A Politicized Congress

1. 86

   Valeantposted 5 years ago

   
   First Benghazi used to discredit Clinton, now the GOP in Congress using the Strzok text messages to imply corruption in the FBI and Mueller probes.  Gowdy gets 15 minutes to grill Strzok, well past the five allotted to Congressmen, all to put on a political show.

   replyreport
   1. 67

      JAKE Earthshineposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      I was pleased to see a strong, vibrant truthful and forceful FBI Agent Strzok turn all the little conservative republican stooges into the asinine fools they truly are: All this money wasted on going backward in time to revisit Hillary's E-Mails while Mr. Trump relinquishes the reigns of power of our once great nation to our enemy Vladimir Putin: UNREAL:
      
      I'm still trying to figure out what that strange looking thing is sitting behind the little sign that says 'Mr. Gowdy Chairman': yikes:

      replyreport
   2. 82

      Wesman Todd Shawposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      Well everything the Democratic party does is corrupt. It only makes sense to attempt to straighten them out, or at least ask them please, you know, try not be deceitful, traitorous criminals all day, every day.
      
      The FBI has forever been filled to the brim with the footsoldiers of authoritarianism. Who'd have thought that persons dedicated to power, and power alone could be corrupt? What a surprise.

      replyreport
      1. 86

         Valeantposted 5 years agoin reply to this

         Yeah, no corruption to see here.
         
         

         replyreport
         1. 0

            ahorsebackposted 5 years agoin reply to this

            If Mueller had one thing on Trump so far in this twenty five million dollar fishing expedition , He would be knocking on the WH doors with a warrant and FBI agents dressed in black, masks and sporting AR's .
            Yet all he's got so far is a FAST sinking canoe.

            replyreport
2. 86

   Valeantposted 5 years ago

   'Because Trump supporters live in a hermetic media echo chamber, these hearings are part of a predictable, hokey Kabuki dance. They’re a device for generating a new round of hyperbolic base-only stories that will follow the same, dumb arc as all the rest; in the coming days, you’ll see Sean Hannity flirt with apoplexy, coating the camera lens with flecks of spittle as he rants over Strzok’s perfidy. You’ll see pro-Trump columnists herniate themselves stretching to turn flippant text messages into a vast conspiracy. Twitter will be a flood of moronic memes, white-hot takes, and promises that Strzok will soon be in Gitmo alongside Hillary, Obama, Podesta, and Soros.' -Rick Wilson

   replyreport
3. 0

   ahorsebackposted 5 years ago

   Because ,   The left here apparently doesn't have one ounce of ability to see the mountain of bias in the DOJ /FBI investigations , in Strzok's testimony , his work and his absolute sniveling , snobbish smug incompetence as an FBI administrator !
   
   Simply put If you have to ask "where's the bias "-You'll never get the answer .

   replyreport
4. 86

   Valeantposted 5 years ago

   Even the Inspector General decided there was no bias in decision making by Strzok.  His texts gave the appearance of bias, but could find no fault with any action he took that would signify political bias against Trump.  Even with a statement like that from your own party, you're still brainwashed.

   replyreport
   1. 0

      ahorsebackposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      When true bias evidence points to the ill timing of E mails and texts , When the exoneration of Clinton before an investigative completion and so  indicts Trump before his ?
      
      Yea ! .....Read Strzok's oath of office - Why do you think he was fired ? His pompous, smug , petty , egocentric testimony speaks loudly for itself.
      
      But I'm brainwashed ? Look in the mirror , something liberals seem incapable of .
      
      
      

      replyreport
      1. 86

         Valeantposted 5 years agoin reply to this

         This is a direct quote from the Inspector General's report:
         
         When it comes to the Clinton probe, DOJ Inspector General Michael Horowitz published his extensive review of the FBI’s handling of that controversial investigation last month. He wrote that, though he was concerned about Strzok’s potential bias and thought he hurt the FBI’s reputation, he couldn’t actually find evidence of bias affecting his actual investigative decisions.
         
         Horowitz wrote that “Strzok was not the sole decisionmaker” for the key Clinton email probe decisions he reviewed and that in fact Strzok and Page sometimes “advocated for more aggressive investigative measures.”
         
         Do some research before making idiotic statements.

         replyreport
         1. 0

            ahorsebackposted 5 years agoin reply to this

            Oh the" idiotic statements" are all over the place here , don't claim the high ground , Strzok was fired and not the only one apparently ,  guess what children ,he was fired for darned good reason ,  And here is the kicker ; To intelligent people anyways  . The very reason for his firing was expertly revealed and displayed on his "stage ".yesterday ............ just like Comey's !
            
            There was a more than  obvious amount of smug , patulous ,egocentric  , conceited ego displayed when he was angered by the truth .  He deserved  losing his career , his pension and his false honor just like his old boss .

            replyreport
            1. 86

               Valeantposted 5 years agoin reply to this

               Do you know anything at all?  Strzok hasn't lost his career, pension, or honor.  He's still employed by the FBI.  Intelligent people...give me a break.
               He was just removed from the Mueller investigation because of the politics surrounding his texts.

               replyreport
               1. 0

                  ahorsebackposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                  He should be fired  , just like Comey , but then .............No one ever gets fired for incompetence in the center of incompetence  itself !  The  FBI , the DOJ there is nothing much left but the tarnished parts of both government institutions at this point  , that which was Obama's agenda to begin with .
                  
                  Incompetence !
                  
                  
                  
                  
                  
                  Similar to Hitler's faces ?

                  replyreport
                  1. 86

                     Valeantposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                     You're about as brainwashed as they come.  I provide you quotes from a non-partisan Inspector General saying how Strzok's work was done by the book, and you come back with he should be fired.  You're so deep into the Trump cult, it's sad.

                     replyreport
                     1. 0

                        ahorsebackposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                        Sad for you perhaps to be so biased and media duped at the utter incompetence displayed since Obama's / Holder/ Emanuel  / Lynch destruction of government institutions ,  I'll be so glad when your party reclaims it's once at least partial  grasp on the one political reality .    I swear it's something in the DNC water .

