility with Vlad after the election. That would be Putin and the 2012 elections we are talking about. Prior to that Hillary had given away 80% of USA uranium mines to Putin because her campaign manager/child molester friend John Podesta was ON THE PAYROLL of a Russian Oligarch bank. A bank run by the FSB. And the admin was promising MORE flexibility. Gee what could that have been?
Look a little farther back and you have Bill Clinton colluding with the Chinese to bankroll his 1996 reelection. Do the names Charlie Tree and John Huang ring a bell? Do you remember Clinton authorizing transfer of our super-secret missile technology to China around the same time? Of course you don't. Leftists have no memory other than capitalist crimes. I'd say this WAS a capitalistic crime with a Commie assist, but then there's the Democrat exemption to things you hate when Republicans do it.
Then there's good old Teddy Kennedy going to the USSR in the early 1980s to offer his help in defeating Reagan in 1984. (Google "Verona papers" if you need more data.) So we have a sitting Dem Senator actually going to the enemy to try and unseat a president. Doesn't get more scummy and treasonous than that!
But but Manafort might have called a Russian guy once! Whatever. Sod off swampy. You guys couldn't consistently apply your principles if your lives depended on it, even if you HAD principles to apply.
"Me, I think all of this is fantasy--the fantasy of somehow undoing the Trump election."
Yes and the angry left, like Inga, will make the Democrats, who might have a momentary flash of common sense, walk the plank in Trump rage. The result I predict is 60 Senate GOP votes and an even bigger House majority.
It's unhealthy to have this unbalance in national government but the left has gone completely nuts.
If the NeverTrumpers don't shape up, I could see a third party of those of us more interested in results than ideology.
Are you listening, chuck ?
"It's really funny to see a person who posts here obsessively attack someone else for posting on Althouse too much. "
I'll admit I shouldn't be here as often as I am during work breaks.
I can't imagine how Barack Obama's college records would have been relevant to his presidency.
Really? Not even if you tried real hard?
How about if Obama applied to college as Barry Sotero from Indonesia?
How about if his test scores and college grades made it clear that he was entirely a creation of Affirmative Action?
What if it showed his college tution was paid for by Ayers and Dohrn?
Chuck said @ 11:32 AM on 3/20/17:
"How many times has Trump claimed to be a graduate of Wharton? I don't think that's true. I'm fairly certain that it isn't true. (This may be a technicality; is Trump's degree actually a Penn undergraduate degree, after having taken some classes within Wharton?)..."
Chuck-
There's no reason for anybody to concern themselves about what you personally 'think' or are 'fairly certain' is or isn't true - especially when the information in question is so readily verifiable. A couple minutes of Googling turned up the 5/20/68 University of Penn Commencement program that unequivocally indicates Donald John Trump graducated with a BS in Economics from The Wharton School of Finance and Commerce.
https://web.archive.org/web/20160719213709/http://www.archives.upenn.edu/primdocs/upg/upg7/upg7_1968.pdf
Or are you going to try to claim this is a fake document posted by the Russians?
"I've been predicting Gavin Newsome and/or Kamala Harris since last November."
Howard Schultz is getting in line. You know, the guy who wanted your barista to engage you in conversations on race! Meanwhile, Starbucks brand Q-score (or equivalent -- I can't recall the actual name) is down.
He's got money and visibility, but I don't know if that will translate to any level of real popularity in Important Electoral College Hick Country.
Chuck said...I also can't imagine how Trump's college records -- particularly since Trump never went to grad school and was never a member of a state licensed profession -- would be relevant to his presidency. I personally thought the Trump records would make for an interesting interview with Trump, given the large number of lies and misstatements from Trump on that subject (as with Trump on most subjects).
To paraphrase: I want Trump's returns and other records because they'll be useful to attack Trump with. I haven't said they'd possibly reveal anything that would prohibit him from being elected President, and I agree that he was duly, lawfully elected and should therefore hold that office, but I'm eager for anything I can use to attack him (esp. things that I think will embarrass him/point out that his self-aggrandizing statements and puffery are false in any way).
Gee, why oh why do some of us think your desire for info to continue attacking Trump with somehow doesn't rise to the level of "national interest," Chuck? Really hard to understand...
"All they care about right now is selling me stuff, so whatever."
I looked at trash compactors on Amazon and Google the other day. Guess what showed up on facebook a few hours later ?
Today we ordered new windows and doors for the new house. If facebook pops up with an ad, it's too late !
"Achilles - Do you seriously believe that the Republicans will continue to control the House if Trump is impeached and removed? Coattails go in both directions."
Not sure of your point - are you saying that the Republicans will lose their majorities in the House and Senate if Trump is impeachedand removed? Or, the other way around, that the Dems have a good chance at repeating their 2008 majorities in both Houses next year, and then will impeach him? The Republicans would deserve to lose their majorities if they impeach and remove Trump. That won't happen - they would more likely get lynched if they tried it. Which leaves the latter scenario- which I think unlikely with 8 Trump state Senators up for reelection next year. Right now, I would suggest a more likely result is that 8 seat Senate seat pickup by the GOP. Esp if they obstruct the Gorsuch nomination. We shall see.
steve uhr said...
