Friday Open Thread

I've been in court hearings this week so I'm behind on the news. Mr. UnPresident Elect is asking Congress to pay for his border wall (claiming he'll get the money back from Mexico.)

He gets his Russia intelligence briefing today but prefers to tweet about Arnold's lower ratings for Celebrity Apprentice. (The reason the ratings are lower in my view is not that he's more popular than Arnold -- just the opposite-- fewer people are watching now as people are boycotting the show because of Trump, knowing he remains on the credits. (Also it faces much stiffer competition from the Bachelor. Was Trump's Apprentice ever on the same night as the Bachelor? )

The U.S. has added Osama bin Laden's son, Hamza bin Laden to the designated terror list.

This is an open thread, all topics welcome.

< 1,100 Law Profs Write Letter Opposing Jeff Sessions for AG | Sunday Sweets >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Well, it's official (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Jan 06, 2017 at 03:29:20 PM EST
    The report is starting to leak out to the press and Putin directed the propaganda campaign through Wikileaks to help Trump get elected. There's apparently even evidence of the Kremlin celebrating Trump's win.

    So we've got a full fledged Putin stooge going into the white house. We're all going to have to contact our congresscritters over and over and tell them not to support the Putin agenda.

    I am interested in what the evidence is (none / 0) (#15)
    by Green26 on Fri Jan 06, 2017 at 04:09:04 PM EST
    that shows that Putin/Russia actually worked to get Trump elected. Haven't looked at the recent stuff, but the prior stuff wasn't very clear or convincing to me. Inferences.

    It doesn't surprise me that Putin preferred Trump, and didn't like Hillary, from what I've read. It doesn't surprise me that Putin and/or Russian government people were happy Trump won. However, I don't see how celebrating Trump's victory means that the Russians were intentionally helping Trump. Hopefully, something more specific will be released.

    Why does Trump keep doubling and tripling down on what he is saying about Russia on the subject of hacking, when he obviously hasn't had the intel or all of it? He is a very different guy. I know he's combative. I know he won even thought most didn't take him serious. But why does he keep saying and tweeting what he does on this (and other) subjects. Just seems so unnecessary, and stupid. Of course, this type of thing has been going on for the entire campaign, so nothing new.


    If you are genuinely interested (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by Peter G on Fri Jan 06, 2017 at 05:11:01 PM EST
    you can read the report. It was declassified (in large part) and released today.

    The Closest Thing I Could Find to Evidence (none / 0) (#22)
    by RickyJim on Fri Jan 06, 2017 at 06:07:23 PM EST
    in that report is:
    The Kremlin's principal international
    propaganda outlet RT (formerly Russia Today)
    has actively collaborated with WikiLeaks. RT's
    editor-in-chief visited WikiLeaks founder Julian
    Assange at the Ecuadorian Embassy in London
    in August 2013, where they discussed renewing
    his broadcast contract with RT, according to
    Russian and Western media. Russian media
    subsequently announced that RT had become
    "the only Russian media company" to partner
    with WikiLeaks and had received access to
    "new leaks of secret information." RT routinely
    gives Assange sympathetic coverage and
    provides him a platform to denounce the
    United States.
    And to temper any doubts that the reader might have, they keep repeating
    This report is a declassified version of a highly classified assessment; its conclusions are identical to those in the highly classified
    assessment but this version does not include the full supporting information on key elements of the influence campaign.
    They are very convincing that the Kremlin was very much pro Trump.  But is that evidence of guilt of hacking that would stand up in an American Court?

    Classified means (5.00 / 2) (#156)
    by JanaM on Sat Jan 07, 2017 at 11:16:20 PM EST
    they are not going to tell you. They are not going to reveal their assets and where they have their own software or anything of the sort.

    I think they have probably gone as far as they can - maybe further than they should have even - to make it clear what happened.

    But I imagine that those who took everything out of Trump's mouth at face value with zero proof will never see the irony.


    Unless the Democratic Party chooses ... (none / 0) (#24)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri Jan 06, 2017 at 06:12:42 PM EST
    ... to file a lawsuit against Vladimir Putin and Russia, I very seriously doubt that this will get anywhere near a courtroom -- and even then.

    We really ought to take this matter very seriously as a national security issue, and not do so with caveats and qualifiers attached.



    Where is the evidence that the Russians (none / 0) (#32)
    by Green26 on Fri Jan 06, 2017 at 08:00:12 PM EST
    were pro-Trump, or more specifically trying to get Trump elected, as opposed to anti-Clinton? I see some of the conclusions, but not the specifics.

    Anti Clinton (none / 0) (#43)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Jan 06, 2017 at 08:44:57 PM EST
    is the same thing as helping Trump get elected. She was the threat to keeping Donald out of the White House wasn't she? They're not stupid and knew that it would put Donald in the White House and have you actually listened to what Donald said about Putin? How he praised Putin? Donald also got the GOP platform changed so that it was Putin friendly. Trump's stated goals such as eliminating NATO and other things dovetail with the same goals of Putin. Why wouldn't Putin want to help someone get elected that would help him obtain his goals? The evidence is all there but you just don't want to see it.

    Do you really think that Putin would have gone to bat for someone like Jeb Bush even though he hated Hillary? He would have had nothing to gain in that scenario. He's been funding these conservative movements all over Europe. He interfered in the Ukraine. The fact that he helped Donald should not be surprising to anyone.

    And you can add the behavior of McConnell and Ryan as evidence that Putin helped Trump because Ryan completely shut down any investigation in the house and McConnell wanted to control any investigation in the senate.  


    Your opinions are yours (5.00 / 1) (#94)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Jan 07, 2017 at 09:38:52 AM EST
    but facts are facts.

    Trump's stated goals such as eliminating NATO

    That is not true. His stated goal, time and again, is to have our allies, including NATO countries, become more engage by paying their fair share.


    He has said (3.67 / 3) (#97)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Jan 07, 2017 at 10:12:33 AM EST
    that if NATO is not restructured that the US will pull out of NATO essentially threatening to destroy the alliances. So basically he's blackmailing NATO in an attempt to destroy them. This is also a stated goal of Putin.

    Pucker up for Putin quisling.


    Trump is a negotiator (3.00 / 2) (#99)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Jan 07, 2017 at 10:37:41 AM EST
    He's put a position out there.

    Now I realize that you're suffering from TDS but try and understand.

    What's implied is that a new group would be formed. Perhaps it would include the Ukraine but lose Spain.

    Maybe Israel comes in....

    Maybe Japan and Korea...

    Both provide pressure to Russia's back.

    What your seeing is the possibility that we reshuffle the deck and get a more modern and affordable alliance.

    Maybe the people who have been getting a free ride since WWII start paying for the defense they get.

    It is amazing to see that you don't want the US to be a policeman in the Islamic world, where we have enemies sworn to destroy us.

    Yet you want us to defend people who have the capability to pay their fair share but don't want to.


    You can't be fckn serious, Jim. (5.00 / 1) (#138)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sat Jan 07, 2017 at 04:01:05 PM EST
    jimakaPPJ: "Maybe the people who have been getting a free ride since WWII start paying for the defense they get. It is amazing to see that you don't want the US to be a policeman in the Islamic world, where we have enemies sworn to destroy us. Yet you want us to defend people who have the capability to pay their fair share but don't want to."

    NATO is what has kept Europe from turning in on itself and imploding, as it did twice within a 25-year period during the first half of the 20th century, at a cost of 70 million lives. A stable, prosperous and cooperative Europe is in our country's best long-term interests, whereas a hyper-militarized Germany and France eyeing each other warily is not.

    And now, you want to put all that up for negotiation, on the word of a self-flattering egomaniacal trust-fund baby who probably couldn't find half the countries in modern-day Europe on an unlabeled map. Jeez, talk about putting party before country.



    And your point is that (none / 0) (#141)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Jan 07, 2017 at 04:26:19 PM EST
    we should keep on protecting the world while our economy implodes, people can't afford health care and the expectation is now that you, if lucky enough to have a job, work till you die?

    Why yes. That's it!

    Time for some change, Donald.

    The middle class loves them some Donald.

    It's only the elite Demos, like you, and the Demos, like McCain, who have a problem.


    Yep, John McCain is now a "Demo" ... (5.00 / 1) (#153)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sat Jan 07, 2017 at 10:43:17 PM EST
    ... and nearly 66 million elitists voted for Hillary Clinton, while less than 63 million real middle class Americans supported Trump. Gotcha.

    The computer says, "No."


    Do they? (none / 0) (#146)
    by Yman on Sat Jan 07, 2017 at 05:48:31 PM EST
    The middle class loves them some Donald.

    Did he win a big majority of middle class voters unlike his minority of votes among Americans ... or are you jut making false claims - like your candidate?


    Well, we all know our resident (none / 0) (#142)
    by jondee on Sat Jan 07, 2017 at 04:27:27 PM EST
    unwavering, always-on-message, talking points parrot would be talking about nothing but strengthening NATO and solidifying our international partnerships, if that's all Trump had ever said.

    And then impugning the loyalty of "lefties" who want us to be attacked as punishment for colonialism, or some such nonsense.


    That's hysterical. (4.00 / 4) (#101)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Jan 07, 2017 at 10:47:57 AM EST
    You guys are literally twisting yourselves into pretzels. Oh, Trump meant this or he didn't mean that and this is what Trump REALLY MEANT. ROTFLMAO.

    You don't get it (none / 0) (#98)
    by TrevorBolder on Sat Jan 07, 2017 at 10:31:08 AM EST
    Or refuse to.
    Zalena Zito (from the Atlantic) pegged this during the campaign

    In August, as a guest on MSNBC's Meet the Press Daily, I noted that voters take Donald Trump seriously but not literally, while journalists take him literally, but not seriously.
    The rubric got traction on social media, became the headline of a widely read piece for The Atlantic by savvy columnist Salena Zito, and has been oft-repeated by other commentators, including tech pioneer and Trump backer Peter Thiel in a much-watched National Press Club address.


    So you're (5.00 / 1) (#100)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Jan 07, 2017 at 10:46:06 AM EST
    promoting the idea that Donald is an idiot. Oh, yeah, Donald was just joking. Whatever. The joke is on you Trevor. You can keep apologizing for Putin but I'm not going to.

    How (none / 0) (#102)
    by FlJoe on Sat Jan 07, 2017 at 10:49:27 AM EST
    about a man crafting his words to be both serious and literal, anything else is a lie.

    His supporters don't ... (none / 0) (#147)
    by Yman on Sat Jan 07, 2017 at 05:51:25 PM EST
    ..."take him seriously".  IOW, they don't care if he exaggerates and lies, because they like his lies.