                        replyreport
                        1. 86

                           Valeantposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                           Except I didn't quote something from the media.  I quoted from the Inspector General's report, someone appointed by Trump to investigate the handling of the Hillary investigation. 
                           
                           You see?  You can't even discern between actual facts and what you perceive to be information gleaned from media.  That's called brainwashed.

                           replyreport
                        2. 57

                           annerueposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                           Deleted
                           1. 0

                              ahorsebackposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                              What are you a bot ?

                              replyreport
5. 86

   Valeantposted 5 years ago

   So today's indictment of twelve Russians should make for interesting conversation topic between Trump and Putin tomorrow.  Expect him to tweet out on Sunday that he believes Putin when he says he didn't order the hack.
   
   Oh, July 27, 2016, Trump asks Russians to find the 30,000 e-mails.  Later that night, Russians begin hacking attempts into the Clinton campaign server.  No collusion, sure.
   
   And a Congressional candidate reached out to Guccifer for the stolen e-mails and got them.  That's also in the indictment today.  Not only Trump campaign, but Congressional candidates too.  No wonder the GOP is aiming to undermine the Mueller investigation.

   replyreport
   1. 0

      ahorsebackposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      ".........and Later that night ..........." Sounds like a royal tale of woe to me all right .
      
      Keep up the great fiction .

      replyreport
      1. 86

         Valeantposted 5 years agoin reply to this

         It's in the indictment in case you get around to reading it, which we all know you won't because independent research just isn't something you do.  Gibberish, you're really good at that.

         replyreport
         1. 0

            ahorsebackposted 5 years agoin reply to this

            "Gibberish" , Is the actual mentality of the obstructionist liberals .
            Got Reality  ?

            replyreport
            1. 86

               Valeantposted 5 years agoin reply to this

               Took that one right from your 'I know you are, but what am I?' playbook.  I remember that from third grade.

               replyreport
6. 0

   ahorsebackposted 5 years ago

   Look Out Everyone , Liberals have "finally got their man " , Isn't this where Peter Strzok and his gang of conspirators come in ?

   replyreport
7. 0

   ahorsebackposted 5 years ago

   So get serious for a moment and tell us please , What do you think the next Trump Obstruction Derangers reason to be ?
   
   That would be reason # 156 or so ?

   replyreport
   1. 86

      Valeantposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      I've been serious.  In the indictment, it's made known that a member of the Trump circle was in touch with Guccifer.  In the indictment, a Congressional candidate reached out to them for the hacked e-mails.  Both of these are the proof of collusion that you idiots claim never happened because you're listening to a con man and his propaganda networks.
      
      When you can bring any factual information to the table, let us know.  Until then, quit your childish rants and go get educated on the topic.

      replyreport
      1. 96

         wildernessposted 5 years agoin reply to this

         Wait.  A "member of the Trump circle" (whatever that means) communicated (verbal, digital, snail mail, face to face a check or sign language remains unspecified) to Guccifer and a politician asked for hacked e-mails.  No mention of what the communication was and no mention of what the e-mails said or why a politician wanted to see them.
         
         This is what you call "proof of collusion"???  Any judge would laugh you out of the room, as would any logic or science teacher.  You collusion conspirators are really getting desperate!

         replyreport
         1. 86

            Valeantposted 5 years agoin reply to this

            It's Roger Stone, and he's admitted as much if you also care to do any research on the topic instead of chiming in without any knowledge.  Sometimes Dan, you're as ridiculous as Horse.

            replyreport
            1. 96

               wildernessposted 5 years agoin reply to this

               OK - a Trump campaigner asked a Russian persona for hacked documents.  And this is "proof" of collusion to fix the election.
               
               I repeat: any judge would laugh you out of the room, as would any logic or science teacher.  Which is why there are no indictments of Americans; there is no proof (real, actual iproof) by any American.  Outside your own imagination, that is.

               replyreport
               1. 86

                  Valeantposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                  Science teacher?  Well, I'm glad the construction workers will take the indictment seriously at least.

                  replyreport
                  1. 96

                     wildernessposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                     Science deals in proof.  Not opinions, not gross exaggerations and certainly not spin.  Why would it be surprising to hear they would laugh at the idea of a politician asking for hacked emails being proof of collusion?
                     
                     I repeat: there are no indictments of Americans - that pretty much eliminates the whole "collusion" concept.

                     replyreport
                     1. 86

                        Valeantposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                        When the indictment mentions a member of the Trump campaign coordinating with Guccifer and a Congressional candidate reaching out to them for the hacked e-mails, that's quite literally the definition of collusion with a foreign entity.  It wouldn't be in the indictment if they couldn't prove it.  Just because he hasn't decided to indict the American side of this investigation, doesn't mean collusion is eliminated.

                        replyreport
         2. 83

            Don Wposted 5 years agoin reply to this

            You're right. The evidence in this indictment focuses on the activities of 12 foreign intelligence officers, mainly because it was an indictment of 12 foreign intelligence officers.
            
            Did Rosenstein say this was the end of the investigation, with no more evidence to be presented, and no more indictments to be made though? Or or did he say "The Special Counsel’s investigation is ongoing"?
            
            I believe it was the latter. So unless you know what evidence remains, and what future indictments the Special Counsel plans to make, it's a bit premature to say "that pretty much eliminates the whole "collusion" concept" (assuming you are talking about the whole investigation).

            replyreport
            1. 96

               wildernessposted 5 years agoin reply to this

               Yes, and the story continues.  Forever claiming collusion between Donald Trump (or somebody he knows, or spoke to once upon a time) but never any proof.  Just additional claims.
               
