Trump’s government shut down

It was a Republican shut down but Trump took a lead, so we shall call it the Trump Shutdown.

There is a non-zero possibility that a bill to keep things going will pass in the Senate and House, that Trump will veto it, and that Congress will override Trump’s veto. Not too likely, but it could work out that way.

Spread the love

66 thoughts on “Trump’s government shut down

    1. The Senate didn’t end things. The Democrats figured out a path and got the defeated, though in majority, Republicans to go along.

    2. The same deal was available on Friday. Schumer said no then. He said yes now.

      Trump may have nixed a deal, but there was never any reason for that to be part of the budget. Dems chose to filibuster a vote on the budget for a few days, then stopped on Monday.

  1. <blockquote.It was a Republican shut down

    Yup, caused by the liar in chief nixing an agreement that others had reached to avoid it simply because it wasn’t discriminatory enough on all of those icky people who are neither white nor well off. Then we got to hear lies about how the military wasn’t going to get paid due to Democratic stubbornness, etc.

    Sad? yes. Worse — there are morons who believe the crap that comes from Republican leaders, the President, and the woman who gives briefings for the White House (“out of control illegal immigration”? Really? Again, what kind of ignorant scum writes this, let alone believe it?)

    1. The more we learn about the Republican dishonesty in this whole thing the more it seems it was exactly what they wanted. How long before their dishonest supporters try to swing it away from facts?

      Marginally related note: is there an over/under on the probability of Kelly leaving? I have no idea, but apparently some people are starting a countdown? What happened?

    2. You and Greg need to come to an agreement. He says the Democrats won and the Republicans were defeated. You say this is what the Republicans wanted all along.
      I’m siding more with you, since I see an article in Politico, that includes the group Greg keeps posting about Indivisible, saying liberals are calling this a Schumer sellout.

  2. Apparently, a large percentage of the voting public wanted one party in control of entire government so that stalemates like government shutdown wouldn’t happen. As a Confederate prisoner of war was quoted as replying to a Federal soldier said to him that the Federal army had “gotten him”: “You got me and a hell of a git you got.”

  3. Tyvor, remember that Trump’s supporters are neither the sharpest knives in the drawer (they’re more like butter knives) nor are they strong on the integrity/morality side. They
    * ignore his history of cheating on each wife he’s had
    * ignore his lies about not knowing various crime bosses from the East coast despite a long record of photographs of him with them
    * believe the racist bits about blacks being responsible for the increase in violent crime as well as for most of the drug use in the country (almost too many lies to count there)
    * believe President Obama’s people played with unemployment calculations to make things look better than they were (again, factually untrue)
    * believe the slow climb the economy is on is due to their president rather than a continuation of the path it was on at the end of President Obama’s time
    * believe immigration is out of control and that not only is a “wall” needed, but that Mexico will pay for it
    * believe BLM and Antifa are violent/extremist groups that pose a danger to the country

    “Deplorable” is too good a description for the most extreme. Greg’s even had people post here defending the nazi who intentionally rammed a crowd in Charlottesville and killed a woman, claiming he was the victim.

    The drumming of racist drums and attacks on the poor and disadvantaged of the United States that the Republicans put in place in the 90s has paid off for them.

    1. Search for drone video. He didn’t ram any crowd, unless you count when he backed up and got away. What hits the crowd is a minivan. He was driving a Dodge Charger.

    2. Yeah, the “he didn’t do it” is just like the “Trump’s inauguration crowd was bigger than the fake media showed” bit — 100% contradicted by fact.

      Look up the police reports: the video shows him driving toward a crowd, accelerating and ramming a van, then driving ahead into the crowd. In December, after further investigation, the charges were increased from 2nd to 1st degree murder.

      Surveillance video from a Virginia State Police helicopter, played by prosecutors in court, captured the moment of impact by the car and the cursing of the startled troopers on board. The video then showed the car as it reversed, drove away and eventually pulled over. The helicopter had been monitoring the violence, and prosecutors questioned Charlottesville Police Det. Steven Young about the video as it played.

      Another surveillance video from a restaurant showed the car head slowly in what Young testified was the direction of the counter-protesters, who were not in view of the camera. The car reversed before speeding forward into the frame again

      I’m not sure what there is to gain by lying to defend a Nazi who killed and injured people. This scumbag did pretend to be shocked at what he’d done when police talked to him after the arrest.

    1. Sorry, “in” = up and “off” = of. I can actually write passable English but my keyboard and I can’t always agree on where the right keys should be.