    So true.


    Yes (none / 0) (#49)
    by TrevorBolder on Fri Jan 06, 2017 at 08:49:52 PM EST
    Do you really think that Putin would have gone to bat for someone like Jeb Bush even though he hated Hillary?

    No matter who the opponent was, Vlad was determined to get back at Madame Sec.


    Ah, a true (1.00 / 1) (#52)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Jan 06, 2017 at 08:55:13 PM EST
    blue Putin apologist. It's all Hillary's fault that Putin did what he did. How juvenile. Putin gets a lot from electing Trump. He would have gotten nothing from electing Jeb Bush.

    An interesting (5.00 / 1) (#73)
    by KeysDan on Fri Jan 06, 2017 at 10:33:34 PM EST
    part of the Kremlim's campaign (in addition to the hacking, false news) is blogs and trolls.

    So petty (none / 0) (#50)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Jan 06, 2017 at 08:52:19 PM EST
    Over compensating for something

    Yes, I think Putin/Russia might have denigrated (none / 0) (#80)
    by Green26 on Sat Jan 07, 2017 at 01:11:33 AM EST
    Clinton had Jeb Bush been the Repub nominee. Russia apparently started this cyber stuff before Trump was the nominee. And was denigrating Clinton even though they thought she would win.

    Putin apparently didn't like Clinton. That had nothing to do with Trump been the nominee.

    Do you really think Russia started its cyber and other stuff just to help Trump?


    I (5.00 / 1) (#90)
    by FlJoe on Sat Jan 07, 2017 at 08:24:06 AM EST
    think that Putin hates Hillary meme is way overblown. Russia already has a track record of supporting right wing politicians across Europe, a pattern that has absolutely nothing to do Putin's personal animosities.

    IMO, Putin is way to cagey to take provocative actions such as these out of some personal vendetta, I doubt it had much, if any effect on his calculations.

    It's obvious to me that Putin considered Hillary a formidable opponent and Trump a pushover. It's very doubtful that he would see such a difference between her and Bush.

    Maybe Putin would have attacked Hillary if Bush had won the nomination out of pure spite, more likely he would have kept his powder dry rather than bust his balls to help an unreconstructed neo-con.

    In any case, Bush would have never praised Putin, egged him on in criminal behavior and would have believed the intelligence and strongly condemned the Russian activity.

    Bush would never have surrounded himself with such Russian sycophants as, Manafort, Flynn, Tillerson and the mysterious Carter Paige.

    Putting aside the actual motives and machinations of Putin and all the rest of players, the bottom line is that Trump's victory is a huuuge win for Putin. If you don't see that you are lying to yourself.


    The whole (none / 0) (#91)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Jan 07, 2017 at 08:39:28 AM EST
    "Putin hates Hillary" is basically blaming her for Trump and Putin apologia. It also ignores all the pro Putin things Trump and Pence have done and said.

    You honestly (none / 0) (#86)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Jan 07, 2017 at 07:38:49 AM EST
    should quit making excuses for Putin. All the cyber attacks happened after Trump entered the presidential race. Right? They attacked the RNC did they not? When they attacked the DNC Trump was leading in the polls in the GOP primary wasn't he? I mean this is not rocket science. Had Trump not been leading in the polls it's entirely conceivable that Putin could have used what he got against Jeb Bush or another candidate.

    And frankly Putin would have never even been successful without people like you spreading his propaganda.


    Didn't you mean (none / 0) (#140)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Jan 07, 2017 at 04:17:39 PM EST
    All the cyber attacks happened after Hillary entered the presidential race????

    Trump (3.00 / 2) (#144)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Jan 07, 2017 at 04:38:17 PM EST
    announced he was running for president in June of 2016. Cozy bear, the name the Russians, used started hacking the DNC in the summer around the same time. Hillary started announced around 2 months before the Russians started hacking. So the Russian hackers started at the same time Donald decided to run for president. I mean c'mon Jim. There's literally reams and reams of evidence that Trump is a Putin stooge. I know you'll never accept it but it's the facts and the truth.

    Also, don't necessarily agree that (none / 0) (#81)
    by Green26 on Sat Jan 07, 2017 at 01:15:10 AM EST
    going after Clinton is the same thing as helping Trump. Two different things. Could have eventually been connected, but started before Trump was nominee.

    Please show the direct evidence that Russia was helping Trump. Not saying that didn't occur. Just haven't seen the evidence.

    Had Trump not been the nominee, do you think Russia would have not given anything to Wikileaks?


    Have you forgotten (none / 0) (#88)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Jan 07, 2017 at 07:49:52 AM EST
    that Trump's campaign manager had direct ties to Putin when all this was going on? You seem to be deliberately ignoring all the ties that Trump had to Putin.

    You're twisting yourself into a pretzel apologizing for Putin. It's entirely conceivable that Putin would have done nothing to help another GOP candidate. Why would he waste his time enabling a candidate who was going to be tough on him like say Jeb Bush? There would be no benefit to Putin by electing Jeb Bush. You are basically saying however that Putin would have enabled any Republican and the entire GOP would do Putin's bidding. I don't know. Maybe the entire GOP has fallen under Putin's control.


    Feel free to tell us about the communications (none / 0) (#103)
    by Green26 on Sat Jan 07, 2017 at 11:06:51 AM EST
    that you believe the Russian govt and Trump camp had, and give us some links. Or feel free to tell us what you think the communications were. That would be funny.

    I have never made any excuses for Putin. Never said anything positive about him. You have Putin on the brain. Your mode of posting is apparently that when someone doesn't agree with you, you accuse them of supporting Putin. Again, pretty funny.

    Putin apparently disliked Clinton, for several reasons. Apparently had the Russian govt try to "denigrate" her. Russia was gearing up for that and doing it before Trump was the nominee. That would have occurred no matter who the Repub nominee wasr. Russia wanted to undercut her credibility for when she became president.

    It makes sense to me that Russia would have done about the same thing no matter who ran against Clinton.  Governments sometimes take sides in elections. It's happened for decades. The US has done that. The difference this time is that Russians cranked it up several notches.

    We will see if the US can stop this in the future. We will see how the US responds. I'm not so optimistic that it can be stopped. Maybe I will be proven wrong.

    I hope there is a bipartisan investigation. I hope more detail can come out.


    Well, I would (5.00 / 1) (#106)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Jan 07, 2017 at 11:18:52 AM EST
    support a full independent investigation to Putin's ties to Trump. What we do know is his campaign manager had ties to Putin along with other associations. Here is a report of Trump's financial ties to Putin and the Russian oligarchs.

    You continually try to deflect the blame onto Hillary for Putin enabling Trump. Trump has had long standing ties to Putin going back at least a decade or more before Hillary ever ran for President. It's tiresome.

    Do you support a full independent investigation of Trump and his ties to Putin? All I can tell you is that both McConnell and Ryan do not support this. That speaks volumes.


    I would like a full bipartisan investigation (none / 0) (#110)
    by Green26 on Sat Jan 07, 2017 at 11:43:45 AM EST
    of the Russian hacking and involvement in the US election. If that investigation wants to include relevant communications/ties between the hacking/interference of Russia and the Trump campaign, that's fine with me. Don't think an investigation of all of Trump's connection to Russia and Russian interests is relevant, tho. The Clintons had many prior interactions with Russia and Russians too. Also, not relevant.

    Seems that the current intel invetigation/report already has looked at much of what you propose, don't you think.


    So you (none / 0) (#116)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Jan 07, 2017 at 12:03:37 PM EST
    don't support an independent investigation. You are supporting an investigation where the GOP can control what is investigated and turn off microphones when people ask tough questions etc. Trump is not putting any of his business interests in a blind trust. Therefore all his ties to Russian money and the fact that Russians can pull his strings with money should concern you. However it seems you are more interested in covering up and protecting Trump and secondly Putin than the interests of the country.

    It seems a lot has been covered by intelligence yes but a blue ribbon panel would give us better information. Republicans make me laugh. They had 8 stupid investigations into Benghazi, Hillary sat there for 11 hours answering questions but they don't want something as serious as Putin interfering in an election thoroughly investigated.  


    Easy Peasey (5.00 / 1) (#126)
    by FlJoe on Sat Jan 07, 2017 at 12:31:13 PM EST
    Donald Trump Jr. Held Talks on Syria With Russia Supporters,

    Then there are also questions "lingering" around Manafort:
    FBI Making Inquiry Into Ex-Trump Campaign Manager's Foreign Ties

    Flynn: rump's National Security Adviser pick raises serious questions about Putin's influence over US policy

    and the mysterious Carter Paige: Donald Trump advisor meetings with Russian officials being investigated

    With confirmation  from the Russians themselves

    MOSCOW -- The Russian government maintained contacts with members of Donald J. Trump's "immediate entourage" during the American presidential campaign, one of Russia's top diplomats said Thursday.

    "There were contacts," Sergei A. Ryabkov, the deputy foreign minister, was quoted as saying by the Interfax news agency. "We continue to do this and have been doing this work during the election campaign," he said.

    Mr. Ryabkov said officials in the Russian Foreign Ministry were familiar with many of the people he described as Mr. Trump's entourage. "I cannot say that all, but a number of them maintained contacts with Russian representatives," Mr. Ryabkov said.

    No smoking guns, but the preponderance of publicly published information points to existence of communications. As to the the contents of these communications, that's anybody's guess, maybe the CIA/FBI knows maybe the don't.

    It's not like anybody is directly accusing Trump of actually colluding with the Russians(but the optics sure look bad!) so why are you so defensive? Funny!


    Per the Moscow Times (Nov. 10, 2016): (5.00 / 2) (#154)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sat Jan 07, 2017 at 10:50:05 PM EST
    "Russia's Foreign Ministry confirmed that it had contact with U.S. President-elect Donald Trump's campaign team prior to Tuesday's election. Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov told journalists on Thursday that his ministry had such contacts during the campaign and would continue to maintain them afterward. When asked if Russia would try to intensify those contacts, Ryabkov said that it would depend on the situation and issues Russia faces." Emphasis is mine.)



    i imagine (none / 0) (#57)
    by linea on Fri Jan 06, 2017 at 09:08:16 PM EST
    putin is both anti-hillary and pro-trump. i imagine if trump were not the republican candidate, putin would still have attempted to sabotage hillary's campaign. seems he got a double bonus.

    i would be the first person to want a normalization of relations between america/europe and russia. but using a military action on the eurasian continent to change modern borders is beyond any reasonable standard. what next? annexing estonia to rescue russian prostitutes?


