Saturday Night Open Thread

I've been completely uninterested in writing about Donald Trump this week. He just sucks the positive energy out of everything. The reality may be that our country is now being run by a family of three blind mice, with no relevant experience, and their under-informed, uber-wealthy and in several instances, seemingly ethically-challenged advisers, but it doesn't mean I have to pay attention. I'm content to point out when he makes a global laughing stock of himself and exposes his lack of insight and preparedness to preside over anything other than a golf ball.[More...]

I'm far more interested in the upcoming finale of Telemundo's "El Chema" on Monday night, the real life continuing legal battles over Joaquin "El Chapo" Guzman-Loera's conditions of confinement, the long-awaited sentencing of Alfredo Beltran-Leyva and events in Venezuela and Colombia.

By the way, Trump suffered another defeat in federal court yesterday, this time in a lawsuit in Kentucky filed by protesters who were attacked after he said "Get Them Out of Here." The judge refused to dismiss the protesters' case against the Trump camaign and Trump individually. The Order is here. (I'm not linking to a news article because some news site with auto-play video just froze Firefox on my computer and when I clicked on the debug script, all the browser tabs closed, including my longer, link-filled draft of this post, which is now down the rabbit hole.

Added: I like this article by journalist and Univision news anchor Jorge Ramos, All the President's Lies.

But the core problem is that we’re growing accustomed to Trump’s fabrications. There are so many — and they are so frequent — that nobody is shocked anymore when he makes them.... Such behavior could have dire consequences for the country. Situations will occur when Americans must absolutely trust their president. What would happen if North Korea were to launch a nuclear weapon? Or if a new war were to break out in Syria? Or if terrorists carried out another large-scale attack in America? Could we trust the president to tell us the truth?

Trump appears to be living in his own fantasy world, where truth is indistinguishable from fiction. ....He so wants to be accepted as a legitimate president, yet he doesn’t realize that his lies and delusions of grandeur only make him look juvenile.

So, if you have something to say about Trump or anything else, here's an open thread, all topics welcome.

< Convicted Bridgegate Defendants Sentenced to Prison | Ecuador Elections: Leftist Candidate Lenin Moreno Wins >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    The UConn women v. Miss St last night (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by Green26 on Sun Apr 02, 2017 at 12:42:14 AM EST
    was an awesome game. OT win on last second shot by Miss St. UConn's 111 game winning streak snapped. The teams played last year in the Sweet 16, with UConn winning by 60. The star for Miss St was the 5'5" point guard. Made the defensive stop to get the ball with the game tied, and then hit a great driving pull up jumper over a tall defender for the win at the buzzer. Her nickname is Itty-Bitty.

    Gonzaga continues to look good and is on a roll. UNC's posts were too much for Oregon, and Oregon was not disciplined enough, didn't get many assists, didn't get rebounds when they needed them, and didn't shoot the 3 well in the second half. UNC deserved to win.

    I think the Zags may take UNC.

    The referenced lawsuit (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by KeysDan on Sun Apr 02, 2017 at 01:02:01 PM EST
    allowed to proceed, by federal district judge David J. Hale, involved agreement with the plaintiffs that Trump's repeated call from the podium for his rally-goers to "get them out of here," incited the physical attacks upon the protesters.

     The judge denied most of Trump's motion to dismiss charges (incitement, negligence, gross negligence, recklessness), saying Trump's angry demand was "particularly reckless," and cited one of the assailants, a member of a white nationalist group, saying he acted on Trump's call to get them out. The judge did dismiss the charge of vicarious liability, since it was not shown that the assailants were in Trump's employ.

    The judge rejected Trump's claim that his words were protected speech under the first amendment--it was an order,a command, at least, implicitly encouraging the use of violence or lawless action.

    So who exactly is babysitting Don-don... (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by desertswine on Mon Apr 03, 2017 at 12:30:35 AM EST
    while Kushner's in Iraq?

    President Donald Trump's son-in-law and senior adviser, Jared Kushner, is visiting Iraq with the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, an official said Sunday night.

    Almost beyond belief.  Almost.

    ivanka (none / 0) (#50)
    by linea on Mon Apr 03, 2017 at 01:09:37 AM EST
    is babysitting don-don. admittedly, while openly stating in interviews that she attempted and failed to take away his twitter account, she's still the most responsible adult in the room.

