Wednesday Open Thread

Time for a new open thread. All topics welcome.

< Neil Gorsuch Confirmation Hearings
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Schiff (5.00 / 2) (#1)
    by FlJoe on Wed Mar 22, 2017 at 04:15:58 PM EST
    is pissed at Nunes', antics, say's he has not seen the alleged intercepts in question, nor was he briefed on it prior to Nunes' trip to the White house. Has grave doubts about how the investigation is being conducted. Says he first learned of the allegations through the press.

    Congressman Schiff's public statement: (none / 0) (#2)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Mar 22, 2017 at 04:49:24 PM EST
    "This afternoon, Chairman David Nunes announced he had some form of intercepts revealing that lawfully gathered intelligence on foreign officials included information on U.S. Persons, including those associated with President Trump or the President himself. If accurate, this information should have been shared with members of the committee, but it has not been. Indeed, it appears that committee members only learned about this when the Chairman discussed the matter this afternoon with the press. The Chairman also shared this information with the White House before providing it to the committee, another profound irregularity, given that the matter is currently under investigation. I have expressed my grave concerns with the Chairman that a credible investigation cannot be conducted this way." (Emphasis is mine.)



    Congressman Schiff seems a bit naive (none / 0) (#3)
    by mm on Wed Mar 22, 2017 at 04:53:51 PM EST
    they simply don't care if it is credible, the objective is to give their side an alternate narrative.

    Adam Schiff is hardly nave. (5.00 / 2) (#6)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Mar 22, 2017 at 05:20:48 PM EST
    Rather, he just fired a rhetorical shot across the GOP's bow by speaking directly to the general public, in his official (and very well-respected) capacity as the ranking member of the House Select Committee on Intelligence.

    If this information is accurate, Chairman Nunes' apparent public disclosure of an active and ongoing intelligence operation -- one which is further subject to FISA Court oversight -- was an extraordinarily reckless act on his part. Same for his discussion of the matter with President* Trump, given the allegations regarding the Trump campaign's purported ties to the Russian government and related intelligence services. At the very least, his security clearance ought to be suspended.

    If Congressman Schiff and other Democrats withdraw their support for Mr. Nunes on the basis of the Chair's untrustworthiness and lack of professional integrity, public pressure for an independent commission to investigate this matter is only going to increase. Republicans appear to be adamantly oblivious to the growing public perception that they're placing party before country. They continue down this particular path at their peril.



    Adam Schiff should not (none / 0) (#7)
    by KeysDan on Wed Mar 22, 2017 at 05:22:46 PM EST
    be underestimated.  He seems to be building a case for an independent investigation.  Schiff is a very smart lawyer, a graduate of Stanford and Harvard Law. (an interesting side note, his wife's name is Eve).  

    Nunes, himself, a member of the Trump transition team, does not look good in this newest Republican scandal, from railing about leaks and leakers, to racing to the White House to alert possible targets of investigation based on leaks and leakers.  Nunes needs to think a little about involving himself in releasing classified information, not to mention,potentially,  being caught up in obstruction of justice.


    Schiff made news this afternoon (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Mar 22, 2017 at 06:45:12 PM EST
    by saying clearly and publicly for the first time that there is indeed evidence of collusion that is not circumstantial.

    i agree he is a smart guy who seems to have a plan


    The Independent Counsel Act expired (none / 0) (#12)
    by Green26 on Wed Mar 22, 2017 at 05:40:32 PM EST
    in 1999, I believe. Now independent or special counsel investigations have to be authorized by the DOJ. Have there been any since 1999 except for Waco and Plame? If not, 2 in 18 years.

    Nothing I've seen so far comes even close to rising to the level of a DOJ started special counsel investigation. The discussion and arguments look largely political to me, so far.

    Again, as I have said before, I have direct experience defending against an Independent Counsel investigation. The investigation went on for years.


    Yes, Special Counsel, (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by KeysDan on Wed Mar 22, 2017 at 07:05:00 PM EST
    established in the wake of Watergate, expired in 1992, and was re-instated in 1994 by President Clinton, and, then left to expire permanently, in 1999.  I count,too, two Special Prosecutors, since then, Waco (Danford) by AG Reno, and Plame (Fitzgerald) by Deputy AG Comey (AG Ashcroft recused himself).  Sessions has recused himself, leaving any Special Prosecutor to the Deputy.