    Agreed (none / 0) (#93)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Jan 07, 2017 at 09:30:31 AM EST
    but using a military action on the eurasian continent to change modern borders is beyond any reasonable standard

    And it happened under Obama's and Hillary's watch.


    It happened before the Ukraine ... (5.00 / 2) (#96)
    by Yman on Sat Jan 07, 2017 at 10:09:24 AM EST
    I just finished doing so. (none / 0) (#23)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri Jan 06, 2017 at 06:07:43 PM EST
    It's quite damning, actually - and even more so, in light of the fact that Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov admitted only two days after the election that the Kremlin had maintained regular contact with the Trump campaign.

    We're in the sort of situation for which the acronym FUBAR was created.


    I skimmed the report and read a couple articles (none / 0) (#31)
    by Green26 on Fri Jan 06, 2017 at 07:58:11 PM EST
    on it, but didn't see anything specific that answered my questions. A conclusion or two, but not the specifics. The longer classified report probably has more information.

    The report says the Russians had a comprehensive cyber campaign to sabotage the presidential election and ultimately sought to help elect Trump.

    Over time, Russia developed a clear preference for Trump and sought to artificially boost his chances. Again, either didn't see or missed the specific evidence, or its not there.

    Russia thought Clinton would win. Russia "focused on finding ways to undercut Clinton's legitimacy". WaPost article.

    Putin avoided saying good things about Trump, just talked about policies supported by Trump. Liked Trump's willingness to work with Russia.

    Putin had "aspired to help President-elect Trump's election chances when possible by discrediting Secretary Clinton and publicly contrasting her unfavorably to him." Again, can't see or didn't notice what supports the "help Trump's chances", as opposed to the denigrating Clinton. If one doesn't like Clinton, one can denigrate Clinton without necessarily intended to elect Trump, especially when you don't think Trump is going to win.

    The US intercepted communications where top Russian officials congratulated themselves on Trump's win. WaPost article. I guess I still don't see how that proves anything, unless the communications were very specific, like "I'm glad out efforts to elect Trump worked".

    No files given to Wikileaks were forgeries.

    This Russian campaign was a large escalation of things they had been doing for years.

    Hopefully, some of you sharp readers can provide some better specifics to make the connection I can't see.


    From the NY Times (none / 0) (#39)
    by Green26 on Fri Jan 06, 2017 at 08:28:31 PM EST
    "The report cites positive Russian news coverage of Mr. Trump's victory as confirmation that Mr. Putin's government took sides in the election."

    Sorry, I just don't see how positive news coverage of Trump's election is confirmation that Putin's government took sides, or worked to get Trump elected. Is anyone surprised that many in Russia including in the Russian government preferred Trump over Clinton?

    "In the agencies' view, the Russian government sees Mr. Trump's victory as one in a series of wins for populist movements championed by Mr. Putin."

    Ya. So what?


    There's more than that. (3.67 / 3) (#45)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Jan 06, 2017 at 08:46:18 PM EST
    Quit being a Putin apologist.

    Amazing, isn't it? (none / 0) (#46)
    by MKS on Fri Jan 06, 2017 at 08:48:23 PM EST
    When all else fails, demand a level of proof that you would never require in other situations.

    Further, he demands the sort of details ... (5.00 / 3) (#55)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri Jan 06, 2017 at 09:04:26 PM EST
    ... which he would never otherwise receive without first having a high-level security clearance. These guys are like the Vichy French, placing party before country. It's probably best to avoid debate with people who depend upon the regular moving of goal posts.

    Yes, the Russian/Trump (5.00 / 4) (#92)
    by KeysDan on Sat Jan 07, 2017 at 08:49:45 AM EST
    agents/apologists, need evidence, to disprove the sullying of Trump's election. Hard evidence, perhaps, such as that Comey produced in his letter to eight Congressional Committee Chairs eleven days before the election--- against DOJ and FBI policies.

    "In connection with an unrelated case, the FBI has learned of the existence of emails that appear pertinent to the investigation, Comey wrote the Chairs (with copies), "I am writing to inform you that the investigation team briefed me on this yesterday, and I agreed that the FBI should take appropriate investigative steps designed to review these emails to determine whether they contain classified information as well as to assess their importance to our investigation."

     Comey, at the time, had not read any of these "new" emails, and, did not yet have a warrant to access the emails from that "unrelated" case. But, he just had to inform Republican Chairs and the American people so they were not mislead.

    However, the evidence of that letter was solid for Trump, who pronounced at the time: this.."showed Clinton engaged in corruption on a scale we have never seen before."  His supporters cheered in agreement.


    The level (3.67 / 3) (#53)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Jan 06, 2017 at 08:58:12 PM EST
    of apologia coming out of these people is amazing. They are now apologizing for Neo Nazis, the Klan, Putin, white supremacists and every other vile right wing group there is out there.

    Trump apologist too (none / 0) (#47)
    by MKS on Fri Jan 06, 2017 at 08:49:36 PM EST
    And severe critic of all things Progressive and Democratic.

    Why does Trump (5.00 / 3) (#25)
    by KeysDan on Fri Jan 06, 2017 at 06:17:27 PM EST
    keep doubling and tripling down...?  It is puzzling; given his egocentric personality, a good guess is that he just can't stand anyone thinking he didn't, or couldn't, win the presidency on his own.

     A view bolstered by Trump's response following his Intel briefing today---"absolutely did not have an effect."  So, some headway may have been made on the intelligence being compelling (or as he says, "constructive." ). Apparently, the Kremlin's efforts were ineffective so it does not matter to him.  And, it shouldn't to us, he thinks.

    However, the doubling and tripling down may be even mores sinister--Trump's campaign to de-demonize Putin for other reasons, ranging from, or including, his being beholden to Putin and his oligarchs, to his worldview of teaming up with Russia as a bulwark against modernity and the other. The oddity of Trump's defense of Putin and that of that guy holed up in the Ecuadorean embassy, Assange, against all US intel agencies, invites speculation.

    Trump having tweeted tirelessly to convince the American people that the intelligence community is not to be trusted, he will have to tweet all the harder to change opinions when intelligence officers inform him of a clear and present danger.  Although, he has probably thought of that, in that he can say that he has replaced all those  Obama "political" officers (with his) and has "reformed" those agencies.  Now, they are trustworthy.   After all, Trump is putting effort into creating a ministry of propaganda, as is the way of authoritarians, real or wannabes.


    Report is underwhelming at best - NY Times (3.50 / 2) (#114)
    by Green26 on Sat Jan 07, 2017 at 11:56:38 AM EST
    "The unclassified report is underwhelming at best. There is essentially no new information for those who have been paying attention."

    "What is missing from the public report is what many Americans most eagerly anticipated: hard evidence to back up the agencies' claims that the Russian government engineered the election attack. That is a significant omission...."

    "...the message from the agencies essentially amounts to "trust us." There is no discussion of the forensics used to recognize the handiwork of known hacking groups, no mention of intercepted communications between the Kremlin and the hackers, no hint of spies reporting from inside Moscow's propaganda machinery."

    "The absence of any proof is especially surprising in light of promises on Thursday from the director of national intelligence, James R. Clapper Jr., that he would "push the envelope" to try to make more information public."

    "While some welcomed the scope of the report, many others were disappointed."

    NY Times article.


    That is (5.00 / 1) (#119)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Jan 07, 2017 at 12:09:45 PM EST
    an "analysis" not a news story. Perhaps if you are such a fan of the NYT you should read this article Putin led a complex cyber scheme to aid Trump

    Ga6, had already looked at your linked Times (none / 0) (#122)
    by Green26 on Sat Jan 07, 2017 at 12:15:16 PM EST
    article. It offers only conclusions and "assessments". As these other articles say, there is little or no proof or specifics provided.

    One of the things sited is to a news show 6 years ago. Wow, that is some kind of proof. The woman from that show is mocking the report too.

    Feel free to cull the specifics or proof out of your article or the report and show us. I read the report. The proof and specifics aren't in it.


    Funnty stuff (5.00 / 2) (#149)
    by Yman on Sat Jan 07, 2017 at 05:59:53 PM EST
    The report has conclusions you don't like, so you once again try to discredit it by demanding specifics that you know won't be revealed, since they would reveal classified sources and methods.

    But the intelligence agencies should do it anyway to satisfy you.

    Heh ...


    It's quite (3.00 / 2) (#124)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Jan 07, 2017 at 12:17:57 PM EST
    obvious you are going to continually make excuses for Trump and side with Putin and believe him over the US intelligence agencies. Are you one of those Russian trolls that Putin has been sending around to blogs? Honestly you sound like one.

    Nope, have never made an excuse for Putin (1.00 / 1) (#129)
    by Green26 on Sat Jan 07, 2017 at 01:51:07 PM EST
    Pretty funny that you can't or won't cite any specific evidence to support the report's concessionary statements--yet you just keep on ticking. That's all I'm looking for. I haven't even challenged or doubted the conclusions. Just want the specifics, support or evidence.

    There is nothing (none / 0) (#125)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Jan 07, 2017 at 12:29:55 PM EST
    in that linked article about a show 6 years ago. It talks about Flynn's appearance on RT a Kremlin propaganda network which has become very embarrassing for Flynn and Trump. Wingnut welfare talking points can easily be destroyed with fact checking and reading.

    Huh, look at this quote (none / 0) (#127)
    by Green26 on Sat Jan 07, 2017 at 01:46:33 PM EST
    which I had already quoted right by your post.

    "Margarita Simonyan, the editor in chief of RT, a state-funded television network that broadcasts in English, who is cited repeatedly in the report, posted her own message on Twitter scoffing at the American intelligence community's accusations.Aaa, the CIA report is out! Laughter of the year! Intro to my show from 6 years ago is the main evidence of Russia's influence at US elections. This is not a joke!" she wrote."


    That is not in the article I linked to. (none / 0) (#130)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Jan 07, 2017 at 02:00:41 PM EST
    Google that phrase which I did here and that person you are quoting is identified as a Kremlin propagandist. You obviously did not read the article I linked to in the NYT because that paragraph is not in that article.

    Here is the link again. There is no Margarita mentioned in that article and again you're talking the word of a Kremlin propagandist. What on earth are you doing? Is English your primary language or is it Russian? You sure do act like a paid Russian troll spreading Kremlin propaganda.


    Why don't you look at the article I linked (none / 0) (#134)
    by Green26 on Sat Jan 07, 2017 at 02:19:57 PM EST
    I'm not talking about articles you linked. Jeez.