    If that's actually the case, ... (5.00 / 4) (#51)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Apr 03, 2017 at 05:17:32 AM EST
    linea: "[She's] still the most responsible adult in the room."

    ... then it's hopeless and we're doomed.


    That must be a tiny room (5.00 / 2) (#55)
    by Yman on Mon Apr 03, 2017 at 09:43:38 AM EST
    she's still the most responsible adult in the room.

    Ivanka supported this fool's candidacy and now his presidency.  She's "babysitting" no one, since that job would suggest she exercises authority over her sittees, which she does not.  They ignore her.  She is not remotely qualified to be an adviser to a POTUS.


    Jared Kushner (none / 0) (#57)
    by KeysDan on Mon Apr 03, 2017 at 10:28:49 AM EST
    is the body double for Trump. Kushner is also the back channel for China's Ambassador. Seems Trump wants to keep it all in the family.  Maybe he does not trust those cabinet officials he appointed, like Secretary of State, Rex T. (the Russian Order of Friendship, guy).  

    All in the Family. (none / 0) (#59)
    by KeysDan on Mon Apr 03, 2017 at 10:39:17 AM EST
    Trump, apparently, does not have full confidence in those people he appointed, like Ambassadors and Russian Order of Friendship, Rex Tilleson. Kushner is also the back channel for China, via the Ambassador.  And, of course, Kushner is revamping the federal government, working on Middle East peace, and whatever else drips off Trump's desk. No one knew presidenting could be so complicated.

    For your consideration (5.00 / 3) (#53)
    by vicndabx on Mon Apr 03, 2017 at 09:32:18 AM EST
    The destruction of Hillary Clinton: sexism, Sanders and the millennial feminists

    This was true IMO:

    Before I go any further, let me put my own cards on the table. The destruction of Hillary Clinton, I firmly believe, while propelled by a perfect storm of sexism, partisan politics and media madness, was bookended by two immensely powerful assaults. One was the inappropriate, inaccurate and inflammatory interference in the general election by FBI director James Comey. The other occurred much earlier, during the primaries, but its consequences are felt even today

    "I think, frankly," he said in January, campaigning in New Hampshire, "it's hard to be a real progressive and to take on the establishment in a way that I think [it] has to be taken on, when you come as dependent as she has through her super PAC and in other ways on Wall Street and drug-company money."

    I remember us talking about it here - the types of attacks by our side on our side would hurt us long run.  Many did not want to believe it.

    one of the (none / 0) (#63)
    by ding7777 on Mon Apr 03, 2017 at 11:10:52 AM EST
    under reported reasons is the no-shows for Hillary.

    With all the "landside" victory headlines there were probably at least 40,000 no-shows in the 4 swing states - I was so so close to being one of them


    We did talk about it back then, in real time. (none / 0) (#66)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Apr 03, 2017 at 12:49:24 PM EST
    In my personal opinion, politics should never be approached or played as a zero-sum game. Because if and when we fail to maintain a sense of "us" in ourselves as individuals, we tend to lose our own individual sense of proportion and responsibility with regard to our respective places and roles in our society.

    This, in turn, hampers our willingness to empathize with the perceived plight of others, which then erodes our capacity to compromise for the sake of the collective's greater good. Let's face it, very few if any of us can successfully impose our will upon others in everyday life. Why do we then think we can do so in our politics?



    As an example of zero-sum politics, ... (none / 0) (#67)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Apr 03, 2017 at 01:27:56 PM EST
    ... I give you Prime Minister Theresa May's Conservative government and its hard-line strategy on the country's "Brexit" from the European Union.

    To that end, the prime minister herself has been unflinchingly impervious to the criticisms, considerations and desires of other substantial factions in the United Kingdom, nearly half of which didn't support the Brexit referendum and remain firmly opposed to the effort.

    As a result, Scotland is once again considering going its separate way, Northern Ireland is weighing its own options, English millennials and Generation Xers are left alienated and disillusioned, and the government itself appears to be losing its composure with regards to its relationship with the rest of Europe.

    Zero-sum politics exacerbates our tendencies toward factionalism.


    Interesting to think that Ireland (5.00 / 2) (#73)
    by caseyOR on Mon Apr 03, 2017 at 02:46:23 PM EST
    may finally be united as one country because of the arrogance of the British. As someone of Irish descent I would love to see the longheld dream of a  united Ireland finally realized.