               I suspect those claims will continue far beyond the investigation, too.

               replyreport
               1. 0

                  ahorsebackposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                  Interesting ,  this  timing of Rosenstein's release ?
                  Yet , the lefties here have consistently decried our opinions  of the bias displayed by this entire "investigation "? On the eve of Trump/ Putin's summit?
                  
                  I now KNOW one thing , Rosenstein's as biased as we've ever suggested Mueller , Comey , Strzok or Page were  .

                  replyreport
                  1. 86

                     Valeantposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                     Trump was briefed before he left for the NATO summit that these indictments were coming,  It's getting exhausting correcting the incorrect things you say.

                     replyreport
                     1. 0

                        ahorsebackposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                        Right ...., look at the scheduling and tell me your not defending an inevitably scheduled agenda and  obstruction .   .........Sure Valeant ,it's just a coincidence ...........now tell me you're naivete isn't "useless " ?

                        replyreport
                        1. 86

                           Valeantposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                           *You're
                           
                           What does that last post even mean?  Your incoherence is ridiculous.

                           replyreport
                           1. 0

                              ahorsebackposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                              Your .............................wow.
                              I know you got my message .

                              replyreport
                              1. 86

                                 Valeantposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                                 What message was that?  That you can combine words that make no sense?  Yeah, that one I got.

                                 replyreport
                                 1. 0

                                    ahorsebackposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                                    If I know one thing ,it's that  I hit you right in the liberal guilty conscience .   
                                    
                                    I accept your apology .

                                    replyreport
                                    1. 86

                                       Valeantposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                                       Yeah, you don't know one thing at all.  And your generalization that all liberals are the same and that you understand any of us will never deserve an apology on any front.

                                       report
                                       1. 0

                                          ahorsebackposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                                          "your "
                                          
                                          That's it , I mean that's all you can offer ?...............Ohhh you caught me red handed  not paying attention to spell check again ........
                                          
                                          I'm so impressed .

                                          report
               2. 67

                  JAKE Earthshineposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                  The Collusion / Conspiracy / Treachery between Mr. Trump and Russian Operatives was and still is painfully obvious to individuals who accept the truth, and now Mueller's criminal investigation into the Trump campaign is beginning to tie it all together in a nice little prosecutable bow for indictments and or impeachment which must be coming soon if we are still a nation of laws: I guess we'll soon find out if we are:
                  
                  You really should read this: Nothing less than SHOCKING: The arrogance of a sick megalomaniac who truly believes in his twisted head that he can commit crimes of betrayal in broad daylight with impunity: UNREAL:
                  
                  
                  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-b71f2eYdTc
                  
                  
                  "12 Russians indicted in Mueller probe; hacks began day Trump asked Russia to help find Clinton emails"
                  
                  
                  http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/ny- … story.html

                  replyreport
               3. 83

                  Don Wposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                  Rosenstein's comments relate to the investigation, not the "story". It is right that the investigation continues until all evidence relevant to his brief has been uncovered.
                  
                  The Special Counsel was appointed in May 2017. One year is a relatively short period of time for a counter-espionage investigation of this scale and complexity.
                  
                  There is now no doubt that the Russian intelligence services infiltrated private computer networks, stole data and used it to try to influence the Presidential election. So it is right that the Special Counsel ensures no stone is left unturned in an effort to not only identify the foreign nationals responsible, but also determine if any US citizens colluded with them, and if so who. Then any US citizens who are identified must be brought to justice. That's very important, don't you agree?

                  replyreport
                  1. 96

                     wildernessposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                     Of course it is reasonable to continue until pertinent information is unearthed.
                     
                     The only question becomes what is "pertinent": as the original investigation was to dig out collusion between Donald Trump and Putin, and there hasn't been a shred of evidence found of that, or of someone Trump knows and any Russian citizen, it does seem past time to shut down.
                     
                     Of course, if the objective is to dig dirt of any kind, on anything connected to Donald Trump, in any manner, it could take 100 years, couldn't it?
                     
                     (As an American, who has driven the roads Trump traveled on, flown the skies he has flown in, been in towns and states he has been in, speak the same language he does, are a member of the same species he is, etc. etc., aren't you getting a little concerned?  They may be knocking on your door next!)

                     replyreport
                     1. 86

                        Valeantposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                        'Not a shred of evidence found' is one huge lie considering they just tied Roger Stone to the Russians in this indictment.

                        replyreport
                     2. 83

                        Don Wposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                        One of the reasons the investigation is taking so long is precisely because the Special Counsel can't just "dig dirt of any kind". He has to act within the limits of the law.
                        
                        To gather evidence using certain types of surveillance, a federal judge must be convinced there is a reasonable suspicion a suspect has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime. That suspicion can't be a based on a desire to dig up dirt. It must be based on articulable facts, i.e. facts that can be reasonably explained and justified. For more detailed intrusions, investigators have to show probable cause which is an even more stringent legal standard.
                        
                        Also, it may be necessary for the Special Counsel to obtain leverage to get information from key witnesses. Putting Paul Manafort or Michael Cohen behind bars for peripheral crimes, will help persuade them it's in their best interest to provide information they have about other crimes. It's easy to mistake this for going beyond the scope of the investigation. It isn't. It's part of the investigative process.
                        
                        I am in no doubt an experienced prosecutor like the Deputy AG would have foreseen the need to provide this type of leeway to the Special Counsel. His original brief suggests so, as it includes authorization to investigate:  ". . . (i)any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation"(1). To investigate anything outside the scope of this brief, the Special Counsel must consult with the DAG first, as per 28 C.F.R § 600(2). So there is DoJ oversight.
                        
                        I don't take you for a conspiracy theorist Wilderness, so I'll be disappointed if you suggest every member of the FBI involved in the investigation is out to get Trump, and all the federal judges who approve surveillance requests, and the Department of Justice including the Deputy Attorney General.
                        