    The article (3.00 / 2) (#135)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Jan 07, 2017 at 02:29:32 PM EST
    you linked to has no quote by the Russian propagandist you are pushing. And like i said before it's not a hard news article. It's calling itself "analysis"

    Well, if you walk like a Putin apologist and talk like a Putin apologist, all I can say is you are a Putin apologist. And what you post is just bizarre promoting a known Russian propagandist and it's like you have to go back to headquarters to get your info and post here and you act like you cannot read English. Is Russian your primary language? Jeralyn should seriously consider the fact that you are promoting Russian propaganda on her blog.


    This is the article I inked to in post no. 121 (none / 0) (#151)
    by Green26 on Sat Jan 07, 2017 at 10:20:08 PM EST
    NY Times article, again.

    This is the quote in the article, again, for the second time.

    "Margarita Simonyan, the editor in chief of RT, a state-funded television network that broadcasts in English, who is cited repeatedly in the report, posted her own message on Twitter scoffing at the American intelligence community's accusations.Aaa, the CIA report is out! Laughter of the year! Intro to my show from 6 years ago is the main evidence of Russia's influence at US elections. This is not a joke!" she wrote."


    hahahahahahahahaha .... (5.00 / 1) (#163)
    by Yman on Sun Jan 08, 2017 at 07:45:58 AM EST
    You're actually citing the editor of RT to try to support your argument?!?!



    Yman, I made no argument (1.00 / 1) (#171)
    by Green26 on Sun Jan 08, 2017 at 11:46:03 AM EST
    I provided quotes from a NY Times article saying that Russia was mocking the recent report. This was one of the quotes. I assume the NY Times writer furnished the quote because it showed what the article was saying, i.e. that Russia was making fun of the report. Consider reading and following the thread better before your post.

    Nooooo ... of COURSE not! (5.00 / 1) (#179)
    by Yman on Sun Jan 08, 2017 at 01:04:27 PM EST
    All you were doing was repeating the quote from the RT editor - you weren't suggesting it had any actual meaning!

    Heh, heh, heh ...

    Consider learning to write before you post.


    Yes, you just cite (none / 0) (#172)
    by MKS on Sun Jan 08, 2017 at 12:35:15 PM EST
    something and say, "voila!" and imply that is the last word, without providing any work product of your own.

    So, why did you cite the article?  What was the purpose except to back the pro-Putin, pro-Trump position?


    Funny that you think you are so smart (none / 0) (#175)
    by Green26 on Sun Jan 08, 2017 at 12:52:40 PM EST
    that you know what I'm thinking or intending. At least, you've effectively admitted that I said no such thing.

    Talke a position, Green (none / 0) (#177)
    by MKS on Sun Jan 08, 2017 at 12:54:43 PM EST
    Don't just cite something that implies support of  Trump....State why it does support him.

    Can you do that?


    Nope, not on this subject (3.00 / 2) (#180)
    by Green26 on Sun Jan 08, 2017 at 01:05:52 PM EST
    Just trying to learn more about the situation and subject. I read the report twice. Did you read it? Have no intention of supporting Trump on this. Don't like the guy. Haven't for decades.

    I have a request for you. Stop lying about what I have said or what you think I am thinking. Try reading posts more carefully. Try looking inside the links to see what people have cited. Improve your manners.


    I am not lying (5.00 / 1) (#186)
    by MKS on Sun Jan 08, 2017 at 01:35:04 PM EST
    I see Trump apologist Trevor is supporting you here.

    You are being evasive, seeking protection behind a just asking questions shtick.


    Lol (4.00 / 1) (#188)
    by TrevorBolder on Sun Jan 08, 2017 at 02:14:20 PM EST
    Oh, The Derangement Syndrome is very strong here.

    This latest outbreak will make BDS look like a walk in the park.

    Myself, I will wait until The Donald actually does something that deserves outrage. Which will be coming, but, not yet. He isn't even the President yet.


    By calling him "The Donald" (5.00 / 1) (#189)
    by MKS on Sun Jan 08, 2017 at 02:18:40 PM EST
    you show that you think he is just the biggest cut-up, very entertaining--and your guy.

    You are defending him all the time here.

    Why is that?

    Frankly, I think you, Jim and Green create more discord and confusion here, and take up too much space with GOP talking points.


    Why is that? (5.00 / 5) (#201)
    by jondee on Sun Jan 08, 2017 at 03:18:49 PM EST
    A couple of them are transparent: Trevor's the deregulate and privatize, "drown government in a bathtub" guy straight from central casting..Jim's the prototypic Fox News cranky old white man who wants revenge for the sixties..and Green is still at a stage where he prefers to keep his intent shrouded while he gets in as much concern trolling and blog-clogging as he can.

    So, Trump has yet to (none / 0) (#192)
    by MKS on Sun Jan 08, 2017 at 02:22:26 PM EST
    do anything worthy of outrage?

    Really?  Nothing?  Wow.  You have a different set of values than me.

    You mean, Trump's making fun of the disabled was not worthy of outrage?


    Nine (none / 0) (#166)
    by FlJoe on Sun Jan 08, 2017 at 08:47:37 AM EST
    out of ten quislings prefer RT.

    Link below (none / 0) (#152)
    by Green26 on Sat Jan 07, 2017 at 10:23:39 PM EST
    ROTFLMAO (5.00 / 2) (#160)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Jan 08, 2017 at 03:40:00 AM EST
    So basically you're going to believe the Russians and the Kremlin over the United States intelligence agencies? Quit saying you're a Putin apologist because you just proved that you are.

    I have not take any position on the recent (none / 0) (#170)
    by Green26 on Sun Jan 08, 2017 at 11:39:08 AM EST
    report, other than to point out things, provide quotes and ask questions. Have never said anything positive about Putin or Trump. However, you continue to spew mis-information and lie. Looks like you were finally able to locate an article that was linked twice in this thread, and was the lead NY Times article for a while on the website. Slowly but surely with you.

    And you have been unable or unwilling to point out the specific evidence or intelligence that supports the conclusion that Putin worked to get Trump elected. Perhaps it is in the classified report.


    Really disengenous response (5.00 / 1) (#173)
    by MKS on Sun Jan 08, 2017 at 12:38:48 PM EST
    You just ask questions?  You take no position?

    Sure.  Just questions that imply disbelief in the Intelligence Community's assessment on the Russian hacking.

    You will not believe the Intelligence Community because they do not reveal the details of their sources and methods.  That is a dishonest approach.



    This time I just asked a question (none / 0) (#178)
    by Green26 on Sun Jan 08, 2017 at 12:57:00 PM EST
    Where is the specific support for assessing that Putin intended to help Trump get elected? Sometimes I take positions, sometimes I don't. Nothing disingenuous about that.  Look in the media and all over the internet. Lots of people, commentators and reporters are asking the same question that I asked.

    You state, lots of people (none / 0) (#185)
    by MKS on Sun Jan 08, 2017 at 01:32:21 PM EST
    are asking the same questions.  Sure, "lots."  Lost of Trump apologists, that is.

    And, as someone who says they are well informed on foreign policy and military issues, you should surely know that the granular evidence in support of the Intelligence Community's report is classified.

    But that doesn't stop you--you want the Intelligence Community to publicly release their sources and methods.  You should know better than that.


    Trump apologists like Glenn Greenwald? (none / 0) (#191)
    by Green26 on Sun Jan 08, 2017 at 02:20:16 PM EST
    Glenn Greenwald  ✔@ggreenwald (2 Jan. 6 tweets below):

    "It's shocking how much this report was hyped and how literally no effort was made to include any evidence at all"

    "Every time IC repackages its same assertions in a new form, media acts like it's been proven, even though it - again - includes no evidence"

    Social media is all over the report and its lack of specifics and evidence.


    GG is on his own (5.00 / 1) (#194)
    by MKS on Sun Jan 08, 2017 at 02:34:14 PM EST
    More cites to other people's opinions.  

    Why do you not have the courage of your  convictions and state what your opinion is?  

    The GOP officials who have seen the classified version, all come away convinced.

    GG has not seen the classified version.

    You are being deliberately obtuse.  Protecting Trump and Putin.  


    You cite GG (none / 0) (#195)
    by MKS on Sun Jan 08, 2017 at 02:39:51 PM EST
    I will cite McCain, Lyndsey Graham, and Mitch McConnell.

    Trump stooges Kellyanne Conway and Reince Priebus have shifted and now say that the Russians did try to interfere.

    So, you want to cite other people, you are on the wrong end of that.

    By not stating your opinion on this, you can hide and say later that, no, you never disputed the findings.  Very compelling approach.


    If Greenwald had seen the evidence (5.00 / 3) (#202)
    by Peter G on Sun Jan 08, 2017 at 03:20:16 PM EST
    and came to a different conclusion than McCain, for example, I would be more inclined to believe Greenwald. But he hasn't. And Greenwald, as we know from his involvement with Snowden, believes that the interests of liberty and peace are better protected when honest journalists, rather than the U.S. "intelligence community" decide what the people ought to know. We also know that GG's highly valued source, Ed Snowden, is presently dependent on Russian protection from U.S. prosecution. So GG has reason not to pick any fight unnecessarily with Putin. All that said, in this particular instance, I believe conclusions and assessment presented in the U.S. intelligence report, even though I recognize that it does not disclose any of the evidence on which it is based.

    MKS, would you mind quoting and citing (none / 0) (#197)
    by Green26 on Sun Jan 08, 2017 at 02:55:53 PM EST
    where those 4 people have said that Putin intervened to get Trump elected?

    Ga6, in case you are still having trouble (none / 0) (#155)
    by Green26 on Sat Jan 07, 2017 at 11:10:16 PM EST
    locating this article, it is currently the lead article on the NY Times website now.

    Green, so what? (none / 0) (#174)
    by MKS on Sun Jan 08, 2017 at 12:42:21 PM EST
    What does it matter that the Russians have that opinion?

    Come on, stop trying to hide, and state what the significance of the  Russian propagandist comment is.  Do you believe the comment to be true?

     Do you accept the truth of  Russian propaganda?  It sure sounds like you do--but you are afraid to admit it.


    Green is just a trusting soul.. (5.00 / 2) (#193)
    by jondee on Sun Jan 08, 2017 at 02:26:56 PM EST
    why wouldn't quoting a state-funded Russian media outlet help cast valuable light on the situation?

    Let the cynics label it simply more blog-clogging noise.


    Try again (5.00 / 1) (#148)
    by Yman on Sat Jan 07, 2017 at 05:56:36 PM EST
    No - that opinion was not the New York Times - it was just the opinion of Susan Hennessey, in an article in the NYT.

    Wouldn't want anyone to get the idea that you're trying to mislead them, now ...