    That it might come about because of the same English xenophobia and, well, arrogance, that prevailed for centuries as the British tried to destroy the Irish people and their culture, makes it all the sweeter.

    That Spain has indicated it will not oppose an attempt by Scotland to join the EU on its own may be embolden both the Scots and the Irish to act.


    Being Irish (none / 0) (#74)
    by MKS on Mon Apr 03, 2017 at 03:38:13 PM EST
    I thought I had no Irish in me.  Then I watched t.v. commercials and decided to take the DNA test.  And wala (or voila' for purists) I am 17% Irish.  

    But even amongst the English themselves, ... (none / 0) (#80)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Apr 03, 2017 at 04:16:50 PM EST
    ... Brexit prompted a very serious division along both generational and "urban vs. rural" lines.

    By and large, young people in England and throughout the UK remain firmly opposed to Brexit, which they see as an irrational infringement upon their future opportunities imposed by selfish elders who are living in the shadows of Empire. Unfortunately, young people also tend to disdain their right to vote, and in this case, that disdain cost them dearly.

    And residents of the City of London and its environs, one of the most cosmopolitan places on earth, voted overwhelmingly against Brexit. The bulk of Brexit's support came from the industrial midlands and rural communities, areas which were impacted the hardest by the UK's transition to a post-industrial economy.

    The resentful residents of these regions were ripe for plucking by political charlatans such as the odious Nigel Farage, who offered them a simplistic and misguided panacea, by which separation from the European Union and the resultant expulsion of foreign labor would somehow liberate the British economy.

    Brexit has been a toxic Pandora's Box for the UK. And Prime Minister May's rigid and unyielding position in its pursuit has only made matters worse by amplifying the divisions amongst the British people.

    Unfortunately, thanks to the Fixed-Term Parliaments Act of 2011, the likelihood of new elections being called in the UK before 2020 is fairly low. So, May's government will remain in place.



    destruction of Hillary (none / 0) (#110)
    by Lora on Mon Apr 03, 2017 at 09:33:39 PM EST
    While the portrayal of Hillary as the Antichr!st by the Far Right was unconscionable, the efforts of Bernie to win the primaries were the opposite.  You may as well look at that as the destruction of Sanders.  He almost won, despite all the efforts of the Democratic Party to stop him. And it is entirely possible that he could've beaten Trump.

    He was (5.00 / 1) (#113)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Apr 03, 2017 at 09:42:25 PM EST
    never close to winning and lost by millions of votes in the primary. He couldn't get his voters to show up for the primaries and he certainly would not have won the general.

    What Ga6thDem said, Lora. (5.00 / 2) (#144)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Apr 04, 2017 at 04:35:48 AM EST
    Bernie Sanders received 43% of the total number of Democratic primary and caucus votes cast in 2016. While that's certainly a respectable showing on his part, it does not at all equate to "close to winning."

    That said, I fail to see any useful purpose being served here by your apparent attempt to relitigate the 2016 primaries. It's over. Let's please move on.



    Hey, don't be a cop (none / 0) (#150)
    by Lora on Tue Apr 04, 2017 at 07:05:53 AM EST
    This is an open thread. Deal with it.

    Sanders is the reason for Trump (5.00 / 3) (#141)
    by Towanda on Tue Apr 04, 2017 at 03:32:31 AM EST
    in the White House, according to the very smart Barney Frank, as well as the analysis above.

    Of course, that means that you and the rest of the Sanders supporters, also are the reason for Trump in the White House.  


    He's just a pol (none / 0) (#114)
    by Yman on Mon Apr 03, 2017 at 09:49:45 PM EST
    While the portrayal of Hillary as the Antichr!st by the Far Right was unconscionable, the efforts of Bernie to win the primaries were the opposite.

    Meh - his efforts were those of a politician seeking to beat his opponent.  Nothing more, nothing less.

    You may as well look at that as the destruction of Sanders.  He almost won, despite all the efforts of the Democratic Party to stop him.

    The "Democratic Party" didn't try to stop him.  There were some in the party that favored Hillary, including the majority of Democratic voters.  Tends to happen when you're part of something for decades, as opposed to months.

    And it is entirely possible that he could've beaten Trump.