    I have a different view on whether the Russian/Trump ties suggest an independent investigation, by a Special Prosecutor.  Both Waco and Plame were very important, but neither, in my opinion, are in the same ball park of existential threat to our democracy as we now have before us.

      And, we have the broad-based findings of the entire intelligence community, and, most recently,, the testimony under oath by the FBI Director and NSA Director, Admiral Rogers. The FBI Director indicates that a counter-intelligence investigation is underway, including possible criminal action.

      Representative Adam Schiff outlined what we do know during the opening of House Intelligence Committee hearing, chaired by Nunes.  And, we know a lot..enough to investigate further.  Even the circumstantial evidence is almost as strong as concluding after going to bed and finding snow on the ground, that it snowed during the night.  

    Directly seeing the snow falling will be difficult, but not impossible if there is an independent investigation.  Nunes has disqualified himself, so that takes care of the House.  The Senate Intel Committe is headed by Richard Burr, a Trump supporter.  The fallen snow will only be shoveled higher and trucked away without a Special Prosecutor.


    what Nunes did was so unbelievable (none / 0) (#28)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Mar 22, 2017 at 07:11:22 PM EST
    its reeks of either breathtaking incompetence or real hands down desperation.

    Probably both (none / 0) (#29)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Mar 22, 2017 at 07:24:37 PM EST
    but more desperation I would say. It's now being reported on a lot of news services that there is evidence of collusion between Trump's campaign and Putin.

    Congress can authorize ... (none / 0) (#23)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Mar 22, 2017 at 06:43:22 PM EST
    ... the formation and convening of an independent commission to be tasked with a specific purpose, without first obtaining prior concurrence of the U.S. Dept. of Justice.

    And quite frankly, this particular matter of Russian interference in our 2016 elections demands that an independent commission be convened. Hell, it screams for it.

    Because at present, the GOP congressional leadership's adamantine insistence that investigation instead be handled internally by the respective House and Senate intelligence committees has heretofore served only to fuel a sharp rise in public suspicion that Republican thumbs are on the scales.

    Further, as Congressman Schiff bluntly noted during his own press conference today, the perception of GOP heavy-handedness is causing the investigation to break down in partisan rancor while the congressional committees are literally still in the starting gates:

    "[House Intelligence Committee Chairman David Nunes] will need to decide whether he is the chairman of an independent investigation into conduct which includes allegations of potential coordination between the Trump campaign and the Russians, or he is going to act as a surrogate of the White House because he cannot do both. And unfortunately, I think the actions of today throw great doubt into the ability of both the chairman and the committee to conduct the investigation the way it ought to be conducted.

    "I think it does underscore the importance of establishing an independent commission, a body that is fully independent of any political considerations including those that may emanate from the White House. That would certainly give me a lot of confidence that in addition to whatever work our committee does and the Senate intelligence committee does, that there is a truly independent body that is looking into the grave issues that have been raised."
    - Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA), ranking member, House Select Committee on Intelligence (March 22, 2017)



    Yep - Congress has no credibility (none / 0) (#45)
    by Yman on Wed Mar 22, 2017 at 09:09:08 PM EST
    ... to do it.  Even McCain is saying it:

    It's a bizarre situation, and what I think, the reason why I'm calling for this select committee or a special committee, is I think that this back-and-forth and what the American people have found out so far that no longer does the Congress have credibility to handle this alone," McCain told MSNBC's Greta Van Susteren. "And I don't say that lightly."

    Don't think Schiff is correct on the law (none / 0) (#4)
    by Green26 on Wed Mar 22, 2017 at 05:05:57 PM EST
    and procedure, i.e. the "minimization". My understanding is that any transcript in this situation is supposed to eliminate enough information so that the identify of the US citizen cannot be determined. It's not just that the name be redacted.

    As some of you may recall, I raised the possibility previously that this could be what Trump had been referring to regarding "wiretapping" by Obama. Trump's frequent loose language, either intentional or because he frequently uses imprecise language. I.e. some of the Trump people, or even himself, being caught up in this type of surveillance. Flynn in particular.

    I later did more research, but by the time I had done the research, the thread was full and I didn't see a good place to summarize my research.

    The area is tough and complicated, and I couldn't get a full handle on it from articles and a directive or two. There are about 3 ways to get this general surveillance. One is Fisa. Also 2 other statutes. The minimization doctrine clearly applies to Fisa surveillance. The DOJ/Holder put in place some procedures in 2009 (I think).