                        This is a serious investigation into acts of espionage that struck at the heart of the country's democratic processes. While they are probably using every method to bring those responsible to justice, I have seen no evidence to suggest the Special Counsel is going beyond his authorization or beyond the limits of the law. On the contrary, I have seen evidence that suggests the Special Counsel is doing everything possible to ensure the investigation is being conducted in way that is right and proper.
                        
                        (1) https://www.justice.gov/opa/press-relea … 1/download
                        (2) https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/28/600.4

                        replyreport
      2. 0

         ahorsebackposted 5 years agoin reply to this

         And all because of what , "Trusted inside sources " ? Your sense of anger is showing , are you sure you can handle this thread ? It seems to be irritating you to the point of losing it .    As usual you belong to a group of desperate obstructionists who're building mountains of B.S , on an ant hill of info release .

         replyreport
         1. 86

            Valeantposted 5 years agoin reply to this

            Again, what factual information are you bringing to the table?  None.  You're useless.

            replyreport
8. 0

   ahorsebackposted 5 years ago

   Number #156 ?
   You can do it , ..............you're almost there Valeant !
   Can we help ?

   replyreport
9. 0

   ahorsebackposted 5 years ago

   "Pssssst , Got some  Uranium Putty .......,  I'll accept cash , checks and other favors   ?"
   
   
   
   Gee , I think I found out where the leaks came from all by my lonesome , Thanks for making us all smarter ,Valeant !

   replyreport
   1. 86

      Valeantposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      More false propaganda from the uneducated.  Nothing new to see here.

      replyreport
      1. 0

         ahorsebackposted 5 years agoin reply to this

         No  of course , your problem is you've had nothing new about the  Russians since Russia sent up sputnik .
         
         Obstruction # 156 ?

         replyreport
10. 0

    ahorsebackposted 5 years ago

    So Obama , The greatest hero of the left today said to Romney ,
    
    -"That's preposterous ......, .......The Cold War with Russia has been over for twenty years .........."   
    
    -Then he told Puttie , [ 2012 ]" I''ll have more time for this after the election ,"....... as he patted Puttie on the knee ................Not realizing the mike was "hot ".
    
    -Now, the entire  mission of obstructionists today is to beg or the impeachment of Trump for collusion AND to hold him responsible for Russia's attempt to influence an election and not getting anywhere beyond Face -Book ?  Yet , Rosenstein  grandstands in front of a podium while Trump is out of country , a day or two away from meeting with Putin ? 
    
    -And the left here can't put two and two together enough to accept that Rosenstein and so Mueller aren't working in the interests of either, any kind of justice , the interests of the american people or the improvement and integrity of their own government offices ?
    
    -There is a movement right now to impeach Rosenstein by the house , it should be expanded to include Mueller and I hope that when Trump returns  from Helsinki that he fires BOTH Mueller and Rosenstein and replaces Jeff Sessions , All of them for gross incompetence .

    replyreport
    1. 86

       Valeantposted 5 years agoin reply to this

       In a way, I hope he does those things too.  Because that would be the end of his presidency and then we wouldn't need to listen to your idiocy any longer.

       replyreport
       1. 0

          ahorsebackposted 5 years agoin reply to this

          My idiocy ? No, it's yours and your party's brilliance  to own that  ,  Go drink your coffee , sounds like you need it .

          replyreport
    2. 83

       Don Wposted 5 years agoin reply to this

       If Trump fires the Special Counsel or the DAG, that in itself could constitute a crime, which the Special Counsel is at liberty to prosecute:
       
       "The jurisdiction of a Special Counsel shall also include the authority to investigate and prosecute federal crimes committed in the course of, and with intent to interfere with, the Special Counsel's investigation, such as perjury, obstruction of justice, destruction of evidence, and intimidation of witnesses; and to conduct appeals arising out of the matter being investigated and/or prosecuted."(1)(my emphasis).
       
       (1) Code of Federal Regulations 28 - 600.4 https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/28/600.4

       replyreport
       1. 0

          ahorsebackposted 5 years agoin reply to this

          Don , Trump is the ultimate boss in America , although not wise he CAN fire them can't he . He can also demand his attorney general fire them !   He only doesn't do this , up to now ,  because he sees the greater picture and ultimately believes in the integrity of the system .     
          
          Too bad that to date this decade long decline of honor and integrity among  DOJ and FBI  offices don't display the same level of confidence and competence , We can ultimately blame Obama's administration members for destroying public confidence , Lynch , ,Manuel , Holder , Comey , Strzok  ...............As public confidence of these departments approaches the same levels as that of our congress ;  How far will it lower before we as a people simply say " Yes , It's time  ,  fire them all Trump "

          replyreport
          1. 83

             Don Wposted 5 years agoin reply to this

             Sure, if Trump chooses to commit a potential federal crime (assuming he hasn't already) he certainly CAN commit a potential federal crime.
             
             But no one should be above the law, not even a president.
             
             If he, or members of his campaign, have already committed crimes, they should be brought to justice as per federal law. If he commits further crimes by obstructing the investigation etc. then he should be brought to justice as per federal law.
             
             That is what living by the rule of law means.

             replyreport
             1. 0

                ahorsebackposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                So, in all your wealth of knowledge  and energized sense of righteousness ,  What does USING  the law to obstruct an incumbent administration mean ?

                replyreport
                1. 96

                   wildernessposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                   It means filing frivolous suits in courts sympathetic to your cause to halt executive orders limiting travel from terrorist countries.  It means filing more frivolous suits in sympathetic courts to halt orders to enforce immigration laws.

                   replyreport
                   1. 0

                      ahorsebackposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                      And those were merely the beginning of a slew of attacks , Good thing obama appointed those liberal friendly lower court judges .

                      replyreport
                   2. 67

                      JAKE Earthshineposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                      Sorry, and I already understand that many have been conned into believing Imbecile Bozo Trump knows all, but there's nothing frivolous about law suits which demand Mr. Trump's evil crime against humanity of segregating children from parents be halted and reversed, as a matter of fact a judge has already adjudicated the action and has ordered him to re-unite ALL children and parents: In this case of insane intentional cruelty, the forces of good have prevailed over Bozo Trump's evil inclinations and thank God:
                      