    Russians making fun of the report (none / 0) (#121)
    by Green26 on Sat Jan 07, 2017 at 12:10:32 PM EST
    "But the absence of any concrete evidence in the report of meddling by the Kremlin was met with a storm of mockery on Saturday by Russian politicians and commentators, who took to social media to ridicule the report as a potpourri of baseless conjecture."

    "Margarita Simonyan, the editor in chief of RT, a state-funded television network that broadcasts in English, who is cited repeatedly in the report, posted her own message on Twitter scoffing at the American intelligence community's accusations.Aaa, the CIA report is out! Laughter of the year! Intro to my show from 6 years ago is the main evidence of Russia's influence at US elections. This is not a joke!" she wrote."

    "Even Russians who have been critical of their government voiced dismay at the United States intelligence agencies' account of an elaborate Russian conspiracy unsupported by solid evidence."

    "The report provides no new evidence to support assertions that Moscow meddled covertly through hacking and other actions to boost the electoral chances of Donald J. Trump and undermine his rival, Hillary Clinton, but rests instead on what it describes as Moscow's long record of trying to influence America's political system."

    ""Russia, like its Soviet predecessor, has a history of conducting covert influence campaigns focused on U.S. presidential elections that have used intelligence officers and agents and press placements to disparage candidates perceived as hostile to the Kremlin," the report said."

    "That Russia considers it possible to influence United States elections has been evident since at least 1968 when, according to Moscow's former longtime ambassador in Washington, Anatoly Dobrynin, the Kremlin decided that Richard M. Nixon was "profoundly anti-Soviet" and must be prevented if possible from winning the presidency. Mr. Dobrynin, in his 1995 memoirs "In Confidence," said he was ordered by Moscow to offer Mr. Nixon's Democratic rival, Hubert Humphrey, "any conceivable help in his election campaign -- including financial aid."

    NY Times article.


    Of course. (4.00 / 4) (#123)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Jan 07, 2017 at 12:15:53 PM EST
    There you go. Siding with Putin and believing Putin over the US.

    If (3.00 / 2) (#132)
    by FlJoe on Sat Jan 07, 2017 at 02:14:23 PM EST
    it walks like a quisling and quacks like a quisling.......I bet his lipstick ain't green, if you know what I mean.

    Nope, not siding with Putin (none / 0) (#128)
    by Green26 on Sat Jan 07, 2017 at 01:48:25 PM EST
    Just quoting the NY Times. You have Putin on the brain. Weird.

    See my other (5.00 / 2) (#131)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Jan 07, 2017 at 02:05:55 PM EST
    post. The only time this woman is mentioned in a NYT story is here which is the story of Russian fake news and propaganda. Your post is just bizarre. It's not in the article I linked to. Again you are promoting a Kremlin propagandist as an authority over the US intelligence service?

    You are incorrect (none / 0) (#133)
    by Green26 on Sat Jan 07, 2017 at 02:18:10 PM EST
    The woman is mentioned and quoted in one of the articles I linked. She is also mentioned in Annex A of the report. Annex A starts on p. 6 of the report. It is just bizarre that you refuse to look at quotes and links, and the report.

    You linked (5.00 / 1) (#136)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Jan 07, 2017 at 02:32:58 PM EST
    to only a NYT article which was a news analysis. Go back to your Russian troll bosses and tell them that they need to do better work because you've been exposed. You have done cut and pastes of Russian propaganda with no links to them.

    heh (none / 0) (#198)
    by The Addams Family on Sun Jan 08, 2017 at 03:07:56 PM EST
    clap on

    clap off

    The Clapper!


    Kremlin celebrating (2.00 / 1) (#28)
    by TrevorBolder on Fri Jan 06, 2017 at 06:59:18 PM EST
    Means nothing. I'm sure Obama's White House would have been celebrating if Netanyahu lost. And the State Department contributed funding to Netanyahu's opposition.
    As for The Donald doubling and tripling down, he does stupid things, against his own political interest, because he is a political novice and too damn stubborn, and a little bit of an idiot!
    He did this before with the Khan family and the pageant winner.

    False (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Jan 06, 2017 at 08:12:46 PM EST

    Obama not the state department did not fund any opponents in Israel. Fake news got you again.

    Look Trump and almost the entire GOP has embraced, apologized or praised Putin. They have chosen and you have chosen Putin over America and Americans. It's really simple. Do you ever tire of being an apologist?


    i googled this (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by linea on Fri Jan 06, 2017 at 08:24:33 PM EST
    from timesofisrael.com

    US funds aided 2015 campaign to oust Netanyahu,

    Senate probe finds Bipartisan inquiry determines resources that ended up in V15's hands not illegal, but State Department chided for seeking to influence internal politics of ally.

    Thank you (none / 0) (#42)
    by TrevorBolder on Fri Jan 06, 2017 at 08:44:53 PM EST
    {{ hugs }} (none / 0) (#51)
    by linea on Fri Jan 06, 2017 at 08:53:13 PM EST
    And more to the point (none / 0) (#63)
    by TrevorBolder on Fri Jan 06, 2017 at 09:29:19 PM EST
    If Netanyahu had lost the election as expected, Obama and his staff would have been high fiving, much like they were doing in the Kremlin

    Look at my link (none / 0) (#54)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Jan 06, 2017 at 09:01:14 PM EST
    above. It explains that giving money to V15 was not the same as attempting to influence an election.

    i tried! (none / 0) (#62)
    by linea on Fri Jan 06, 2017 at 09:25:19 PM EST
    three times!

    i gave up and googled it.

    for me, your link opens another Friday Open Thread in my ipad-mini.


    Let me get this straight (none / 0) (#115)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Jan 07, 2017 at 11:58:18 AM EST
    Political campaign's are run to win elections.

    Money is required to run a political campaign.

    Donating money to a campaign is not supporting the campaign.

    Therefore giving money to a campaign is not an attempt to influence the election.

    Okie Dokie.

    The things I do learn.


    ... back in March 2015 and found it to be baseless, rating it mostly false.

    It's true that $233,500 was appropriated in FY 2014 (which actually began on October 1, 2013) to a nonprofit called OneVoice, a group which promotes a two-state solution. It's also true that this group later collaborated with an Israeli political organization called V15, which seeks government policies which promote active dialogue with Palestinians and uphold the concept of a two-state solution, which is certainly more than the Netanyahu government has done thus far.

    But U.S. funding to OneVoice ended in 2014, well before the Israeli elections. So, the right-wing's claim that the Obama administration was actively funding an anti-Netanyahu election effort is rather a stretch at best, and more than likely misleading.



    the (none / 0) (#78)
    by linea on Fri Jan 06, 2017 at 11:22:19 PM EST

    Times of Isreal references a Senate probe and Bipartisan inquiry.

    your reference is the Politifact blog debunking a conservative blog.

    im just trying to be fair. i dont have a pony in this race.


    ... noticed that no mainstream U.S. media sources picked up on the story, and that it was only being flogged by right-wing media. There's no truth to the story, linea, regardless of whether or not the Times of Israel reported it or a conservative blog.

    So what if the GOP-led Congress held a hearing on it? This is the same group that wasted millions of dollars and the better part of three years on a snipe hunt called "Benghazi." These yahoos have no relationship with reality, never mind the truth. Being fair doesn't require you to accept bullschitt at face value.



    Yea, (none / 0) (#84)
    by TrevorBolder on Sat Jan 07, 2017 at 05:22:13 AM EST
    But your pony won anyway

    wrong link (none / 0) (#36)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Jan 06, 2017 at 08:14:00 PM EST
    correct one here link

    Well, i'm (none / 0) (#18)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Jan 06, 2017 at 04:47:59 PM EST
    sure nothing will convince you that Putin directed a propaganda campaign for Trump. Of course, none of it would have worked if people like you hadn't bought into the bogus email crap. Comey also set up the Russians to succeed with his crap too. When Comey released that letter before the election he knew he would be helping out Putin and did not care.

    Trump is afraid apparently of something coming out. It's not just him though. McConnell and Ryan do not want whatever it is coming out. The fact that Ryan and McConnell failed to call out Putin during the campaign when they knew the propaganda campaign was happening should concern everyone too. Obama should have gone ahead and announced it despite what McConnell said. Now there are even conservative media hosts like Sean Hannity trekking to the kiss the ring of Assange.


    Let's just hope that whatever comes out ... (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri Jan 06, 2017 at 06:18:09 PM EST
    ... doesn't wait 48 years to do so, as was recently the case with the evidence pointing to Nixon's brazen sabotage of the Paris peace talks with North Vietnam.

    Truly. (none / 0) (#33)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Jan 06, 2017 at 08:06:28 PM EST
    The last thing we need to find out is that Trump gave away the store decades later.

    Well, I'll be long gone by then. (none / 0) (#38)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri Jan 06, 2017 at 08:27:11 PM EST
    But my children and grandchildren won't be. We have an solemn obligation to the next generations who follow us.

    It's official! All the leaked emails (none / 0) (#30)
    by Redbrow on Fri Jan 06, 2017 at 07:32:11 PM EST
    Are legitimate.

    No forgeries.

    Thanks to the Obama administration for confirming what we all suspected. All the scheming and scandals exposed in these emails is true,


    The only thing I see confirmed here ... (4.00 / 4) (#40)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri Jan 06, 2017 at 08:34:24 PM EST
    ... is your own admitted role as a Russian apologist and stooge, proudly cheering the success of a Kremlin intelligence operation directed against your own country.

    Way to go, guy.


    doesnt it confirm both really? (none / 0) (#48)
    by linea on Fri Jan 06, 2017 at 08:49:47 PM EST
    that the emails showing the DNC was not a fair broker with reguard to bernie sanders and his supporters are true.


    the main military foreign-intelligence service of the russian federation funneled those emails through wikileaks.


    First of all (5.00 / 3) (#56)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Jan 06, 2017 at 09:06:00 PM EST
    Putin chose the emails that would make you think that and didn't release the entire story did Putin?

    Every time Bernie lost he whined it was "rigged". Let's not forget that Bernie stole information from the DNC. That's why people think it was rigged not the emails.

    Bernie could not get people to show up and vote for him and in the middle of the primaries said that the rules should be changed specifically for him. When they were not changed for him he started whining again that things were rigged. You know if you repeat a lie enough people will believe it and it was Bernie saying rigged over and over that got some people to think that.


    every bernie supporter (2.00 / 1) (#58)
    by linea on Fri Jan 06, 2017 at 09:12:37 PM EST
    i know, mailed in their ballot for hillary. votes for trump in the crazy-liberal city of seattle amounted to 6% of the vote. you keep beating your own daughter.