    Some of the commentary seems inconsistent.

    It's clear that Trump is already using this as some validation for his prior very loose (or wrong) comments. He says he is now "somewhat" vindicated. In my view, if you give him the benefit of loose comments, I think he is going to have some support for what he said. No wiretap authorized on him or his people, and certainly not by Obama, but some indirect surveillance and apparently some passing around of the information.

    Again, for several reasons, I don't think it was proper, or even legal, for the stuff on Flynn and the Ambassador to be disclosed, and certainly not to be leaked to the press.


    This could be what Trump was referring to.. (5.00 / 2) (#9)
    by jondee on Wed Mar 22, 2017 at 05:32:24 PM EST
    Trump is like the piece of burnt toast in the tabloids in which people "see" pictures of Jesus and Elvis..

    His "imprecise language" being just a cover penetrating insights that only his supporters fully understand.

    "Maybe This is what Trump meant by.."

    It should be obvious by now that Trump could claim we're all the unwitting pawns of the reptilian overlords and he would always have "some support for what he said."

    Trump simply having some support for what he said is not in itself any kind of strong indicator of Trump's statements being grounded in reality.


    Regarding Congressman Schiff and ... (5.00 / 2) (#15)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Mar 22, 2017 at 05:53:02 PM EST
    Green26: "Don't think Schiff is correct on the law and procedure, i.e. the 'minimization'."

    ... his professional credentials on the subject of intelligence and national security, he is a former deputy U.S. Attorney who first came to public prominence in 1990 by successfully prosecuting former FBI agent Richard Miller under the Espionage Act, after Miller had passed secret documents to the Soviet Union "in exchange for a promised $65,000 in gold and cash."

    Schiff was first elected to the California State Senate in Nov. 1996 and then to Congress in Nov. 2000, representing my old hometown of Pasadena, CA. (Disclosure: I worked on both his 1996 State Senate campaign and his first congressional campaign.)

    As ranking member of the House Select Committee on Intelligence, Schiff has been a prominent supporter of surveillance reforms, especially in the wake of the Edward Snowden affair, and a very vocal critic of the NSA's bulk collection of telecommunications metadata.

    Suffice to say that Congressman Schiff very likely knows what he is doing and talking about here. As for Chairman Nunes, perhaps not so much, given that he's publicly divulged that all the information he has seen to date was collected legally and further, "has to deal with FISA and multiple FISA warrants."



    oh (none / 0) (#5)
    by mm on Wed Mar 22, 2017 at 05:19:47 PM EST
    you mean President Obama didn't "tap his wires"?

    Precision? (none / 0) (#21)
    by Repack Rider on Wed Mar 22, 2017 at 06:25:16 PM EST
    I raised the possibility previously that this could be what Trump had been referring to regarding "wiretapping" by Obama. Trump's frequent loose language, either intentional or because he frequently uses imprecise language.

    Like Trump, you do not use real sentences.  You should put a verb in the last word salad.

    I know that you "raised the possibility" that Trump does not have a clue what he is talking about, then you try to walk it back.  When you say this "could be" what he is talking about, you give away the store.  Since there is no actual content to a Trump statement, you make up your own interpretation, like interpreting a Rorschach image.  Like a Rorschach image, every interpretation is equally valid.

    Don't you just love precision?

    This just in.  Trump is not "imprecise."  He is ignorant and stupid, which are not the same thing.


    Nunes just (none / 0) (#10)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Mar 22, 2017 at 05:34:17 PM EST
    made it clear that he can't be trusted to lead an investigation and has put his party over his country. His loyalty is to Trump and not to the US. Besides that he was part of the campaign and he could be in trouble himself.

    What's your support for your opinion? (none / 0) (#13)
    by Green26 on Wed Mar 22, 2017 at 05:43:28 PM EST
    I don't see a problem in what Nunes did, assuming he is telling the truth, which I assume he is. This is just part of modern day politics.

    Plus, I seem to recall you supporting the leaks, surely illegal, of the Flynn stuff to the press. I opposed leaks like that, regardless of party.


    You just questioned the professional integrity of Congressman Schiff regarding this matter, even though he has over two decades of experience as both an attorney and a congressman on the subject of intelligence gathering and surveillance.

    You know, for a guy who regularly claims to be a Democratic voter, you've sure displayed a real knack for repeatedly carrying the Republicans' water buckets around here on a whole host of issues.