    That's the nice thing about that phrase "entirely possible".  It can apply to pretty much anything, and therefore really means nothing.


    Bernie (none / 0) (#135)
    by Lora on Mon Apr 03, 2017 at 11:19:20 PM EST
    The Democratic Party wanted Hillary to win.  (Seriously, anyone really doubt that assertion?)

    Okay, they did. So what? (5.00 / 1) (#143)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Apr 04, 2017 at 04:30:31 AM EST
    Hillary is, after all, a card-carrying Democrat, as am I. Why wouldn't I support her over someone who certainly made a lot of statements about joining the party, but never actually followed through?

    that's what (none / 0) (#149)
    by Lora on Tue Apr 04, 2017 at 07:04:22 AM EST

    The democratic party didn't just sit back and say "Gee, I hope the voters like Hillary better."  Seriously, do you think they did?


    Bernie quite possibly could've beaten Trump.

    Actually, I fear the right wing Putin-aided smear machine probably would've gotten him, too.


    And what exactly do you think we did, Lora? (5.00 / 1) (#190)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Apr 04, 2017 at 01:02:30 PM EST
    Seriously, I'm a Democratic Party official, and I really resent the insinuation that our thumbs were on the scales. Did we prevent Bernie Sanders from being placed on the ballot? No. Did we stuff ballot boxes? No. Did we steer Bernie supporters to the wrong precincts? No. But I'll tell you what we as Democratic Party leaders did out here in our own Hawaii presidential preference polls.

    Even though Bernie was not a Democratic Party member -- and frankly, we were misled by Vermont Democratic Party leaders who said he had signed a party card in Burlington -- and even though Hawaii state law requires a candidate to be a member in good standing of the party under whose banner he / she is running, we allowed his name to be placed in nomination.

    Further, even though caucuses are nominally restricted to participation by party members only, we waived that particular rule to allow thousands of non-party members to come and vote.

    So, please spare us your own personal "poor Bernie / bad Hillary" fable / saga, Lora. I've heard them all and the primaries are over. And to be perfectly blunt, you're talking out of your a$$ here, and making a baseless charge about nationwide intra-party chicanery that you can't otherwise back up with any actual evidence or data.

    Despite any personal preferences expressed by DNC leadership, Sen. Sanders was given every opportunity by the various state Democratic Parties across the country to compete and to win, because primaries and caucuses are functions of states and not the DNC. Bernie competed, and he ultimately lost because nearly four million more Democrats voted for Hillary Clinton nationwide than for him. Bottom line, end of story.

    If you and other unreconstructed Berniephiles still don't like it, then take a hike and join Jill Stein and the Green Party. At least you'll find something in common with Dr. Stein, in that you both love to concoct excuses about what happened in 2016 rather than deal with actual reality, you both share a personal penchant for self-marginalization, and given what both of you are saying, there is obviously no "us" in either of you.



    No (none / 0) (#151)
    by Yman on Tue Apr 04, 2017 at 07:20:58 AM EST
    Some of them actively supported her and/or criticized Bernie, just as his supporters did to her.



    And, as you know, I'm sure... (none / 0) (#173)
    by Lora on Tue Apr 04, 2017 at 10:19:36 AM EST
    Goes beyond just criticism.

    Many within the party were furious at Sanders being allowed to run for office under their name, with voicemails released by WikiLeaks revealing that some donors did not want him to speak at the convention.

    Hacked emails revealed last weekend that senior officials - including Democratic National Committee Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz - were biased against Sanders' campaign.

    Whoa! (5.00 / 2) (#175)
    by Yman on Tue Apr 04, 2017 at 11:14:33 AM EST
    "Many" were "furious"!  "Some" didn't wane him to speak at the convention!  Some senior officials were "biased"!

    Crazy stuff!  Almost like it was a primary campaign or something.


    Like the people couldn't just vote (none / 0) (#181)
    by vicndabx on Tue Apr 04, 2017 at 12:26:40 PM EST
    Just sayin' (none / 0) (#186)
    by Lora on Tue Apr 04, 2017 at 12:42:01 PM EST
    They didn't want him.  They wanted Hillary.  They did what they could to help her bag the nomination and stop him.

    If it was all so harmless, why do you think Wasserman Schultz resigned as chair?