    ... were internal communications, and violating the privacy of the DNC is considered a crime. And while a share of those emails obviously proved embarrassing to the people who sent them, the overwhelming majority of the stuff mined from DNC servers was hardly bombshell material, despite breathless claims to the contrary by some people -- including Russia Today, which was cited in today's IC report..

    As far as the emails showing bias at the DNC against Sen. Sanders, I believe there was only one thread between two mid-level staffers at DNC HQ, who expressed concerns and reservations that he was being allowed to enter Democratic primaries while still nominally an independent, and further offered a few disparaging remarks about him.

    Why would it be surprising that party faithful and brass would rally around a longtime and loyal Democrat who was being challenged by someone who was clearly seen by leadership as an interloper? I'm not saying that's necessarily fair, because Bernie Sanders did join the party eventually, but it is what it is.

    For example, we have a law -- not a rule, but an actual state law -- which requires a candidate who runs under a party banner to actually be a member of good standing in that party. I made an inquiry to the Vermont Democratic Party on behalf of Hawaii Democratic Party to determine if Bernie Sanders had in fact joined the party. Otherwise, he'd have been legally prohibited from being listed on our state ballot as a Democratic candidate. We had practical concerns like that to worry about with regards to his candidacy.

    Bernie Sanders ultimately lost the Democratic primary race because when all was said and done, he received only 43% of the total Democratic vote in the primaries and caucuses and lost to Hillary Clinton by a pretty substantial margin. There was nothing rigged about it. He had a damned good showing, but the race was never as close as some would like to have you believe.

    The ex post facto complaints of a loud little handful of malcontents amount to nothing more than sour grapes. As for Bernie himself, he was quite gracious in defeat, and afterward threw himself wholeheartedly into the general election campaign in support of Hillary Clinton.

    So, I'll take issue with anyone who says that Bernie's not a good Democrat, because he is. (Certainly a lot more so of late than a certain senator -- <cough!>Joe Manchin<cough!> -- from West Virginia.) As for the loud little handful, as the Persian proverb says, "Dogs bark, and the caravan passes."



    No, it doesn't (none / 0) (#74)
    by Yman on Fri Jan 06, 2017 at 10:58:39 PM EST
    that the emails showing the DNC was not a fair broker with reguard to bernie sanders and his supporters are true.

    But keep beating that dead horse that you've repeatedly denied beating.


    it doesnt matter (2.00 / 1) (#76)
    by linea on Fri Jan 06, 2017 at 11:10:09 PM EST
    bernie sanders commited himself to supporting hillary and defeating trump and is active today to prevent trump from undermining social security and medicare. in addition, all my friends (bernie supporters all) mailed in their ballots for hillary. your bernie-hate is irrational.

    All of which is irrelevant ... (5.00 / 1) (#77)
    by Yman on Fri Jan 06, 2017 at 11:15:21 PM EST
    ... to your continued insistence on pushing the false claim that Bernie and his supporters were cheated.  Moreover, I couldn't care less how you or your friends voted - and I have absolutely zero "hatred" (or even dislike) of Bernie.

    I NEVER (none / 0) (#79)
    by linea on Fri Jan 06, 2017 at 11:45:51 PM EST

    PUSHED "the false claim that Bernie and his supporters were cheated."

    Then let it go and don't mention it. (none / 0) (#83)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sat Jan 07, 2017 at 02:46:22 AM EST
    Legally, given that those DNC emails were obtained illegally by the Russians, their content is irrelevant. Those Republicans who are presently defending the Russians' actions will be singing a far different tune were Putin to place their party in the GRU's cyber-crosshairs.

    Really??? (none / 0) (#117)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Jan 07, 2017 at 12:04:18 PM EST
    Legally, given that those DNC emails were obtained illegally by the Russians, their content is irrelevant.

    Donald, I don't care what anyone's position is...that is funny.


    Whatever, Comrade Jim. (5.00 / 1) (#139)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sat Jan 07, 2017 at 04:15:16 PM EST
    I'm not going to bother asking if you actually read the emails in question, because you quite obviously did not and therefore, you don't have a fckn clue as to what was actually said in them.

    Hacking is a federal crime, Jim. Of course, you don't care about that because the hacking in question benefited your candidate. Thus, you cheer the success of a Russian cyber-intelligence operation which targeted your own country and sought to interfere in our election.

    You've long been prone to wrap yourself in the American flag and question the patriotism of those who don't agree with you, Jim. But given your obvious pro-Putin bias in this case, even in the face of a serious threat to our national security, perhaps it's the rest of us who now need to question your own patriotism when you put candidate and party before country.



    Throwing the tea in the harbor (none / 0) (#162)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jan 08, 2017 at 07:16:31 AM EST
    was also a "crime."

    You would have a bit of credibility if you had raised Cain over the Chinese hacking...but you didn't.

    ...in the face of a serious threat to our national security...

    Really Donald??


    You're angry because your side lost. If you were concerned about national security you would never have voted for Obama,


    Speaking of "no credibility" (none / 0) (#164)
    by Yman on Sun Jan 08, 2017 at 07:50:01 AM EST
    You are the master of no credibility - but please feel free to explain in detail all the great harm that resulted from the Chinese hacking - and provide links with evidence.

    Ohhhh ... that's right.  You can't.

    BTW - Anyone who voted for Trump can never again claim to be a proponent of national security ... or women's right, gay rights, economic opportunity, against Wall St. influence, for family values, someone who values truth, etc., etc., etc.


    linea you have every right to (none / 0) (#118)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Jan 07, 2017 at 12:05:37 PM EST
    comment what you like, subject to Jeralyn's rules.

    Donald is trying to bully you.


    She also says no trolling (5.00 / 1) (#120)
    by jondee on Sat Jan 07, 2017 at 12:09:45 PM EST
    but I guess rules are always subject to interpretation.

    Oh, nooooooooooooo... (none / 0) (#87)
    by Yman on Sat Jan 07, 2017 at 07:44:57 AM EST
    Of course not!

    You just keep repeating it and repeating it while asking "questions".


    Sorry but Bernie's (5.00 / 1) (#168)
    by JanaM on Sun Jan 08, 2017 at 10:12:17 AM EST
    late to the party support for Hillary did little to help. It certainly didn't undo the damage he tried to and succeeded in doing to her. Same goes for the President's and VP's late support of her. We needed to be a united and strong voice from the get-go. We never learn.

    thank you (5.00 / 1) (#187)
    by linea on Sun Jan 08, 2017 at 02:08:32 PM EST
    i appreciate your post.

    bernie ran a campaign AGAINST hillary for the dem-party nomination. he also he rejected the email issue as a topic. was he supossed to debate with comments on how hillary loves puppies and bakes vanilla muffins for orphans?

    "I think the secretary of state is right, the American people are sick and tired about hearing about your damn emails," Sanders said to hoots and cheers from the audience, after CNN moderator Anderson Cooper pushed Clinton on the ongoing scandal. He concluded by saying: "Enough of the emails - let's talk about the real issues facing the American people."

    when hillary won the nomination, bernie actively supported hillary. celebrity bernie supporters like sarah silverman made inpassioned pleas for unity. i loved sarah silverman's speach at the demoratic national convention (though i understand jeralyn is not a fan).


    and (none / 0) (#190)
    by linea on Sun Jan 08, 2017 at 02:20:13 PM EST
    as you point out, Obama and VP support was late and at best tepid. the urban areas, where the bernie supporters are, voted overwhelmingly for hillary. the rural and suburban districts, where the "hipster bernistas" are not, flipped fron voting for obama twice to voting for trump.

    we can only wonder, had obama been more engaged - holding rallys, meeting with community leaders, and active on the ground in those rural and suburban districts with his wholehearted support, if there would have been a different outcome to this election.


    "Scheming and scandals" - heh (none / 0) (#75)
    by Yman on Fri Jan 06, 2017 at 10:59:37 PM EST
    Wingnut fantasies are neither.

    Thank you to everyone who posted about the loss of (5.00 / 2) (#27)
    by Cashmere on Fri Jan 06, 2017 at 06:32:59 PM EST
    my dad.  It truly means a lot.  Such sympathy and wise words.  It helps so much.  Hugs to you all and thank you again - Nancy (aka cashmere...  fyi, cashmere is our adorable pooch).  


    Me? Pay for the Wall? (none / 0) (#1)
    by desertswine on Fri Jan 06, 2017 at 12:10:04 PM EST
    Oh no..  We've been tricked.

    The tweet Trump wrote on Friday morning followed multiple reports detailing how members of his transition team have been working with congressional Republicans to come up with a way to use taxpayer dollars to pay for building the wall.

    Trump claimed he needed to use congressionally appropriated funds to build "the Great Wall for sake of speed."
    Neither Trump nor his transition team have explained how Trump might go about trying to force a sovereign nation like Mexico to fork over billions of dollars for a domestic building project it opposes.

    Feeling duped yet, trump voters?

    He's just bizarre (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Jan 06, 2017 at 12:37:40 PM EST
    There's not much else to say. Maybe he should hit up his buddy Putin for the money for the wall or better yet maybe he should implore Putin to build it. I think Russians have a lot of experience putting up walls. Maybe even Putin could drag up the old Berlin wall plans and use them to build a wall between Texas and Mexico.

    Shooting at Fort Lauderdale airport. (none / 0) (#3)
    by vml68 on Fri Jan 06, 2017 at 01:41:42 PM EST
    Number of people killed keeps changing. Hoping it is  less than reported here.

    My husband flies in and out of this airport almost every week and he is usually at FLL Friday afternoon about the time the shooting happened to fly back home. He decided not to fly there this week for which I am very thankful.
    Can't imagine what the victims families are going through now.

    Ugh, glad he was not there (5.00 / 2) (#10)
    by ruffian on Fri Jan 06, 2017 at 03:26:49 PM EST
    Sorry for the ones that were. Apparently the shooter flew in on a plane from Alaska and got his gun out of his checked luggage.

    How do you guard against that without banning guns from luggage, which will never happen in this country? We are all sitting ducks, I guess we better get used to it.


    We are ducks (none / 0) (#13)
    by smott on Fri Jan 06, 2017 at 03:33:30 PM EST
    And sadly this will become more and more normal.
    We can normalize a lot. Just look at our PEOTUS.

    I watched Children of Men again this week. Advise all to do so, though it is grim.

    But it's where we're going, and will be soon.


    Smott (none / 0) (#14)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Jan 06, 2017 at 04:04:03 PM EST
    please stay and join the resistance. We need everybody's help in fighting the Putin Trump agenda. Nobody should rely on the GOP to do anything. Ryan and McConnell's lack of concern about Putin, Trump and Russia should be particularly troubling to all Americans. I know you have no delusions about the GOP.