    2. The issue is if the prosecution is charging more than the facts allow, and he is found not guilty, then there will be rioting and maybe people killed, because the media has been spreading the false story that he drove his car into a crowd of people. An accurate telling of the facts, would reduce the possibility of riots.

      Now, if he is speeding up and they have clear guilt established, there is no downside to telling a false story.

      He ran his car into another car which hit a parked minivan. The only possible way he could have driven his car into a crowd of people was if there was a crowd behind the car he hit, or when he went backwards, both at odds with the image the public has of the incident.

  4. Happy to change the story if you can point to me some video evidence. I have already seen the drone video and some other video. The drone shows a minivan hitting the crowd. I acknowledge that he drove his car not into the van but into another car that hit the van that went into the crowd. My interpretation of this other video is that he panicked from a sound. I haven’t seen anything about reversing before pulling forward, but it’s possible the video I saw was edited.

    1. Well yes. if two surveillance videos admitted into court show the car reversing than the car reversed and any videos that don’t must be incomplete for whatever reason.

      One of the videos shown in court showed that “[t]he car reversed before speeding forward” so this is also positive evidence that the car did so. This would be just what a driver would do if he wanted to gain enough room to build up speed for another impact on something or someone. Not proof but suggestive.

      You say that “he drove his car not into the van but into another car that hit the van” but the helicopter video admitted into court “captured the moment of impact by the car” so you apparently saw something in some other video that contradicts this? Is that your contention?

    2. Yes, what I saw contradicts this. There is drone video that shows it is a minivan that hit the crowd. I think the article erred on this point, with the writer just going off what ‘everyone knows’ and not being thorough. It may even be the same video I saw. The audio of troopers swearing might be contradicting what they are saying. Are the troopers in the helicopter, or in the car? If it’s the latter, then they would have been in the middle car.

      As for reversing and then speeding up, I assume the article got this correct. The video I saw does not show any restaurants there. It may be that he reversed and sped forward at a further distance. The street video I saw shows the car moving slowly before accelerating. There is a sound, and some slow motion video that claims to show someone hit the car with a club, but it’s not clear.
      There was a writer for The Hill who originally tweeted that the arresting cops thought it was accidental, but has since deleted the tweet.

    3. Search for drone video Charlottesville. I only noticed the detail about the collision because when I saw this video, I remembered reading that he was arrested later, but the car doesn’t go anywhere. Then I remembered about the Dodge Charger and went searching.

    4. The police report says it’s a three car collision, with the minivan in front and a convertible in the middle.
      It also says a Dodge Challenger. Both Fields’s car and the minivan can be seen on Ford Fischer’s live stream five minutes before. The minivan was just parked there and the protesters hadn’t gathered yet. Fields was headed away, but for some reason looped back to that spot, with no way of knowing the people would be there.

      There is video of his car being hit and then he speeds up. However, I’m not sure a third vehicle could hit a crowd with the speed seen in the drone video unless it was hit with massive force.

    5. It is amazing that only you believe he didn’t do it. Police increased the charges based on all the video. News sources around the world show the video (and the BBC discussed the drone video, explaining how it showed him intentionally running into the crowd, backing up, and going forward again).

      You didn’t see edited video and there is no conspiracy here either: you’re simply defending a man who has nazi sympathies (based on his own admission) who intentionally tried to kill someone and succeeded.

    6. Perhaps they have different drone video. Because the one on Youtube, which you say is unedited, doesn’t show him running into a crowd or backing up or running forward again. Indeed, it doesn’t even show his car or approach, just the minivan.

      I can’t rule out that it happened like you said, especially given the force I think is needed to produce the speed on that van. However, there is video of his car getting hit. I think it would be pretty hard to hit a car in the back with what appears to be flagstick maybe weighing a few pounds if it was going as fast as is implied. You would have to generate as much speed as the car is going, and I think it was a woman doing the swinging.
      Ford Fischer’s video also appears to show his entry into the street a block away, and it was more than a minute before the crash. If the restaurant(Red Pump Kitchen also a block away) showed him reversing and accelerating, and it was before he crossed the street, then this contradicts the one minute timeline. He would have had to brake afterwards. It’s possible the video shows him entering the block, slowing down, then reversing and speeding up, with the Red Pump camera is looking down the street. Then the hit with the flagstick, which is not that clear on the video I saw, would have had to been a coincidence just a lucky hit at speed and what looks like acceleration is a mirage of the editing(like how the metal barriers disappear in the Park Service photos-they are there it’s just hard to tell).