                      Maybe when he is granted asylum in Russia which must be coming soon, Vladimir will give him permission to commit these types of horrendous crimes against innocent children in Moscow, but not here in the once great USA:
                      
                      "Federal judge orders reunification of parents and children, end to most family separations at border"
                      
                      https://www.cnn.com/2018/06/26/politics … index.html
                      
                      **** By the way, intentionally ripping children from parents as Bozo Trump did, doesn't make him strong and tough, it actually makes him weak and cowardly, just like the despicable draft dodger he truly is:

                      replyreport
                   3. 83

                      Don Wposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                      I didn't know lawsuits brought against the current administration had been dismissed as 'frivolous'? Which ones were they?

                      replyreport
                      1. 86

                         Valeantposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                         Apparently, Islamaphobia and violating the human rights of children are frivolous to Wilderness.

                         replyreport
                         1. 96

                            wildernessposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                            Kind of the point, isn't it?  Claiming Islamaphobia when there was none is a frivolous suit - even the SCOTUS agrees on that.  And demanding the highest office in the land ignore the law is too, whether spun into violating rights of children (as we do every time we incarcerate a parent) or not.

                            replyreport
                            1. 86

                               Valeantposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                               Saying it's a Muslim ban instead of a thwart of potential terrorism would have just solved the issue.  Mentioning the religion at all was what opened up the issue of Islamophobia.  Maybe if Trump was smarter, there would have been less objection.
                               
                               Making a policy to separate children from parents wasn't law.  It was cruelty.

                               replyreport
                               1. 96

                                  wildernessposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                                  Of course - lie and say it was illegal when it wasn't.  That's what the law suit did, but it only worked in liberal courts more interested in liberal philosophy than in law, now didn't it?
                                  
                                  Really?  How many people in prison have children, children they are separated from?  Just cruelty, isn't it - has nothing to with illegal activity or criminal actions at all.  Just a desire to be cruel to children.  Spinning criminal activity into something else doesn't change that the law was broken, though, does it?  Funny how that works.

                                  replyreport
                                  1. 86

                                     Valeantposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                                     How many children of asylum seekers were also separated to discourage people from coming here?  Seeking asylum isn't illegal.  Crossing the border the first time is a misdemeanor.  If you think those who commit misdemeanors need to be separated from their children, as young as one year old, you're as inhumane as those you're trying to defend.
                                     
                                     Trump had to change the policy how many times before it became legal?  Three.  Yeah, so it seems the first two times weren't necessarily the law.

                                     replyreport
                            2. 83

                               Don Wposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                               "Frivolous" has a technical meaning in law, and a common use meaning.
                               
                               SCOTUS did not find the lawsuit to be "frivolous" in either sense judging by the majority opinion. It found that Proclamation 9645 did not exceed any textual limit on the President’s authority(1).
                               
                               And even though the court found in favor of the government, the court pointedly quoted George W. Bush in it's ruling saying: "[t]he face of terror is not the true faith of Islam . . . [the United States] is a great country because we share the same values of respect and dignity and human worth"(2).
                               
                               And drew from Eisenhower's public papers: "President Eisenhower, at the opening of the Islamic Center of Washington, similarly pledged to a Muslim audience that “America would fight with her whole strength for your right to have here your own church,” declaring that “[t]his concept is indeed a part of America."(3)
                               
                               So far from considering it frivolous, it seems the court deemed this case to be a serious matter.
                               
                               Please cite a reference to your claim that SCOTUS found the lawsuit "frivolous" if you have one, or acknowledge that it did no such thing.
                               
                               (1) https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/1 … 5_h315.pdf
                               (2) ibid
                               (3) ibid

                               replyreport
                               1. 96

                                  wildernessposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                                  And again you repeat what I said, just with different words that make it sound better than it is.
                                  
                                  When the court decides that a ban on travel from terrorist countries is actually a ban on Muslims it has crossed the line separating philosophy from law, and the quote indicates that quite well. 
                                  
                                  "the United States] is a great country because we share the same values of respect and dignity and human worth"  Has exactly zero to do with following the law of the land and you know it, I know it and the court knows it.  That it even chose to repeat that quote says they are concerned about philosophy - what little credit they get is that the law took priority over their personal feelings.
                                  
                                  I cannot for the life of me understand how you or anyone else can make the determination you are here.  There was nothing about Muslims in that order, right from the start.  That a liberal court decided there was says only that our court system is broken and that the judges making such an ill conceived call should not be on the bench enforcing our laws.  And you know that, too - when we give judges the opportunity to make law rather than enforce it we're in trouble.

                                  replyreport
                                  1. 86

                                     Valeantposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                                     Oh, so the travel ban is now a law?  You know who else doesn't make laws?  A President.  Congress makes them from what I've heard.

                                     replyreport
                                  2. 83

                                     Don Wposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                                     You are making assumptions about my own view of the ruling.
                                     
                                     Given the facts of the case, the court found the president to be acting within his authority, and based on arguments given in the majority opinion, I tend to agree with its ruling.
                                     
                                     Make no mistake, I believe Trump is a racist, sexist oaf, but that does not change the fact that the revised Proclamation No. 9645, on it's face, does not exceed presidential authority.
                                     
                                     I agree with Justice Sotomayor's dissent that Trump's comments indicate "anti-Muslim animus", but I don't believe the court should strike down a proclamation made within a president's authority in order to rebuke an ignorant and mouthy president. I believe it is for the electorate to provide such a rebuke.
                                     
                                     From a moral perspective, I think Trump's prejudice towards Muslims stinks, but again my opinion is irrelevant to the question of legality, which is what the court considered. Of course legal does not mean morally right though. As we know, slavery (by way of an extreme example) was perfectly legal for centuries, so I would caution against suggesting the legality of the travel ban makes it morally right.
                                     
