Political Roundtable Part XIII

[closg00]

Republican efforts at deflection were pathetic today at the hearings. Attempting to make the hearings today about the "unmasking" of Flynn was seriously embarrassing.


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM Forums

[sfam]

So the FBI started investigating Trump in July. Why again did Comey shred Hillary Clinton in the press with ad-hominem negative judgments, yet said nothing about the Trump campaign investigation? And still he won't say anything?

Wow. Comey will be remembered in history, but I don't know that it will be a positive narrative.

[Wizardspride]

Read on Twitter

[closg00]

Napolitano pulled from Fox, another attempt to give Trump a lifeline on his wiretap claim debunked.
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/324916-fox-news-pulls-napolitano-after-his-trump-wiretap-claims



Sent from my iPhone using RealGM Forums

[payitforward]

Hey Nate -- a couple of interesting editorials on p. A19 of today's Journal, & I'd be interested in your thoughts on them.

The first is on the subject of countries w/ highly homogeneous populations, taking Japan as the example.

The second is on the subject of Neil Gorsuch. It's interesting to me that there's been so little discussion here of something as important as a Supreme Court appointee.

This post, btw, is not an invitation to argue: it's an attempt to move the conversation to discussion of issues & away from ever-mounting ad hominem traffic pile-ups.

I could make photos of the 2 pieces & share them if there's no other easy way for you to access them.

[bealwithit]

Probably the most hilarious thing from yesterday was Spicer describing Manafort as someone “who played a very limited role for a very limited amount of time” in the campaign even though he was campaign chair and manager for 6 months including during the RNC. Spicer described Flynn as just a "volunteer" of the campaign when he was... sitting in on intelligence briefings and then became National Security Adviser.

How stupid do they think we are? It's hilarious and insulting at the same time.

[closg00]

Probably the most hilarious thing from yesterday was Spicer describing Manafort as playing “who played a very limited role for a very limited amount of time” in the campaign even though he was campaign chair and manager for 6 months including during the RNC. Spicer described Flynn as just a "volunteer" of the campaign when he was... sitting in on intelligence briefings and then became National Security Adviser.

How stupid do they think we are? It's hilarious and insulting at the same time.

Brazen lying like we have never seen before in U.S. Politics (at the presidential level)


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM mobile app

[Wizardspride]

Read on Twitter

[Wizardspride]

https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/03/21/us/roger-stone-donald-trump-russia.html?_r=0&referer=https://www.google.com/

Roger Stone, the ‘Trickster’ on Trump’s Side, Is Under F.B.I. Scrutiny


In President Trump’s oft-changing world order, Roger J. Stone Jr., the onetime political consultant and full-time provocateur, has been one of the few constants — a loyalist and self-proclaimed “dirty trickster” who nurtured the dream of a presidential run by the developer-turned-television-star for 30 years.

But two months into the Trump presidency, Mr. Stone, known for his pinstripe suits, the Nixon tattoo spanning his shoulder blades, and decades of outlandish statements, is under investigation for what would be his dirtiest trick — colluding with the Russians to defeat Hillary Clinton and put his friend in the White House.

At a hearing of the House Intelligence Committee on Monday, Democrats pressed James B. Comey, director of the F.B.I., for information on Mr. Stone. Asked by Representative Adam B. Schiff of California, a Democrat, if he was familiar with Mr. Stone, Mr. Comey replied tersely, “Generally, yes,” before saying he could not discuss any specific person.

Mr. Stone, 64, is the best known of the Trump associates under scrutiny as part of an F.B.I. investigation into Russian interference in the election. John D. Podesta, the Clinton campaign chairman whose hacked emails were released by WikiLeaks, accused him in October of having advance warning of the hacks, which the intelligence community has concluded were orchestrated by Russia.

“Trust me, it will soon the Podesta’s time in the barrel,” Mr. Stone had mused on Twitter before Mr. Podesta’s emails were released.

When Mr. Schiff asked Mr. Comey at the House hearing how Mr. Stone could have known that Mr. Podesta’s emails were going to be released, the F.B.I. director again refused to answer. “That’s not something I can comment on,” Mr. Comey replied.

Mr. Stone has denied advance knowledge of the hacks or any involvement with the Russians. But his public statements have given investigators a focal point to consider.

Before the Podesta emails were released, Mr. Stone said in a speech that he had “communicated with” Julian Assange, the WikiLeaks founder — whom he has defended for years — and that he had a large trove of material on the Clintons that he would publish shortly before the election. He has acknowledged having communicated over Twitter with the online persona Guccifer 2.0, who American officials believe is a front for Russian intelligence officials. And there was the Podesta tweet.

Mr. Stone has said the timeline of his “benign” contacts with Guccifer 2.0 — “who may or not be a Russian asset,” he insisted — disprove claims of collusion. His communication with Mr. Assange, Mr. Stone has said, was through an intermediary and was “perfectly legal.” The Podesta tweet, Mr. Stone said, referred to information in an article Mr. Stone wrote that was published two months later, not any emails.

Now under scrutiny by both F.B.I. and Senate investigators, Mr. Stone has hired two lawyers to represent him. But in an interview, Mr. Stone maintained that this was “a scandal with no evidence.”

[bealwithit]

Read on Twitter

For some reason Abramson didn't put the right timecode in that link and Comey didn't say word for word that Clapper "wasn't briefed". The actual exchange you want is around 4:22:55 when Schiff asks a couple questions about Clapper's comments. Comey states that he interpreted Clapper's comments to be referring to the unclassified report that was released which did have no evidence of coordination between US persons and Russia... but that's because that hypothetical evidence would still be classified because of it being part of an ongoing investigation. So, fair deduction to say Clapper wasn't briefed before leaving, just not exactly what Comey said.