    7. There have been lots of high-profile cases where charges get filed out of proportion. TrayVon Martin, Michael Brown, Freddie Gray, and all ended with not guilty.

      I am quite certain his car never touched the woman who died. That is not the same as not guilty of course.

    8. You’re right there needs to be an edit button. I am certain his car did not go into that crowd, but this woman might have been elsewhere.

    9. While I’ve gotten a lot of information from a conspiracy theory video, I don’t think there is any conspiracy. He is guilty of killing the woman. I don’t believe Ford Fischer knew ahead of time or that the government did it or any of the other theories. I am not certain as to his intent.

    10. Question- Prior to the attack, are the front two vehicles moving?
      Not relevant to the larger issue, but I’m pretty sure the answer is no, but I can’t see it.

    1. You’re the one dismissing the reality in CNN’s gigapixel.
      Or perhaps you are in agreement with President Trump that CNN is fake news.

    2. The gigapixel allows you to zoom in. This is where the agenda worked against them. If they had showed a crowd with a little bit of density, they could have gotten away with the different viewing angle claim. Instead, they showed vast patches of emptiness. Indeed, unless it’s editing or how they processed the picture, this has to be old, despite the timestamp. Looking at a high res version, the metal dividers are not there, but there might be something there that is not showing up in the picture. I also don’t think it’s Trump on the TV screens, but maybe Jim Acosta.

    3. This is where the agenda worked against them.

      No agenda, nothing working against them. Conspiracy mongers always see facts that contradict their perception as conspiracies — as you completely demonstrate on this issue.

    4. No I don’t think the Park Service was in on it. They published the picture they had. I think someone else created the split screen.
      However, I don’t concede they would never do something like thsi. They were major troops for Obama during the government shutdown, blocking open air monuments to prevent people from ‘recreating’.

  5. R e: The debate over whether Trump’s inauguration crowd was or was not bigger than Obama’s (or anyone else’s for that matter).

    What difference does it make? Plenty of people will even go out of their way to be at the scene of a big fire, an auto accident, or even a murder site, but it doesn’t mean they are in favor of any of these.

    1. It doesn’t make any difference. It just shows the honesty of the people making the claims. If media is showing one picture that makes Trump’s crowd looks smaller than it really was, then they are being deliberately dishonest. I give even more low marks to PBS which put together a timelapse video and claimed it shows the original picture is valid, but that video has been clearly edited and doesn’t show the peak times.
      Search for Gigapixel, then turn around towards the Washington Monument and you see the crowd is not what the media was showing. The angle can be deceiving. If you zoom in a little more some gaps will appear where they put up barriers, but it’s full back to the Monument.

      The issue isn’t Obama crowd vs Trump crowd. Obama clearly had more people. It is Trump crowd vs what the media wanted to show was Trump’s crowd.
      Gigapixel itself is

    2. The point mikeN, is that they aren’t trying to make the crowd look small — it was as small as they show. To argue otherwise is to argue against fact

    3. It also gives a window into the competence of others who look at the evidence and reach a different conclusion, like dean.

    4. mikeN, there is no evidence to support your stance. Why you insist of lying is unfathomable — not even the clowns at Fox buy into this.

      Is the fact that Trump’s inauguration paled in size compared to both of Obama’s inauguration truly that galling?

    5. I’ve acknowledged from the beginning that Obama’s crowd size was much much higher. Overflowed past the edges, and denser too.

    6. No I don’t think the Park Service was in on it. They published the picture they had. I think someone else created the split screen.
      However, I don’t concede they would never do something like thsi. They were major troops for Obama during the government shutdown, blocking open air monuments to prevent people from ‘recreating’.

      Wow. Apparently denial of reality requires seeing conspiracies everywhere as well as denying the physics of altered perspective in the giga-pixel photo.

  6. Not directly related to the shut-down per se, but relevant to the Trump government… does anyone know of a reliable critical assessement of which people in the White House, and indeed of which people in Gongress and in the Senate, may have legal culpability in the issues of the obstruction of justice, and/or of collusion with Russia to contaminate the 2016 election?

    If (when) Mueller’s investigation leads to legal action involving Trump and his close associates, just how far will that action travel?