                                     The court was not concerned with "philosophy", it was concerned with the Establishment Clause in relation to Trump's claims that he wanted to ban "Muslims". Even though the court ruled in favor of the government, it still felt it necessary to address the issue. Justice Kennedy wrote:
                                     
                                     "There are numerous instances in which the statements and actions of Government officials are not subject to judicial scrutiny or intervention. That does not mean those officials are free to disregard the Constitution and the rights it proclaims and protects."
                                     
                                     I read that as a rebuke, and a warning to the president not to push it as far as the Constitution is concerned.
                                     
                                     In relation to your suggestion that judges in the lower courts "should not be on the bench enforcing our laws" because they ruled in a way you don't like. That reeks of totalitarianism which I am surprised to hear from someone I who supports less government authority, not more.
                                     
                                     Regardless of all that, I was merely pointing out that you are factually incorrect to suggest SCOTUS found the lawsuit to be frivolous. Nothing in the court's ruling indicates that. Again, if you believe that's incorrect, please cite a source that suggests otherwise.
                                     
                                     (1) https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/1 … 5_h315.pdf

                                     replyreport
                2. 83

                   Don Wposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                   It means the current administration faces opposition from the 'opposition party' (the clue is in the name) just as the Obama administration faced opposition from the GOP. 
                   
                   But none of that is relevant to the criminal investigation related to the Russian intelligence service illegally accessing private computer networks, stealing information, and using that information to try to influence the presidential election, and the question of whether Donald Trump or his campaign colluded with a hostile foreign government.
                   
                   Next question?

                   replyreport
11. 67

    JAKE Earthshineposted 5 years ago

    What conservatives need to understand is that a defense of 'necessity' is applied frequently in our courts: For instance, if an individual gets lost in a forest with no food, water or shelter, then finds a privately owned cabin, breaks in seeking warmth and comfort until he finds a way back to his domicile, technically he or she has committed the crime of breaking and entering, however, it will never be prosecuted because said crime was committed out of 'necessity' not malice, just like human beings crossing our border seeking asylum to escape threatening forces at home:

    replyreport
12. 86

    Valeantposted 5 years ago

    Today's press conference where Trump sided with Putin over his own Intelligence services was nothing short of treason.

    replyreport
    1. 0

       ahorsebackposted 5 years agoin reply to this

       "Your dreaming " about that in this thread too.

       replyreport
       1. 86

          Valeantposted 5 years agoin reply to this

          *You're.  And you know what we call those that side with a traitor.  Traitors.

          replyreport
          1. 0

             ahorsebackposted 5 years agoin reply to this

             Hang um high Valeant !
             Brilliant .

             replyreport
    2. 67

       JAKE Earthshineposted 5 years agoin reply to this

       Trump is all this and then some and if he's not prosecuted and punished forthwith for his crimes it will set a dangerous precedent:
       
       treach·er·y
       ˈtreCH(ə)rē/Submit
       noun
       betrayal of trust; deceptive action or nature.
       "his resignation was perceived as an act of treachery"
       synonyms:    betrayal, disloyalty, faithlessness, unfaithfulness, infidelity, breach of trust, duplicity, dirty tricks, deceit, deception, chicanery, stab in the back, backstabbing, double-dealing, untrustworthiness; treason, two-timing; literaryperfidy
       "Myrna never forgave Warren his treachery"
       
       trea·son
       ˈtrēzən/Submit
       noun
       the crime of betraying one's country, especially by attempting to kill the sovereign or overthrow the government.
       "they were convicted of treason"
       synonyms:    treachery, disloyalty, betrayal, faithlessness; sedition, subversion, mutiny, rebellion; high treason, lèse-majesté; apostasy; literaryperfidy
       "the treason of Benedict Arnold will be recounted for centuries"
       the action of betraying someone or something.
       plural noun: treasons
       "doubt is the ultimate treason against faith"
       synonyms:    treachery, disloyalty, betrayal, faithlessness; sedition, subversion, mutiny, rebellion; high treason, lèse-majesté; apostasy; literaryperfidy
       "the treason of Benedict Arnold will be recounted for centuries"
       historical
       the crime of murdering someone to whom the murderer owed allegiance, such as a master or husband.
       noun: petty treason; plural noun: petty treasons

       replyreport
13. 86

    Valeantposted 5 years ago

    Fintan O'Toole wrote this yesterday in The Irish Times:
    
    “To grasp what is going on in the world right now, we need to reflect on two things. One is that we are in a phase of trial runs. The other is that what is being trialled is fascism – a word that should be used carefully but not shirked when it is so clearly on the horizon. Forget “post-fascist” – what we are living with is pre-fascism.
    
    It is easy to dismiss Donald Trump as an ignoramus, not least because he is. But he has an acute understanding of one thing: test marketing. He created himself in the gossip pages of the New York tabloids, where celebrity is manufactured by planting outrageous stories that you can later confirm or deny depending on how they go down. And he recreated himself in reality TV where the storylines can be adjusted according to the ratings. Put something out there, pull it back, adjust, go again.
    
    Fascism doesn’t arise suddenly in an existing democracy. It is not easy to get people to give up their ideas of freedom and civility. You have to do trial runs that, if they are done well, serve two purposes. They get people used to something they may initially recoil from; and they allow you to refine and calibrate. This is what is happening now and we would be fools not to see it.
    One of the basic tools of fascism is the rigging of elections – we’ve seen that trialled in the election of Trump, in the Brexit referendum and (less successfully) in the French presidential elections. Another is the generation of tribal identities, the division of society into mutually exclusive polarities.
    
    Fascism does not need a majority – it typically comes to power with about forty percent support and then uses control and intimidation to consolidate that power. So it doesn’t matter if most people hate you, as long as your forty percent is fanatically committed. That’s been tested out too.
    