    This is my support (none / 0) (#19)
    by Green26 on Wed Mar 22, 2017 at 06:21:05 PM EST
    "The minimization procedure adds that these can be disseminated to other agencies or friendly governments if the US person is anonymised, or including the US person's identity under certain criteria." See article I previously quoted on DOJ directives.

    I believe Schiff's statement on that subject was wrong.

    I am an attorney who has gone to just as good of schools as Schiff, have practiced longer, and have had experience in this general area. Our firm has and has had multiple former US attorneys and asst US Attorneys, and I work with them frequently. Schiff was an asst US attorney for only 6 years.

    I am not a politician like Schiff. He is playing politics, is my view.

    What's your expertise on the subject, Donald? Attorney or not? Not, right?


    Oh, please! (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Mar 22, 2017 at 07:29:56 PM EST
    Don't be so disingenuous to the point of insulting everyone's intelligence here. You're no more "not a politician," than I'm "not a politician."

    The difference here is that I've long admitted my own political biases as a longstanding member of the Democratic Party, while you've done the exact opposite. Despite your claims to both political independence and being a Democratic voter, your posts here more often than not strongly suggest the opposite.

    I mean, just today, you're going to great lengths here to give Trump a totally undue benefit of the doubt regarding his unfounded accusations of being under illegal surveillance by both the Obama administration and Britain's MI6, and you've even further suggested that our focus should instead be on leaks from the Intelligence Community to the media.

    I mean, jeez, guy -- you couldn't adhere to the GOP line any more tightly than if you fell asleep each night on a bed of Republican press releases!

    You know, it's perfectly okay to support GOP causes, candidates and elected officials, and to defend their positions. But at least be honest about where your sympathies are, if only to your own self, while you're doing so.

    I don't claim to be the smartest guy in the room, but I'm certainly not stupid. I've been doing this for 30 years, and I think I've got enough experience to pretty easily identify someone who's a Republican -- or at least, GOP-leaning -- when I hear one. That doesn't mean we can't be friends.

    But when you insist on trying to mislead me and others regarding your actual political orientation, you wind up undercutting your own personal credibility in spite of your otherwise impressive professional credentials.

    Now, that's all I'm going to say on this matter, and I'm going to log off this particular sub-thread.



    But then, leaks are just (none / 0) (#14)
    by jondee on Wed Mar 22, 2017 at 05:52:02 PM EST
    part of modern day politics.

    You don't think (none / 0) (#26)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Mar 22, 2017 at 06:56:24 PM EST
    tattling to the white house what is going on in the intelligence committee is not attempting something? I don't know what. Maybe he wants it moved out of the intelligence committee. That's not the same as leaking. Since Schiff said they now have evidence of collusion I'm sure Nunes was running to tell Trump.

    As far as leaks go I don't know what you are talking about. I said leak investigations go nowhere. And the people leaking are attempting to save our country from Putin running things. Nunes has picked the side of Putin and Trump instead of the side of America but then so has the majority of Republicans. That is why he cannot be trusted to lead any sort of investigation. Even before all this I thought Nunes should not be on the investigation and should recuse himself simply because he was a part of the Trump campaign. Do you think he can investigate himself?  


    There are no words (5.00 / 5) (#17)
    by Repack Rider on Wed Mar 22, 2017 at 06:13:21 PM EST
    This is Trumpspeak for, "I just learned something that everyone else knows."

    Speaking about Abraham Lincoln to members of "The Party of Lincoln":

    "Great president. Most people don't even know he was a Republican," Trump said while addressing attendees at the National Republican Congressional Committee Dinner. "Does anyone know? Lot of people don't know that."

    Trump then said Republicans need to spread the word that Lincoln was a Republican, appearing to be unaware of the fact that the GOP is commonly referred to as the "party of Lincoln."

    "Let's take an ad, let's use one of those PACs," he said.

    Oy (none / 0) (#18)
    by jondee on Wed Mar 22, 2017 at 06:20:12 PM EST
    that's a word that was invented for events and situations for which there are no words.

    I never understood "Oy"... (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by Repack Rider on Wed Mar 22, 2017 at 06:34:21 PM EST
    Until on a visit to NYC I ate in the Carnegie Deli, the greatest delicatessen ever opened.

    I recommend the chicken liver sandwich on rye.