Paddy Power currently has the odds of a first-term Trump impeachment at 2/1.
Paddy Power
I got my hopes up.
Sadly in order to get paid Trump has to be impeached. All of their bets only pay if Trump gets impeached. 3/1 for 2017. There are exactly zero options for Trump remaining in office through 2024.
They are just ripping off rubes. Rubes like you.
"What if it showed his college tution was paid for by Ayers and Dohrn?"
Or Saudi Arabia ? Or Rashid Khalidi ?
"Trump's tax returns might show that he broke the law and/or is not eligible to be President!"
Ok, there's a national interest at stake, I can get behind efforts to publish his returns in that case. Demonstrate to me how that is or could be true and I'll join up.
You're not making that case, though, Chuck. You're making the case that "I, life-long Republican Chuck, really want to see 'em 'cause they'll embarrass the hell out of a guy I really dislike, and we all deserve to see 'em so he can be embarrassed, and no one SHOULD have voted for him without seeing 'em (as we saw for other Presidential candidates) so gosh darn it I just DESERVE to see 'em!"
That...is not a persuasive case.
"Paddy Power currently has the odds of a first-term Trump impeachment at 2/1."
That's insane.
"We have no information to support those tweets. All I can tell you is that we have no information that supports them."
Well, that's formulation one is taught to use regarding any very sensitive information, whether classified in the DoD or intelligence community sense or faw enforcement sensitive. So Comey would say precisely that if he did have information, and if he didn't. It's typical of the Times that they would get excited about what is essentially a null operator (in the computer sense of the term).
Original Mike said...
"Paddy Power currently has the odds of a first-term Trump impeachment at 2/1."
That's insane.
It is brilliant. Get a bunch of idiots who believe in a fever dream to bet on that fever dream coming true. It is a license to print money.
Classic. Looks like one of the lefties reached their limit.
Titus said...
Donald Trump could shoot someone on 5th avenue and you old fat freaks would justify it.
3/20/17, 1:24 PM
Depends on who he shot, why he shot him/she/zi/ze, and the circumstances surrounding the shooting but sure maybe, it could very well have been justified. I would wait until all the facts were in.
And, I don't think I am that old, that fat, nor THAT much of a freak...
"It is brilliant. Get a bunch of idiots who believe in a fever dream to bet on that fever dream coming true. It is a license to print money."
If I gambled I'd take that action. They're saying it's 2:1 odds in favor of impeachment? Sounds like easy money. I think the real odds are more like 100:1 against impeachment.
If Trump is ever impeached, it immediately becomes the Walking Dead. And the Left will be the Zombies.
Now who can argue with that? I think we're all indebted to welas asih for clearly stating what needed to be said. I'm particulary glad that these lovely children were here today to hear that speech. Not only was it authentic internet gibberish, it expressed a courage little seen in this day and age.
There is something in Obama's college transcripts that it was very important to hide. I don't think that it had anything to do with who paid for it, etc, so my guess is that the transcripts are in a different name, such as an Barry Sotero. And/or that he was a foreign admit. We may never find out.
I don't know betting lingo. "the odds of a first-term Trump impeachment at 2/1" means if I put up $100,000 I get $200,000 when Trump isn't impeached?
Original Mike: Only if you're allowed to bet on the other side. Someone up thread looked in to it and found they aren't taking bets on "America doesn't impeach the president."
Bruce Hayden said...
.......
My favorite though are the Viagra single pack ads, showing a maybe 30 something attractive woman doing the talking (and enticing), with a maybe 40 something boyfriend somewhat visible who is going to get lucky tonight. Never mind that at that age, there are probably other serious health issues involved if the guy has ED issues - I think that it is really aimed at guys 10-15 years older, who don't get lucky often enough to justify the cost of a full boat ED prescription.
Yeah, and the Cialis(?0,take it every single day for the rest of your life, 'cause you just never know when you might get lucky. Like the attractive couple in the restruant gonna go to the restroom for sex ina hurry, or couple walking on the beach can't wait to get back to their room, so gonna do the deed in the sand.
Years ago, an older person told me salmon was preferred over tunafish. Marketing guy came up with "Tunafish, it does not turn pink in the can". Was my all time favorite until
"Notify Dr. immediately for erection lasting more than four hours". Hard to beat that one.
I don't understand. I'm only allowed to bet that he is impeached?
"Now who can argue with that? I think we're all indebted to welas asih for clearly stating what needed to be said. I'm particulary glad that these lovely children were here today to hear that speech. Not only was it authentic internet gibberish, it expressed a courage little seen in this day and age."
Bravo! Olson Johnson is right about Gabby Johnson being right.
That's what someone who looked into it said. I haven't investigated it, but it makes sense not to let people bet on something like that because you'd either need to be about 1-1 odds on it because of how likely NOT impeaching a president is, given American history, or you'd probably go broke.
So, it's a scheme to take money away from Inga and her ilk?
Post a Comment