    1. Obstruction of justice is almost certainly an impeachment only with no criminal case. The President has the authority to direct the Justice Department and FBI, so it would not be criminal only impeachable as an abuse of power.
      On the other hand, if witnesses are being paid off, or otherwise pressured to not testify then you have a criminal case against intermediaries, and against the President after he is removed from office(it is well established that President cannot be indicted, though Laurence Tribe is trying to argue against what he wrote so clearly 20 years ago).
      Collusion with Russia is not a criminal offense. It is why the investigation is a counterintelligence investigation and not a criminal one(and hence why Mueller’s entire investigation is contrary to the law on special counsel). So it would depend on the specific nature of the collusion. For example, if they were directing the hacking, you would have a conspiracy charge there. Dealing with the results of the hacked materials could also lead to charges. Look at Roger Stone who was claiming to be in contact with Wikileaks before they released things.
      They could always try a Logan Act argument, if they were dealing with foreign policy.
      So far the charges are lying to the FBI, and Manafort’s money laundering and presumably they will eventual charge him on taxes and bank fraud. The first two mean they can’t use those guys as witnesses in a collusion charge. They just said these guys are liars. If they had something on collusion involving them, they would have had them plead to that instead.

    2. Obstruction of justice is almost certainly an impeachment only with no criminal case.

      Obstruction of justice is a crime:

      https://criminallaw.uslegal.com/crimes-against-justice/obstruction-of-justice/

      https://edition.cnn.com/2017/05/16/politics/obstruction-of-justice-donald-trump/index.html

      Last Friday’s discussions of Trump’s order in June to fire Mueller covered in detail the fact that Trump has established a pattern of intent by trying to hinder the Russia investigation through numerous examples of removing people – or attempting to remove people – who pose a potential threat to him via the Russia connections. Intent gives big, sharp teeth to charges of the crime of obstruction of justice.

      …it is well established that President [sic] cannot be indicted…

      Is it, really? Kenneth Star thought otherwise, and the doubt remains that the president is above the law…

      It might be politically risky in the current context for Mueller to indict Trump, if he has insufficient evidence (although – what does Mueller know that the public doesn’t…?), but indictment is not a completely closed door with respect to a president. If it were, the US is one psychopathic maniac (and a pliant Congress/Senate) away from having it’s own constitution used to tear said constitution to shreds.

      That said I would expect that indictment would not be the top priority for Mueller – there are other sticks that he’d likely perfer to see used. But only Mueller knows for sure at this point.

      Collusion with Russia is not a criminal offense.

      That would depend on the nature of the collusion with Russia. If Trump’s involvement with Russia is shown to be treasonous, as described in the United States Code (18 U.S.C. § 2381):

      Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.

      then Trump and his election team have a problem.

      All that aside, I suspect that there is a veritable camel train of suits waiting for the day that Trump leaves the White House.

      And if he should get off scott-free from any and all of his demonstrable (and occasionally self-admitted) crimes, which appear to include sexual assault, fraud, money laundering, potential treason and incipient perjury, then the USA makes a mockery of its touted ideal as a country based on truth and justice, and subject to the rule of law. Reputation and respect count for much on the international stage, and the US has little left of each after just one year of Trump’s destructive presidency – four years and no accountability afterward would see the States become a laughing stock for decades, and eventually a fallen empire.

    3. Yes, obstruction of justice is a crime. That was included in ‘on the other hand’. There is no criminal case for obstruction of justice in this instance, because the President is head of the executive branch and thus has the authority to shut down investigations. If all that happened was Trump’s using his existing powers to shut down investigations like pardoning people to keep them from testifying, then there is no criminal case. However, Congress could still choose to impeach despite the lack of criminality.

    4. Obstruction of justice remains a crime if it is perpetrated by a president. Being a president doesn’t change the nature of the obstruction itself. And there is still “a criminal case” to consider – it simply remains for someone to test the fact that there is no explicit privilege that provides a president with immunity from indictment, or to wait until the president leaves the office and becomes exposed to prosecution.

      If a subsequent president grants a pardon, as Ford so disgracefully did for Nixon, then it simply means that the obstructor escaped justice – and that s/he is explicitly assumed to have been guilty of the crime in the first place, and accepted as guilty if s/he accepts the pardon.

    5. Two separate issues- indictable and is obstruction of justice a criminal case HERE.
      On indictable, I’m saying the President would have to be removed first. It is not written into the Constitution explicitly but it is the conclusion reached by one of the Nixon special prosecutors.
      With regards to pardons I am not talking about pardon of the President, but pardons by the President. He clearly has the power to pardon people, so it can’t be a criminal case of obstruction if he pardons people with the intent to get them to not testify against him. Explicitly offering the pardon in exchange would be a separate issue and would be an obstruction of justice criminal case I think. In the first case, no criminal case but impeachment is on the table, and I think justified.
      Now, consider where he tells Comey to shut down an investigation or tries to fire Mueller. Both of these are actions that he can do as President. The executive branch answers to him. You say
      ‘ Being a president doesn’t change the nature of the obstruction itself.’, but no one else has the power to direct the executive branch. If the President is buying off witnesses, you are correct. It would still be obstruction of justice and a criminal case can be brought. Indeed, this was the charge for which Bill Clinton was impeached.