[dckingsfan]

The second is on the subject of Neil Gorsuch. It's interesting to me that there's been so little discussion here of something as important as a Supreme Court appointee.

Yep, especially since it seems like it will change the court back to where it was.

Add to that there are three other judges that are:

Age: 80 yr 7 mo
Age: 84 yr 0 mo
Age: 78 yr 7 mo

[AFM]

Couldn't not post this.

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/3133668/bulgarian-migrant-hunter-buys-helicopter-gunship-refugees-jihadists/

[bsilver]

Hey Nate -- a couple of interesting editorials on p. A19 of today's Journal, & I'd be interested in your thoughts on them.

The first is on the subject of countries w/ highly homogeneous populations, taking Japan as the example.

The second is on the subject of Neil Gorsuch. It's interesting to me that there's been so little discussion here of something as important as a Supreme Court appointee.

This post, btw, is not an invitation to argue: it's an attempt to move the conversation to discussion of issues & away from ever-mounting ad hominem traffic pile-ups.

I could make photos of the 2 pieces & share them if there's no other easy way for you to access them.

Doesn't look like WSJ material is available without a subscription.
My own opinions on Gorsuch:
He's certainly qualified, and while I don't want him, he should be confirmed under "normal" circumstances.
With the Merrick Garland affair, the old "normal" doesn't apply. The D's have to decide between an all out fight, or capitulation.
Neither is a winning strategy. The R's will happily abolish filibuster for SC nominations. Some seem to relish the opportunity. As a D, I think they should fight. At least that shows we'll continue to fight on every issue. It doesn't make sense to me to be conciliatory, when the R's are totally hardball.
It's not clear how right Gorsuch will be. He certainly won't be forthcoming during Senate questioning. He seems to have a little independent streak so may not be as far right doctrinaire as Alito/Thomas. Best D's can hope for is someone like John Roberts, who occasionally breaks from expectations.

[AFM]

Hey Nate -- a couple of interesting editorials on p. A19 of today's Journal, & I'd be interested in your thoughts on them.

The first is on the subject of countries w/ highly homogeneous populations, taking Japan as the example.

The second is on the subject of Neil Gorsuch. It's interesting to me that there's been so little discussion here of something as important as a Supreme Court appointee.

This post, btw, is not an invitation to argue: it's an attempt to move the conversation to discussion of issues & away from ever-mounting ad hominem traffic pile-ups.

I could make photos of the 2 pieces & share them if there's no other easy way for you to access them.

Doesn't look like WSJ material is available without a subscription.
My own opinions on Gorsuch:
He's certainly qualified, and while I don't want him, he should be confirmed under "normal" circumstances.
With the Merrick Garland affair, the old "normal" doesn't apply. The D's have to decide between an all out fight, or capitulation.
Neither is a winning strategy. The R's will happily abolish filibuster for SC nominations. Some seem to relish the opportunity. As a D, I think they should fight. At least that shows we'll continue to fight on every issue. It doesn't make sense to me to be conciliatory, when the R's are totally hardball.
It's not clear how right Gorsuch will be. He certainly won't be forthcoming during Senate questioning. He seems to have a little independent streak so may not be as far right doctrinaire as Alito/Thomas. Best D's can hope for is someone like John Roberts, who occasionally breaks from expectations.

Just so the rest of the board is aware, you can read any WSJ article for free.
Go to the article you want to read.
Copy the address.
Paste it into google.
First link will let you read the entire thing.

[bsilver]

The second is on the subject of Neil Gorsuch. It's interesting to me that there's been so little discussion here of something as important as a Supreme Court appointee.

Yep, especially since it seems like it will change the court back to where it was.

Add to that there are three other judges that are:

Age: 80 yr 7 mo
Age: 84 yr 0 mo
Age: 78 yr 7 mo

Age is an interesting factor. Many wanted Ginsburg to retire so Obama could make the appointment. That may not have worked, as we saw with Garland. If she retired in 2016, R's may have blocked Obama's nominee.
With stakes so high, and opinions so divided, justices will continue on until death if the opposing party holds the presidency.

[dckingsfan]

Brazen lying like we have never seen before in U.S. Politics (at the presidential level)

Gulf of Tonkin and Johnson?
Watergate, Nixon?
Mexico, Polk?
Cuba, Kennedy?

[montestewart]

Brazen lying like we have never seen before in U.S. Politics (at the presidential level)

Gulf of Tonkin and Johnson?
Watergate, Nixon?
Mexico, Polk?
Cuba, Kennedy?

Agreed, brazen isn't the word, since politics, circumstances, etc. seem to force every president to tell a few tall tales at some point or another. Relentless is the word that comes to my mind, distinguishing the now from the past, almost as if telling the truth about anything at all somehow gives up the advantage.

[dckingsfan]

Brazen lying like we have never seen before in U.S. Politics (at the presidential level)

Gulf of Tonkin and Johnson?
Watergate, Nixon?
Mexico, Polk?
Cuba, Kennedy?

Agreed, brazen isn't the word, since politics, circumstances, etc. seem to force every president to tell a few tall tales at some point or another. Relentless is the word that comes to my mind, distinguishing the now from the past, almost as if telling the truth about anything at all somehow gives up the advantage.

So relentlessly pathological or relentlessly compulsive?

[Zonkerbl]

I think it is hideous and despicable to be talking about nominating Gorsuch at all. Follow the Constitution, hypocrites. It's just a wildly horrible crime that the Republicans have inflicted on us. Integrity means nothing now.

The Republicans are the whiny kid on the playground who makes up new rules when the game isn't going his way. They can't win honestly so they have to cheat. It's pathetic.

[FAH1223]

Watch on YouTube