    And fascism of course needs a propaganda machine so effective that it creates for its followers a universe of “alternative facts” impervious to unwanted realities. Again, the testing for this is very far advanced.
    But when you’ve done all this, there is a crucial next step, usually the trickiest of all. You have to undermine moral boundaries, inure people to the acceptance of acts of extreme cruelty. Like hounds, people have to be blooded. They have to be given the taste for savagery.
    
    Fascism does this by building up the sense of threat from a despised out-group. This allows the members of that group to be dehumanised. Once that has been achieved, you can gradually up the ante, working through the stages from breaking windows to extermination.
    
    It is this next step that is being test-marketed now. It is being done in Italy by the far-right leader and minister for the interior Matteo Salvini. How would it go down if we turn away boatloads of refugees? Let’s do a screening of the rough-cut of registering all the Roma and see what buttons the audience will press. And it has been trialled by Trump: let’s see how my fans feel about crying babies in cages. I wonder how it will go down with Rupert Murdoch.
    
    To see, as most commentary has done, the deliberate traumatisation of migrant children as a “mistake” by Trump is culpable naivety. It is a trial run – and the trial has been a huge success. Trump’s claim last week that immigrants “infest” the US is a test-marketing of whether his fans are ready for the next step-up in language, which is of course “vermin”.
    
    And the generation of images of toddlers being dragged from their parents is a test of whether those words can be turned into sounds and pictures. It was always an experiment – it ended (but only in part) because the results were in.
    
    And the results are quite satisfactory. There is good news on two fronts. First, Rupert Murdoch is happy with it – his Fox News mouthpieces outdid themselves in barbaric crassness: making animal noises at the mention of a Down syndrome child, describing crying children as actors. They went the whole swinish hog: even the brown babies are liars. Those sobs of anguish are typical of the manipulative behaviour of the strangers coming to infest us – should we not fear a race whose very infants can be so devious?
    
    Second, the hardcore fans loved it: Fifty-eight percent of Republicans are in favour of this brutality. Trump’s overall approval ratings are up to 42.5 per cent.
    This is greatly encouraging for the pre-fascist agenda. The blooding process has begun within the democratic world. The muscles that the propaganda machines need for defending the indefensible are being toned up. Millions and millions of Europeans and Americans are learning to think the unthinkable.
    
    So what if those black people drown in the sea? So what if those brown toddlers are scarred for life? They have already, in their minds, crossed the boundaries of morality. They are, like Macbeth, “yet but young in deed”. But the tests will be refined, the results analysed, the methods perfected, the messages sharpened. And then the deeds can follow."
    
    Let us protect our freedom with all our democratic power, and continue to be brave with everything we must face.”

    replyreport
14. 86

    Valeantposted 5 years ago

    The Fog of Trump, by Robert Reich
    
    Trump uses 5 tactics to create a fog of confusion and bewilderment, so we don’t pay attention to the real damage he’s doing – undermining our democracy; rewarding the rich and hurting the working class, middle class, and the poor; stoking hatefulness; and undercutting America’s standing in the world.
    
    1. His first tactic is to distract us — dominate the news with tweets and rants, accusations, who he’s fired, who he’s insulted, what he’s demanded. He wants us to be so preoccupied with all this that we lose sight of the big picture.
    
    2. His second tactic is to divide and conquer, pitting groups against each other, riling up his base, stoking racial tensions, and vilifying opponents. He targets transgender people in the military. Goes after athletes – mostly black – who won’t stand for the anthem. Fuels fears of immigrants and foreigners, of liberals and Democrats. This way, public dialogue and discussion becomes so angry, bitter, and vitriolic that we end up shouting at each other instead of seeing the damage Trump is actually doing.
    
    3. His third tactic is to lie and distort. He generates a torrent of “alternative facts” so we become disoriented and confused. Asserting that 3 to 5 million people fraudulently voted for Hillary Clinton in the last election, with no evidence they did. That unauthorized immigrants are responsible for a disproportionate number of murders and rapes. That climate change isn’t caused by people. His goal is for us to lose confidence in the truth so we can’t be sure of what he’s doing.
    
    4. Fourth: conjure up conspiracies. He fuels paranoia about a “deep state” that’s intent on removing him from office, engaged in a “witch hunt” to undermine him, plotting to impeach him. But he never identifies who or what this “deep state” actually is. The mere assertion of a conspiracy is enough to generate suspicion, erode trust in the political system and in the media, and sow doubts about anyone who criticizes him or any findings that could show he acted illegally.
    
    5. Fifth and finally: accuse the accusers. He alleges that others are doing what he is in fact doing. When the media catch him in a lie, he accuses them of disseminating fake news. He allows corporate lobbyists to run departments and agencies, and then accuses critics of being part of the Washington swamp. He seeks to cover up whatever he and his aides did with Russian operatives, and then accuses investigators of a being involved in a coverup.
    
    These 5 tactics are all designed to hide what Trump is actually doing so we don’t mobilize against him. Be aware. Don’t allow Trump’s fog to cloud the truth.

    replyreport
    1. 0

       ahorsebackposted 5 years agoin reply to this

       Valeant , You could easily have replaced the  name in theis rant and could handily convince us all that Obama was the cupable party and not Trump ,  Hillary perhaps would fit into your accusation as well ,  you lend this list  perfectly to those  crimes that were committed against America by Obama and his thugs.
       Think about that .

       replyreport
       1. 86

          Valeantposted 5 years agoin reply to this

          Did you even read what was written?  Nothing in that could convince anyone with half a brain that it relates to anyone but Trump.  Man, you are more brainwashed than I ever imagined.

          replyreport
          1. 86

             Valeantposted 5 years agoin reply to this

             The most ridiculed man in the entire world right now...
             
             

             replyreport
             1. 0

                ahorsebackposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                I just love it still that your party suffers from such delusions , As enamored as you were about a freshman senator who never had one successful legislative piece of paper with his name on it  and then voted for the most politically correct candidate in US history to the presidency ; NOW you despise the epitome of true leadership with almost the same amounts of delusion . 
                