    6. >as Ford so disgracefully did for Nixon, then it simply means that the obstructor escaped justice – and that s/he is explicitly assumed to have been guilty of the crime in the first place,

      Ford never pardoned Nixon for a specific crime, but for any and all crimes that may have been committed.

  7. …is obstruction of justice a criminal case HERE.

    Obstruction of justice is a crime – full-stop, period, end of sentence. Whether obstruction of justice is “a criminal case HERE [sic]” depends on whether 1) there was actual obstruction, as demonstrated by evidence (the mounting evidence is that there certainly has been…), and 2) whether the Republican Congressional, Senate, and White House facilitators of Trump’s actions themselves allow due and proper process to occur.

    As it stands looking at the USA from the outside, it seems more and more to the rest of the world that the GOP is consciously aiding and abetting Trump and the White House in the obstruction of justice. I saw on Adam Schiff on MSNBC a few hours ago note that the Republican majority in the House Intelligence Committee has voted to open and investigation into the FBI and the Department of Justice, against Committee rules that state that this must occur in consultation with the House minority. As Schiff said: “when you have a deeply flawed person in the Oval Office that flaw can infect the whole of government and today tragically it infected our Committee.”

    Rachel Maddow observed that the investigation of the Russia affair has “crossed a Rubicon”. The USA itself is crossing a Rubicon, and appears to have passed a point where it is inclined to protect its democratic processes. Vladimir Putin must be agog with ecstasy at the success of his interference with the 2016 election – with a little bit of cyber-interference and some money in the pockets of corruptible US business people, ideologues, and politicians Putin has brought the country to its knees, and he hasn’t had to use even a single bullet to do it. And almost no one in the Republican Party wants to stand against it. As another Vladimir (Lenin) wrote, albeit in a slightly different context, “To put it in other words, they will work on the preparation of their own suicide.”

    Ford never pardoned Nixon for a specific crime, but for any and all crimes that may have been committed.

    I didn’t say otherwise – I was simply pointing out that Ford’s egregiously inappropriate pardon of Nixon included Nixon’s attempts to obstruct justice.

    I’m not sure what point you’re trying to defend here MikeN. Trump appears to have a prima facie case to answer, and proper process would be to thoroughly test it rather than to attempt to make it go away.

    It is ironic… Conservatives rail against Muslim extremists, and yet the vast majority of Republicans in government, along with their unthinking voters, appear to want to bring about a rabid conservative Christian dictatorship that is closer to that of IS than it is different… And they’re prepared to participate in anything that might check this descent away from democracy, justice, and the mythical “American Way”…

    I hope that the FBI are backing up all of their evidence beyond the reach of the government, because one day a Democratic majority might want to dig into the mess and discover how deeply Trump’s Republican Party was corrupted by Russia.

    1. The point I’m making is that firing of Comey or ordering him to shutdown an investigation and similar acts are not a criminal case of obstruction of justice. The only remedy would be impeachment as an abuse of power.

      Adam Schiff is being dishonest. He could have seen the same material that Nunes saw. As long as he didn’t look at it, he could make all sorts of claims about it, knowing that Nunes was powerless to defend himself because he’s not allowed to reveal classified information. ‘Consultation with the minority’ is not the same as ‘approval of the minority’.

  8. The point I’m making is that firing of Comey or ordering him to shutdown an investigation and similar acts are not a criminal case of obstruction of justice.

    Perhaps not in isolation, but together with the vast array of other examples of intent they are a potent danger to Trump – as long as he is not shielded by the GOP.

    Adam Schiff is being dishonest.

    You say this, followed by supposition. Do you have any evidence?

    ‘Consultation with the minority’ is not the same as ‘approval of the minority’.

    Logical fallacy – confabulation. The issue here is that the Republicans broke the rules.