    A waiter was frustrated by some aspect of his job, and as he passed my table, he muttered to himself, "Oy vey."  The inflection and centuries of cultural pain were expressed so completely in two syllables that I finally got it.


    The Carnegie Deli on 7th Ave (none / 0) (#40)
    by Chuck0 on Wed Mar 22, 2017 at 08:33:15 PM EST
    Closed on Dec. 31, 2016. Best cheesecake EVER! Fortunately the mail order business for cheesecake is still open as is the Deli closest to me at the Sands Casino in Bethlehem.

    Second or third best cheesecake ever (none / 0) (#42)
    by Peter G on Wed Mar 22, 2017 at 08:53:29 PM EST
    In the summer of 1974, my summer job apartment-mates ran a blind taste-test among Carnegie Deli's cheesecake, Junior's (of Brooklyn) cheesecake, and the homemade cheesecake my then-girlfriend (now wife of 40+ years) baked from her undergrad roommate's mother's recipe. Envelopes, please?  In third place, IIRC, Carnegie.  Second place, Junior's. Need I say more?

    From a 2013 Guardian article (none / 0) (#8)
    by Green26 on Wed Mar 22, 2017 at 05:29:49 PM EST
    "NSA minimization procedures signed by Holder in 2009 set out that once a target is confirmed to be within the US, interception must stop immediately. However, these circumstances do not apply to large-scale data where the NSA claims it is unable to filter US communications from non-US ones.

    The NSA is empowered to retain data for up to five years and the policy states "communications which may be retained include electronic communications acquired because of limitations on the NSA's ability to filter communications".

    Even if upon examination a communication is found to be domestic - entirely within the US - the NSA can appeal to its director to keep what it has found if it contains "significant foreign intelligence information", "evidence of a crime", "technical data base information" (such as encrypted communications), or "information pertaining to a threat of serious harm to life or property".

    Domestic communications containing none of the above must be destroyed. Communications in which one party was outside the US, but the other is a US-person, are permitted for retention under FAA rules.

    The minimization procedure adds that these can be disseminated to other agencies or friendly governments if the US person is anonymised, or including the US person's identity under certain criteria."


    That article (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Mar 22, 2017 at 05:37:38 PM EST
    does not relate to this. This is a case regarding a foreign agent. That article appears to be regarding large scale data mining.

    The article is right on point (none / 0) (#20)
    by Green26 on Wed Mar 22, 2017 at 06:23:21 PM EST
    General surveillance of a foreign agent.

    Do you think the US gets a specific probably cause warrant on every foreign ambassador and agent?


    Nope (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Mar 22, 2017 at 06:48:16 PM EST
    because you are assuming that Trump's campaign didn't have a FISA warrant on them from Comey and that Flynn et al are just "innocent American citizens" who happened to call the wrong number and speak with foreign agents. Flynn himself was/is a foreign agent and perhaps others on the Trump campaign as well. That's far from your "average American"

    TLers have a short memory (none / 0) (#32)
    by linea on Wed Mar 22, 2017 at 07:51:05 PM EST
    this is the same comey who made the hillary-weiner nexus.

    i remember hearing this on npr while driving to work in the rain and i was SHOCKED at the weiner connection and that the fbi was re-opening the investigation - 11 days before the election!!

    the new york times:
    Hillary Clinton Blames F.B.I. Director for Election Loss


    You are mistaken (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Mar 22, 2017 at 08:03:42 PM EST
    if you think I have any trust in Comey. I do not. I think the investigation should be taken out of his hands and put in the hands of a select panel. I have said time and again that Comey has trashed his reputation. However saying that Comey might have gotten a FISA warrant has nothing to do with whether I think he's doing a good job or a bad job. He might not have even been involved and it might have been an underling.

    I think what you're missing, Mr. Green, (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by Peter G on Wed Mar 22, 2017 at 08:00:38 PM EST
    is the significance in that protocol of the word "target." I don't think anyone is contending that Tr*mp was the "target" of a foreign intelligence investigation which then unexpectedly discovered he was located within the U.S.  The theory most consistent with probability and common sense, is that Tr*mp is a U.S. person who was inadvertently (and probably unexpectedly) overheard during surveillance of a foreign target.  

    Also (none / 0) (#35)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Mar 22, 2017 at 08:06:06 PM EST
    people have to remember that foreign countries have intel services that are tracking some of these associates and the fact that perhaps Trump is showing up on foreign intel has nothing to do with our FISA laws.

    but? (none / 0) (#36)
    by linea on Wed Mar 22, 2017 at 08:10:19 PM EST
    doesnt it appear that intelligence gathering, unrelated to criminal investigation, is selectively being leaked on political opponents?