    "join the Resistance" (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by MKS on Fri Jan 06, 2017 at 08:46:13 PM EST
    Reminds me of an Alan Furst novel.  All set in Occupied Europe with a trip to occupied Paris in each as well.  

    I shall happily join and do resist (none / 0) (#104)
    by smott on Sat Jan 07, 2017 at 11:12:15 AM EST
    I volunteer for Dems and contribute $$ and (used to) write letters to Editors (lost my nerve after threats ) so perhaps I'm not the best resistor lol.

    I'm mostly terrified for my fam (including 90 yr old Dad) in DC which will be prime terror target.
    Fam doesn't think there will actually be terrorist activity/dirty bombs and Dad cannot be easily moved anyway, so dunno what to do about that.
    I have no way to retire in this country if Medicare is privatized.
    So I have to investigate leaving.
    I fear with the first domestic terror incident we'll have Martial Law and there will be no way to get out.
    It's very concerning.


    Yeah, the (none / 0) (#109)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Jan 07, 2017 at 11:27:52 AM EST
    Make America Sick Again plan is going to be die quick and don't ever plan on retiring. Just plan on dying while on the job. The dark and dystopian vision the GOP has for America is pretty frightening I have to admit but I refuse to let the alt-right control me or my family or their future. I will stand up and be counted as being against the Trump Putin agenda.

    handguns should be banned (none / 0) (#34)
    by linea on Fri Jan 06, 2017 at 08:09:54 PM EST
    re: "How do you guard against that without banning guns from luggage"

    there should be a federal national ban on handguns. however, if i understand DC vs Heller, the federal government can't prohibit "an entire class of arms that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the lawful purpose of self-defense" (per en.wikipedia).

    thus, i would propose a federal law prohibiting the foreign import and all interstate transportation of handguns. i believe that would be much like the federal switch-blade knife law. if texas wasts to manufacture handguns in texas they can but those handguns can not be transported across any state border (not for private use, not for commercial sale, etc.).

    that's my proposal.


    Have you noticed that the shootings (none / 0) (#61)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Jan 06, 2017 at 09:22:37 PM EST
    happen in a gun free zone?

    Guess the criminals/terrorists don't care about laws.

    Fancy that.


    proof (none / 0) (#64)
    by linea on Fri Jan 06, 2017 at 09:32:02 PM EST

    americans will not obey "gun free zones" thus all handguns should be banned. unfortunately, the best that can be done (from what i understand) is to outlaw with serious penalties ALL interstate transport of handguns and then encourage each state to outlaw handguns in their state.  

    You do realize (none / 0) (#65)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Jan 06, 2017 at 09:35:42 PM EST

    Chicago has the toughest gun laws in the nation.

    The US has something called the Second Amendment.


    yes (none / 0) (#66)
    by linea on Fri Jan 06, 2017 at 09:37:09 PM EST
    great example. thats why there needs to be a federal national ban on handguns. like japan.

    Japan had what? (none / 0) (#105)
    by smott on Sat Jan 07, 2017 at 11:13:11 AM EST
    4 gun deaths this year?

    Study the Japanese culture (none / 0) (#111)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Jan 07, 2017 at 11:44:59 AM EST
    very closely before you decide to jump in.

    I'm sure you're as steeped (5.00 / 1) (#113)
    by jondee on Sat Jan 07, 2017 at 11:55:08 AM EST
    in Japanese culture as you are in southern European culture.

    One thing that's patently obvious is that the Japanese don't percieve individual "freedoms" as having any meaning if they're divorced from the idea of the well-being of society as a whole.


    I've studied it (none / 0) (#165)
    by Yman on Sun Jan 08, 2017 at 07:52:01 AM EST
    It's orders-of-magnitude better than southern "culture".

    I worked for two of the largest (1.00 / 2) (#176)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jan 08, 2017 at 12:54:20 PM EST
    Japanese corporations for a long time.  I learned a lot. Especially that Japanese culture reflects "southern culture," as well as American Middle Class, a great deal.

    Respect for their elders.

    Strong family ties.

    Loyalty up and down.

    Tremendous work eithic.

    Very selective who they let immigrate or get residence status. Especially Muslims.

    Let me know when you want to sign up to those.


    Not to mention (1.00 / 1) (#181)
    by Yman on Sun Jan 08, 2017 at 01:07:01 PM EST
    ... a long history of racism, xenophobia, Islamophobia, etc.  So much in common.

    OTOH - The Japanese culture tends to be intelligent and well-educated, so they still win.


    Let me know when you want (1.00 / 1) (#183)
    by jondee on Sun Jan 08, 2017 at 01:23:03 PM EST
    to sign up for not cowering in fear of your neighbor behind a locked door with a stockpile of guns and ammo.

    Gun Free Zones.. (none / 0) (#112)
    by jondee on Sat Jan 07, 2017 at 11:48:43 AM EST
    that unthinking, robotic response is belied by the facts, such as that every one of the fourteen Dallas City Cops shot by Michael Xavier Johnson was armed.

    Johnson ended up being killed not by one of the plethora of guns on the scene, but by a bomb disposal robot.

    The fact is that a shooter with deadly intent will always have the upper hand simply because he knows what he is going to do beforehand and no one else does.

    He also has an advantage in having so many socially irresponsible and noisy accomplices who want to make it as easy as possible for him to procure his tools of destruction.


    Given the Supreme Court's interpretation (none / 0) (#68)
    by Peter G on Fri Jan 06, 2017 at 09:59:53 PM EST
    of the Second Amendment to the Constitution as conferring an individual right to own ordinary firearms (which includes handguns) which are suitable for self-defense purposes, I believe that your proposal of a ban on interstate transportation of handguns, Linea, would (perhaps unfortunately) be held unconstitutional by almost any judge.

    i feel (none / 0) (#70)
    by linea on Fri Jan 06, 2017 at 10:14:15 PM EST
    my work-around is constitutional. i do study these things. im very educated. i read DC v Heller. this is a unique idea that i have figured and propose here.

    i feel the federal government, under the interstate commerce clause, can prohibit all cross-state-border transport of handguns. exactly like the federal switch-blade knife law.

    "Whoever knowingly introduces, or manufactures for introduction, into interstate commerce, or transports or distributes in interstate commerce, any switchblade knife, shall be fined not more than $2,000 or imprisoned not more than five years, or both."


    to be clear (none / 0) (#71)
    by linea on Fri Jan 06, 2017 at 10:21:42 PM EST
    the sources i read state that the federal switch-blade knife prohibition "has no effect on selling withing the same state, no effect on carry, and no effect on possession alone."

    yet, has virtually eliminated switch-blade knives as a commonly carried weapon.

    the federal goverment, after banning interstate transport of handguns, can then encourage each state to ban handguns in their respective states.


    In your "feelings"-bases study (5.00 / 3) (#95)
    by Peter G on Sat Jan 07, 2017 at 10:06:48 AM EST
    of constitutional law, did you consider that while all federal legislation does requires a valid grant of power in the Constitution (such as the Commerce Clause), all such authority is then limited by any restrictive provision that applies, such as the specific limitations of the Bill of Rights? Congress could not, for example, ban interstate commerce in newspapers, given the First Amendment freedom of the press. Consider, in relation to the scope of Second Amendment rights, the Supreme Court's Caetano case last year.

    Sorry for typo in subject-line (none / 0) (#108)
    by Peter G on Sat Jan 07, 2017 at 11:22:32 AM EST
    "-bases" was supposed to be "-based." I hope that was clear. I would also like to say directly that while I don't agree with the Supreme Court majority's interpretation of the Second Amendment in Heller, I recognize it as authoritative and binding at this time and for the foreseeable future.

    Funnily in reality (5.00 / 1) (#158)
    by JanaM on Sat Jan 07, 2017 at 11:22:54 PM EST
    Heller has done little to change legal access to guns in DC.

    I don't understand what you mean (none / 0) (#169)
    by Peter G on Sun Jan 08, 2017 at 11:23:19 AM EST
    Are you saying that it has gotten no easier, after Heller, for private citizens to obtain whatever permit or license is required to make personal possession of a handgun legal in the District?  Or something else? If the pro-gun effort in Heller has proven ineffective, I'd like to know why, as that may provide a helpful roadmap for other localities that seek to control the proliferation of dangerous weapons.

    Not exactly complying (none / 0) (#182)
    by TrevorBolder on Sun Jan 08, 2017 at 01:18:55 PM EST
    Their interpretations have been subject to additional judicial review.



    im COMPLETELY confused (none / 0) (#137)
    by linea on Sat Jan 07, 2017 at 03:58:26 PM EST
    by Caetano

    did SOTUS overturn a Massachusetts law banning stun guns?
    arent there cities, like New York City and Chicago, that ban handguns? why doesnt Caetano apply to those cities?


    To answer your questions (none / 0) (#143)
    by Peter G on Sat Jan 07, 2017 at 04:32:36 PM EST
    It does.

    Switch blade knives? (5.00 / 1) (#159)
    by JanaM on Sat Jan 07, 2017 at 11:27:57 PM EST
    My clients would laugh at the notion they would be carrying them law or no law. They want guns. The bigger the better, again law or no law.

    the topic (none / 0) (#184)
    by linea on Sun Jan 08, 2017 at 01:31:09 PM EST
    isnt actually about switch-blade knives.

    it's about modeling a foderal handgun statute after the prohibition of interstate transport of switch-blades under the commerce clause. from what i have read foderalizing these actions were effective for switch-blades and car-jacking. unless you personally demand that "effective" mean zero incidents.

    however, Peter points out that such a foderal statute is unlikely to pass inspection by SOTUS (given the political make-up of the court).


    I do not say that what would prevent a ban (5.00 / 2) (#200)
    by Peter G on Sun Jan 08, 2017 at 03:11:38 PM EST
    from passing inspection by SCOTUS (not "SOTUS") is the Court's "political make-up." I say it is the Court majority's interpretation of the U.S. Constitution. Unlike some (many) others, I do not equate those two things.  

    im sorry (none / 0) (#203)
    by linea on Sun Jan 08, 2017 at 03:20:36 PM EST
    yes, that's what you said.

    it's brilliant!!! (none / 0) (#72)
    by linea on Fri Jan 06, 2017 at 10:32:55 PM EST
    Colt Firearms Manufacturing can make handguns in Hartford, Connecticut, United States - but can only sell them in Connecticut and cant manufacture handguns for interstate transport. with a police exception of course.

    it's absolutt crafty!!