    But apparently it doesn’t matter to you how many rules and norms and conventions are broken, if it’s the radical right wing of the Rebulicans that are doing the breaking. You would be well served to remember the words of pastor Martin Niemöller…

    1. A fellow member of the House Intelligence Committee stated on the floor that he and others in his committee did not get to see Schiff’s memo prior to Schiff asking for a vote of immediate release to the public. As far he knows, no one has read the memo.
      Schiff knew the process for releasing to the public, which is what the House is doing, voting first to let the House members see it, just as they did for the Nunes memo. He is taking advantage of public ignorance of details to say whatever he wants.
      For example
      “While I cannot discuss the content of the documents, if the White House had any concern over these materials, they should have been shared with the full committees in the first place as a part of our ordinary oversight responsibilities,”
      This is after eventually seeing what Nunes saw in March.
      Here’s the thing. The full committees do not have clearance to see this material. There is a gang of 8 that has higher clearance, the committee chair Nunes, ranking minority leader Schiff, and party leaders Pelosi and Ryan, and their Senate counterparts. Schiff knows this, but deceived people with things like this.

      March 22 tweet by Schiff:
      Today, Chairman Nunes shared information with WH still withheld from our committee. He cannot conduct a credible investigation this way.
      Schiff is not allowed to provide to committee, and Schiff knows it. Schiff also did not go to see the information himself as he is allowed to do. Eight days later he still hadn’t gone to see it but was tweeting about how no one had seen the info on the committee. Finally gets called out publicly by McGahn and goes to see the info. Suddenly has process questions but becomes a little quiet on his previous denials.

      Start from 1:15.
      https://youtu.be/iemRF4G8p2E

    1. Prediction of what Schiff will do next based on his MO- his memo will have lots of classified information, so when it is released to the public, they will have to redact it heavily, and Schiff can claim that the Republicans are hiding the truth.

      That would just be a temporary gain. Nunes has set it up so that the more they attack his memo, the more he can call for the President to declassify the underlying material, which is the more significant material.

      It looks like a well planned strategy to get out of the box he was in in March where all the material is classified and Schiff and Democrats could lie all they want and he couldn’t respond without revealing classified information.

    1. Looked like a normal speech. I was expecting something that would elicit a response of
      “Can you believe Trump did “

    2. Trump did much better than I expected.

      Yes, so well in largely reading from a teleprompter that his pick for ambassador to South Korea contemporaneously decided that he wanted no part of Trump’s “bloody nose” strategy and withdrew from the nomination.

    3. I must have missed that.
      I don’t think this is white supremacism but what any country would do:
      “We have a responsibility to make them [legal immigrants] welcome here, and they have a responsibility to enter the mainstream of American life. That means learning English and learning about our democratic system of government.”
      “After years of neglect, this administration has taken a strong stand to stiffen the protection of our borders.”
      “It is wrong and ultimately self-defeating for a nation of immigrants to permit the kind of abuse of our immigration laws we have seen in recent years, and we must do more to stop it,” he said.

      I would argue about what Mexico does with her southern border, but it doesn’t really refute your point as that country is run by whites.

    4. Biggest surprise for me was that after defeating the Bushes and the Clintons, Trump’s next opponent is the Kennedys? I guess all the good speakers are not acceptable because of internal party politics not wanting to give anyone an edge.

    5. I must have missed that.

      As you seem to have missed the extraordinary and continually-snowballing scandal that engulfs Trump and his enabling GOP.

      Even today’s news would have been enough to see any other president off in times past. Hope Hicks for one had better hope fervently that that she looks good in orange, and doesn’t have claustrophobia…

    6. How many stories have to be revealed to be false before you learn to wait a few days?
      Just recently, there was a story about how Nunes wouldn’t answer if he wrote the memo with White House help, but then transcript of meeting was released, and the story was bogus.

    7. If you assume that Trump engaged in collusion with Russians, then everything he has done is bad, and you will expect him to do much more if he can get away with it. If you assume he has not colluded with Russians, then much of the bad stuff looks not reasonable. Indeed, former CIA head Morell explained this, saying that he was part of the problem for endorsing Hillary:
      https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/12/11/the-full-transcript-michael-morell-216061

    8. How many stories have to be revealed to be false before you learn to wait a few days?

      Oh, you’re not talking to yourself?!

      Yes, let’s wait a few days. The Republication memo is going to end up another piece of evidence in the obstruction case, with all of its creators/signatories/approvers potentially becoming (moral, if not legal) accessories to the fact.

  9. And what does Mexico do?

    Ignore the lies about the “broken” immigration system, crime caused by immigrants, and so on. Look at the news — the alt right and white supremacists are thrilled with the messages.

    1. So you are saying the speech itself is not a white supremacist speech, for example the lines I quoted, but are saying the speech is TO white supremacists?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.