    It went beyond just politics as usual.


    No idea who "they" are (5.00 / 1) (#191)
    by Yman on Tue Apr 04, 2017 at 01:05:10 PM EST
    You started with "the Demoratic Party" As if it was monolithic.  Now we're down to "they".  Many in the party leadership and membership preferred her - tends to happen when you spend several decades working in the party and building it, as opposed to jumping on board for a year out of convenience.  It's called politics ... or life.  Of someone is still feeling bitter about that, ...

    ... oh, well.


    Life ain't fair kid, get over it. (none / 0) (#187)
    by vicndabx on Tue Apr 04, 2017 at 12:49:35 PM EST
    Learn how to get your foot in the door first to facilitate change.

    Standing outside yelling at the door blocks everyone (including allies) from getting in.


    Underdog (none / 0) (#154)
    by Lora on Tue Apr 04, 2017 at 07:53:04 AM EST
    Bernie caught fire and had more victories than anyone imagined he would have.

    The media and the democratic party decks were stacked against him.

    He did not cause the destruction of Hillary.

    She had plenty of her own issues, and the Putin right wing smear machine was in overdrive.

    Bernie did not roll over right when the party leadership who did not want him to succeed in the first place told him to.  He could have been good for the party.  It is hypocritical to blame him for not caving for the good of the party when asked, or when he did support Hillary, to blame him for some of his die-hard supporters.


    All that is true (5.00 / 1) (#183)
    by vicndabx on Tue Apr 04, 2017 at 12:30:21 PM EST
    but he still lost and his $hit-talking certainly contributed to us all losing.

    What sh?t talk? (none / 0) (#188)
    by Lora on Tue Apr 04, 2017 at 12:54:25 PM EST

    Sanders did not criticize Clinton and instead congratulated her on her wins.

    Mother Jones: Bernie spoke in CA after primary.


    OK, maybe go back and read the article I posted. (none / 0) (#189)
    by vicndabx on Tue Apr 04, 2017 at 12:59:10 PM EST
    Sanders "shit talking" doesn't begin (4.00 / 1) (#192)
    by jondee on Tue Apr 04, 2017 at 01:26:59 PM EST
    to account for the rampant masochistic idiocy in this country that compelled tens-of-millions to possibly consider an anti-intellectual, megalomaniacal, p*ssy grabbing reality TV star of zero scope and substance as presidential material

    The way it stands now in this laughingstock of a country, we're going to have to draft Jesse Ventura to run against Trump. And I wish I was kidding.


    Wingnut Mighty Wutlitzer.. (5.00 / 1) (#202)
    by jondee on Tue Apr 04, 2017 at 09:20:04 PM EST
    I think someone had one of those on the Antiques Roadshow the other night..

    My spuds are still boiling a little after watching the FRONTLINE Newtown program last night.

    It truly staggers the imagination that we have a president who lent credibility to that psychotic pos Alex Jones, who encouraged his fans to harrass the grieving parents of those murdered children..

    Here's a thought: how's about if all the 2nd Amendment loons soiling themselves with fear shove their assault rifles very far up some place where they'll always be able to locate them in an emergency.

    Will Susan Rice be the smoking gun? (1.00 / 1) (#105)
    by Green26 on Mon Apr 03, 2017 at 09:24:57 PM EST
    If true, this doesn't look good, in my view. Seems like it would violate many principles, and perhaps laws. Looks like this occurred during the transition. Don't understand what her legitimate intelligence reasons could have been.

    "White House lawyers last month learned that the former national security adviser Susan Rice requested the identities of U.S. persons in raw intelligence reports on dozens of occasions that connect to the Donald Trump transition and campaign...."

    "The intelligence reports were summaries of monitored conversations -- primarily between foreign officials discussing the Trump transition, but also in some cases direct contact between members of the Trump team and monitored foreign officials. One U.S. official familiar with the reports said they contained valuable political information on the Trump transition such as whom the Trump team was meeting, the views of Trump associates on foreign policy matters and plans for the incoming administration."

    Doesn't look like the Rice requests were tied to Russian inquiries.

    The Dems would be going bonkers if the Bushies had done this to Obama, is my view. And does anyone care about civil liberties?

    Bloomberg article.