    I see (3.50 / 2) (#85)
    by TrevorBolder on Sat Jan 07, 2017 at 05:24:09 AM EST
    You have been sipping the wine again

    Personal note. My dad died yesterday... (none / 0) (#4)
    by Cashmere on Fri Jan 06, 2017 at 01:56:02 PM EST
    He was to turn 80 on Feb. 15th.  He's suffered from dementia for several years, but he was a happy, fun guy and I miss him so much.  He was at the hospital to have a pacemaker installed as his HR had dropped suddenly, but he died before this could happen.  I'm just sharing as it helps me right now to let friends know, even those I consider friends that I have never met.  Has been a rough 12 months for my family.  My stepfather died last March, my stepbrother died very unexpectedly a week before Christmas, and of course, my sweet and loving father, yesterday.  

    Really sorry to hear this. My dad passed (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Jan 06, 2017 at 02:09:20 PM EST
    a couple years ago and I still miss him terribly. Thoughts and prayers for you.

    Condolences (5.00 / 3) (#6)
    by KeysDan on Fri Jan 06, 2017 at 02:12:08 PM EST
    to you and your family on the loss of your father.  Advanced age or health conditions never mitigate the sorrow and loss of a dear parent.

    So sorry for your losses Cashmere (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by ruffian on Fri Jan 06, 2017 at 03:23:47 PM EST
    Hope you have good friends and family close by to get you through. It is so hard.

    So, so sorry Cashmere... (5.00 / 2) (#16)
    by desertswine on Fri Jan 06, 2017 at 04:14:07 PM EST
    I miss my dad too.

    So sorry to hear (none / 0) (#7)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Jan 06, 2017 at 02:30:20 PM EST

    My condolences Cashmere (none / 0) (#8)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Jan 06, 2017 at 02:52:44 PM EST
    Very sorry

    Sorry to hear (none / 0) (#12)
    by smott on Fri Jan 06, 2017 at 03:30:50 PM EST
    Thinking good thoughts about you and yours Cashmere. We all are.

    I'm very sorry for your loss. (none / 0) (#17)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri Jan 06, 2017 at 04:16:48 PM EST
    Losing a parent is difficult, no matter what their age and condition. Parents and grandparents are our touchstones in our respective lives, with a perspective which allows us to re-center and focus. Just keep in mind that you are your father's daughter, and know that he will always be an important part of your life even as you move forward. And in the coming days when you feel yourself flagging, remember a funny or amusing story about him, and you'll find to your amazement that he can still lift your spirits as much as he ever did.

    Me ke aloha pumehana.


    your virtual family in a virtual world (none / 0) (#20)
    by Mr Natural on Fri Jan 06, 2017 at 05:47:39 PM EST
    I share your pain.  My mother is in the last week/two/three at most, of her life.  So much remains unsaid, to become never said.

    As Mel Brooks said, "it stinks on ice."


    I'm sorry for your loss, Cashmere (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by jondee on Fri Jan 06, 2017 at 06:05:45 PM EST
    people have been going so fast in the last few years, I haven't had time to grieve.

    "Keep a green branch in your heart and the singing bird will come"


    So sorry (5.00 / 2) (#29)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Jan 06, 2017 at 07:25:05 PM EST
    to hear about your mother Mr. Natural. Peace be with you.

    At such a time, please remember that ... (none / 0) (#41)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri Jan 06, 2017 at 08:40:44 PM EST
    ... your mother loves you very much, and I'm sure that's something which often goes without saying in our families. Just be there in the moment for her and with her, and know that lots of people are keeping you in their hearts and prayers.

    I'm sorry to hear this (none / 0) (#150)
    by Suisser1 on Sat Jan 07, 2017 at 07:11:45 PM EST
    I mostly follow, but I appreciate your comments so feel I should and can send my condolences. Wishing you peace in happy memories.

    Be well, Cashmere. (none / 0) (#157)
    by JanaM on Sat Jan 07, 2017 at 11:19:54 PM EST
    Losing loved parents is a like a kick in the stomach. You will get through this but we are never the same after our parents are gone.  

    SITE VIOLATOR (none / 0) (#59)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Jan 06, 2017 at 09:17:18 PM EST
    Spamming older posts under user name chenlina

    On the somber anniversary of ... (none / 0) (#69)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri Jan 06, 2017 at 10:05:33 PM EST
    ... the release of David Bowie's final album "Blackstar" and his subsequent death from cancer two days later, and on the occasion of the artist's 70th birthday, I offer a personal retrospective of his nearly 50-year career:
    If so inclined, please spend a few minutes in the company of creative avant-garde genius, and marvel at the work of a man who always sought to maintain relevance with the times in which he lived and thus make things more interesting for the rest of us.


    Madame Secretary (none / 0) (#89)
    by TrevorBolder on Sat Jan 07, 2017 at 07:53:52 AM EST
    Being recruited,

    http://tinyurl.com/j8n8p4g  NY Times

    Seattle's Democracy Vouchers - Questions (none / 0) (#107)
    by BTAL on Sat Jan 07, 2017 at 11:19:59 AM EST
    Seattle voters passed Initiative-122 "Democracy Vouchers" in the last election.  It raises property taxes of $30M over 10 years to fund the vouchers.  Every registered voter in Seattle will be mailed 4 $25 vouchers for each local election.  The voters then sign and give their voucher(s) to the local candidate of their choice.  The candidates then redeem the scripts with the city government for hard cash.

    The question is posed to our resident lawyers.   How can this possibly pass Constitutional muster?  Violation of the Right of Assembly/Association jumps to mind to me.  By using taxing authority, the government is taking money from one class of citizen (property owners) and redistributing to another class (non-property owners) so that the second class can express their 1st Amendment freedom of political speech.  

    A second non-legal issue is the math involved.  Quick research indicates that Seattle has approx. 400,000 registered voters.  At $100 per voter the first election will distribute $40M in vouchers - $10M than the entire 10 year revenue forecast.  Granted not all vouchers will be used.  

    Interested to hear the opinions here.

    ... can only be given to and redeemed by a municipal candidate who has voluntarily agreed to participate in the Democracy Voucher program and abide by its rules, which so happen to effectively restrict that candidate's capacity to raise or accept campaign funds from other sources, including PACs.

    Obviously, not all candidates are going to agree to such austere campaign finance restrictions in order to participate in the Democracy Voucher program, so I think that your expressed concern for its funding viability is somewhat overstated. Seattle city elections are held in off-years, so if $2-3 million in vouchers are redeemed by candidates during this fall's municipal elections, I'd be both pleasantly surprised and quite pleased.

    Further, given that Seattle residents have effectively assessed this property tax increase upon themselves via the initiative process, and have further reserved for city voters (and not some city agency) the sole right to determine the recipients of their individual vouchers per the provisions of this new ordinance, how is the city government "taking" anything? Rather, the city's primary role here is to serve as a conduit for these funds to the voters themselves to use as desired.

    Initiative 122 also prohibits campaign contributions to Seattle municipal candidates from (a) city contractors and their PACs; and (b) regulated corporations and industries that hire lobbyists. It further provides for expedited reporting of all campaign contributions received electronically by municipal candidates, and the mandatory publicly disclosure of all compensated signature gathering by any municipal initiative, referendum and recall (IR&R) campaign engaging in such an activity.

    (That is, if you are paying people to gather signatures for you to qualify a measure you're sponsoring for the local ballot, you now have to disclose that fact both publicly and contemporaneously. This, in my opinion, is a good reform which can allow voters to identify whether a particular IR&R campaign is effectively being bankrolled by some deep pockets. Prior to I-122's enactment, the public had no access to such information.)

    And finally, I-122 effectively prohibits former high-ranking city officials -- mayor, city attorney, department heads, city councilmembers, etc. -- and their ranking senior staff from engaging in paid lobbying activities in the City of Seattle government for three years after leaving their positions. (Speaking as someone who served as ranking senior staff, this is a good reform.)

    The text of I-122, as approved by Seattle voters on November 8, 2016 and enacted on November 24, 2016, can be read here.



    Had read the text & the restrictions (none / 0) (#161)
    by BTAL on Sun Jan 08, 2017 at 06:22:28 AM EST
    The restrictions are not that onerous but do provide an appearance of teeth.

    Even though the voters passed the initiative doesn't make it constitutional.


    One would have to make a federal case. (5.00 / 1) (#196)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sun Jan 08, 2017 at 02:41:34 PM EST
    On that note, I'm hard-pressed to see how someone's federal constitutional rights are being infringed here. This is a local issue.

    Personally, I'm generally not in favor of using the initiative process for issues that carry a direct fiscal impact on a state or municipal budget. Mandating an appropriation by such measures tends to bind the hands of the governing legislative body that's otherwise responsible for budgetary matters.

    Taxation and appropriation by popular vote can have unintended consequences. It's not the electorate that has direct responsibility to balance a government budget. California's Proposition 13, passed by voters in June 1978, is one case in point. Its enactment had a cascading and ultimately devastating effect in its impact on city, county and state budgetary processes and fiscal health over the course of several decades.

    Further, Prop. 13 created an inherently unequal tax base in local cities and counties, by which newer homeowners are assessed at far higher rates than are older homeowners and corporate property owners who purchased their properties prior to the measure's enactment in 1978, because the latter's own tax rates were effectively fixed by law in relative position for perpetuity.

    My stated reservations about such initiatives aside, if people want to raise their own property taxes to provide a direct source of funding for a particular reason, whether it's for elections, their school district or infrastructure improvement, that's their business and their right per state law and local ordinance. It's done all the time by municipalities across the country, and hardly constitutes a "taking." But the residents will also have to deal with any consequential fallout if such subsequently occurs.

    Speaking for myself only as someone who has extensive experience in public policy development, any decision making regarding the purposes, means and methodologies of taxation is a task which should never be undertaken lightly or frivolously. Taxes are the price we pay to live in an advanced civilized society such as ours. We seek to undercut the legal basis for their assessment at our own ultimate socio-economic peril.



    citizens (none / 0) (#199)
    by linea on Sun Jan 08, 2017 at 03:11:31 PM EST
    are not divided into realestate property owning "class" clitzens and the lessor "class" of non-realestate owning citizens. by the way, rents in seattle are some of the highest in the country.

    i assume your anti-tax screed is part of some farcical Libertarian Utopianist worldview.


    Op ed (none / 0) (#167)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Jan 08, 2017 at 09:47:24 AM EST
    by the Ambassador to Russia from the George W. Bush administration directed at conservatives and/or Republicans

    How We Fool Ourselves on Russia