    Yes, it does, but (none / 0) (#38)
    by Peter G on Wed Mar 22, 2017 at 08:24:53 PM EST
    So what? It should therefore be ignored, regardless of credibility or seriousness?

    i suppose not (none / 0) (#41)
    by linea on Wed Mar 22, 2017 at 08:39:56 PM EST
    but doesnt this buttress my assertion that the intelligence community should be disbanded and there should only be federal police with proper court warrants (no fisa) and military intelligence?

    Nope (none / 0) (#44)
    by Yman on Wed Mar 22, 2017 at 09:04:41 PM EST
    It doesn't.

    FWIW (none / 0) (#31)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Mar 22, 2017 at 07:36:36 PM EST
    Schindler says the top secret intel is devastating and Trump will be forced out of office and his cronies will be indicted. Get ready.

    so.... (none / 0) (#37)
    by linea on Wed Mar 22, 2017 at 08:16:08 PM EST
    the inteligence community will release "top secret intel" to force the current president out ot office?

    we can hope (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Mar 22, 2017 at 08:26:27 PM EST
    Let's be careful what we wish (none / 0) (#47)
    by caseyOR on Wed Mar 22, 2017 at 09:13:15 PM EST
    for. Mike Pence would be a horror as president. He is Steve Brannon's guy. A hateful man. Racist, misogynist, xenophobic, homophobic, and just plain mean.

    Pence was on the ticket, and is now Veep, because Brannon convinced Trump to ditch Christie and choose Pence instead. Nothing good comes from being in cahoots with Bannon.

    I wonder if perhaps the plan all along has been to dump Trump, however that plays out, resignation or impeachment, so that the politically savvy former Congressman and governor, could become president.


    I know! Be still, my beating heart! (none / 0) (#46)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Mar 22, 2017 at 09:11:00 PM EST
    And wouldn't that just be altogether and deliciously ironic? I mean, here's a loudmouthed guy who spent years questioning other Americans' patriotism and even citizenship, and he gets outed as a dimwitted if not altogether willing conduit for hostile Russian ambitions against his own country. Were that to actually happen, his mark will certainly be made in U.S. history, that's for sure - just not likely in the manner that he originally intended.

    Hawaii State Rep. Beth Fukumoto quits GOP. (none / 0) (#43)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Mar 22, 2017 at 09:02:16 PM EST
    "The Republican Party is getting increasingly hostile to different opinions. If you followed what happened at the GOP convention, I got booed for about 10 minutes straight for raising concerns about President Trump, then nominee Trump, and the way he treated women and minorities in many of his remarks. I, at the time, had said this is not, this should not reflect our party.

    "I repeated those sentiments at the women's march last week, and since then, there have been many calls for my resignation, and my caucus members have raised concerns about whether or not that means I'm a Republican, whether or not that means I'm fit for leadership, whether or not that means I should even be an elected official. My caucus has asked me to stop speaking out about Trump and to make a commitment. They've said they'll keep me as minority leader if I make a commitment not to speak out against Trump for the remainder of his term. I don't think that's our job as elected officials. Even more so, I don't think that's our job as citizens."
    - State Rep. Beth Fukumoto (R-Mililani), in a January 27, 2016 letter to her constituents after the Republican National Committee formally censured her for participating the Women's March

    This has been a very painful journey for Beth, and one that's been marked by a steadily increasing stream of racist and sexist abuse directed toward her by white mainland Republicans. Today, after publicly denouncing the GOP as "a failing party," she formally resigned her membership effective immediately, and announced her intent to join the Democratic Party "if they'll even have me."

    Meanwhile, some 4,000 miles to the east in an increasingly amoral political wasteland called Oklahoma, GOP State Rep. George Faught today characterized rape and incest as "the will of God." It's as though he was determined to prove Rep. Fukumoto's point for her.

    So of course, Beth Fukumoto will be welcome. E komo mai.

    Uh, oh (none / 0) (#48)
    by Yman on Wed Mar 22, 2017 at 09:13:59 PM EST
    US Officials: Info suggests Trump associates may have coordinated with Russians

    Not much in the way of details, but this should make fr  an interesting Twitter storm tomorrow.