                
                
                Please do go back through your fairy tale merely changing the name  to "The Fog Of Obama ". "so we won't mobilize against him " ?       Your party's been mobilized against Trump  since before  he even ran !   
                But hey , talk about the newest delusion have you been following your newest party platform ?    Sanders /Cortez the king and the queen of socialism in America ?    These two are absolutely brilliant .

                replyreport
                1. 86

                   Valeantposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                   What's delusional is that people like you can still defend a man who sides with a foreign dictator over citizens of this country.  You have no defense for what I wrote except to try and pivot to some Obama or Hillary attack.  It's pathetic at this point and quite sad.  It's obvious Trump is compromised, cult members like are too far gone to see it.

                   replyreport
                   1. 0

                      ahorsebackposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                      Valeant your problem :
                      You're getting all of your news from the wrong people ,
                      Here's a for instance ;   Trumps destroying the economic gains of the past eight years ; although unemployment is what ; at a record low since 1968 ?
                      
                      
                      
                      
                      Do any of you on the left realize at all just how uninformed  you are ?   Do you not see that your media is slanting your reality to such angles that you can't even walk upright , you're not even paying attention to the numbers , you'd rather emote your way through reality ?

                      replyreport
                      1. 86

                         Valeantposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                         Another attempted pivot.  Not even a try to argue any of the points above.  And I'm no sure how you can argue my sources when the words come right from Trump's own mouth when he sides with Putin over the United States Intelligence services.  That's brilliant.
                         
                         As for that unemployment rate, I'll gladly look at the numbers.  From November of 2012 when the rate was 7.7 to November of 2016 when it was 4.6, that's a 3.1% difference, so about .5% a year.  Trump takes over with the unemployment rate at 4.6 in November of 2016 and in June of 2018, it's at 4.0.  So in a year and a half, it's down .6% (.4% average) after it had been averaging about .5% in the previous four years. What that tells me is that he saw some gains, but that they were from the momentum that had already been there.
                         
                         You see, this is called arguing with actual facts and not just some right-wing talking points you're being fed.

                         replyreport
                         1. 0

                            ahorsebackposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                            The problem with your B.S Is that the entire regime of Obama numbers are fixed , corrupted , made up and if you look at the deficit alone you realize that Obama's plan to end unemployment in America  was to charge stimulus spending all onto Chinese credit cards allowing  phony unemployment numbers .
                            
                            Deficit  2008 -----------9      Trillion
                            Deficit  2016-----------20 + Trillion
                            
                            I'd rather they were decreased by creating jobs and not debt wouldn't you ?

                            replyreport
                            1. 86

                               Valeantposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                               Funny you bring up the deficit since this year we're already running a 600 billion dollar deficit through the first six months.  That's basically double over each of the past four years through the first half of the year.  So basically, you are spewing more hypocrisy in comparing the two presidents and the standards that apply to them.  That's a hallmark of the GOP these days.

                               replyreport
                               1. 0

                                  ahorsebackposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                                  Do you think the Obama Federal Spending "machine"can  be shut down in an instant ? It takes years to reel in all of the free federal credit cards , spending vouchers , congress , ........
                                  
                                  Every element of federal spending takes time to end . Look at the incredible Trump resistance in government operations alone, weight that in too .    How many Federal credit cards do you suppose there are out there ?  Millions ?  How many government hotel rooms ,what about gas guzzling vehicles ?
                                  
                                  Obama sure accomplished something didn't he ?
                                  actually doubling the national debt , spending more than ALL COMBINED previous presidents ?

                                  replyreport
                                  1. 86

                                     Valeantposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                                     You are so ill informed it's amazing.
                                     
                                     US Deficit by year:
                                     2013 - $679 Billion
                                     2014 - $485 Billion
                                     2015 - $438 Billion
                                     2016 - $585 Billion
                                     2017 - $665 Billion
                                     2018 - $860 Billion Estimate
                                     2019 - 1 Trillion +
                                     2020 - 1 Trillion +
                                     
                                     I found it amusing that you think Trump is going to try and reel in federal spending.  He's going to set marks not seen since the economy nearly crashed.  He increased spending and cut revenue.  That's a recipe for bankruptcy, not fiscal responsibility.

                                     replyreport
                                     1. 0

                                        ahorsebackposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                                        The spending that has happened since Trump  elections , the budgets and programs are NOT OF HIS DESIGNS , they are of Obama's incredible spending gluttony and until further tax cuts , deregulation and elimination of Obama's budgets and programs , may continue .   The single most expensive --Free Obama health care !

                                        report
                                     2. 86

                                        Valeantposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                                        I included the 2017 numbers because those were under an Obama-era budget.  2018 and on are all on Trump, as much as your delusional brain may try and deny it.  Trump HAS increased spending while cutting revenue with his idiotic tax cut for the wealthy.  I would tell you to do the research, but I know you're just happy following the talking points of your cult.

                                        report
                                        1. 0

                                           ahorsebackposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                                           Liberals seem to have basic math challenges ?
                                           1+1=2
                                           1-1=0
                                           Tax cuts don't "cost "anyone anything .
                                           Less revenue = less spending .
                                           
                                           
                                           Tomorrow's lesson ; How to increase the value of incoming revenue by actually  spending less .

                                           report
                                     3. 86

                                        Valeantposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                                        Today's math lesson for the idiots.  Less revenue + more spending = bigger deficits.  Seems to be a concept you're failing to grasp.

                                        report
15. 86

    Valeantposted 5 years ago

    Been an interesting week.  Cohen says Trump knew about the meeting with Don Jr. and Russians.  Avenatti says there are three more women paid hush money.  Economy shows 4.1% growth as soy bean exports up 9,400% as countries try and get orders out before tariffs take hold.

    replyreport