    Sorry but (none / 0) (#109)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Apr 03, 2017 at 09:31:41 PM EST
    the NSA would have to approve her doing that and she would have had to give them a good reason. You care nothing about civil liberties as most Republicans do not. C'mon Trump is splitting up families, holding people in cells, rounding them up. You guys don't care.

    Carter Page was passing info to a Russian spy back in 2013.


    I care a lot about civil liberties (none / 0) (#112)
    by Green26 on Mon Apr 03, 2017 at 09:41:12 PM EST
    and know a heck of a lot more about civili liberties than you do.

    Do you not know what Rice's position was? That's pretty funny.

    Articles coming out like crazy now on this story. Article.

    Not a Republican. Never was; never will be.

    You are a Putin on the brainer. Saw some dumb Putin you made today, but can't recall it. Made me laugh.


    Has that ever worked? (5.00 / 1) (#121)
    by Yman on Mon Apr 03, 2017 at 10:09:58 PM EST
    Your frequently used tactic of baselessly claiming more knowledge than someone else?  Because I just find it transparent and amusing ... in a very sad sort of way.  Much like when Trump does it.

    But yeah - you're right about there being articles "like crazy" - including those on the wingnut websites you cite that have the same level of credibility as your tactic above.


    Yes, the GOP (none / 0) (#116)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Apr 03, 2017 at 09:57:12 PM EST
    is going into overdrive creating conspiracy theories about Susan Rice.

    It's an attempt to talk about something other than the three big bombshells that dropped on the GOP today. You can continue to make excuses for Putin all you want. Everybody is talking about Trump and his Putin connections but I guess you would rather ignore it.

    You really sound hysterical for some reason. Whatever.


    Will the Trump DOJ start (none / 0) (#119)
    by Green26 on Mon Apr 03, 2017 at 10:05:48 PM EST
    an investigation of Rice. I think they will. Can you say "lawyer up".

    GA6, you should change your name to PutinontheBrain.


    Who cares? (none / 0) (#126)
    by Yman on Mon Apr 03, 2017 at 10:22:39 PM EST
    The Trump DOJ would start an investigation of Mother Theresa, if she said something they didn't like.  That doesn't make the claims about Rice credible.  But it's interesting that someone who claims to be a lawyer is suggesting that "lawyering up" is indicative of guilt.  Trump and Flynn tried that during the campaign, too.  But they've changed their tune in the past week or so.



    This whole (none / 0) (#128)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Apr 03, 2017 at 10:41:26 PM EST
    thing is hoax perpetuated on Republicans with regards to Trump claiming somebody was spying on him. First it was Obama and then that one became a laughingstock and it's been moving along until it is now Susan Rice. Keep ignoring the elephant in the room like Carter Page giving information to Russian spies and Erik Prince setting up a secret network for Trump to communicate with Putin for another nonsense story shopped by the GOP and Trump. I'm sure the Susan Rice story is BIG with the 35% of the country that supports Trump but the rest of us are laughing.

    No - she won't (none / 0) (#118)
    by Yman on Mon Apr 03, 2017 at 10:05:09 PM EST
    ... and you have no evidence of any wrongdoing, let alone a "smoking gun", which is why you use use the Fox News tactic of phrasing your baseless smear as a "question".

    If true, this doesn't look good, in my view. Seems like it would violate many principles, and perhaps laws. Looks like this occurred during the transition. Don't understand what her legitimate intelligence reasons could have been.

    The fact that you can't fathom her reasons means nothing.  The fact that you think it violated "many principles, and perhaps laws" that you can't even name also means nothing.

     Doesn't look like the Rice requests were tied to Russian inquiries.

    The Dems would be going bonkers if the Bushies had done this to Obama, is my view. And does anyone care about civil liberties?

    Of course that's your view - based entirely on a fantasy.


    Just watch the news cycle in the next few days (none / 0) (#120)
    by Green26 on Mon Apr 03, 2017 at 10:08:34 PM EST
    Rice is going to need a good defense lawyer. Whether she violated any laws or not, the Trump DOJ is gong to come after her, is my view.

    Bring it on (5.00 / 3) (#124)
    by Yman on Mon Apr 03, 2017 at 10:15:59 PM EST
    Hopefully for you, they'll at least be able to cite a statute that they can pretend she violated.

    You can't even do that.

    How many years did you claim to be practicing, again?

    BTW - For those who prefer information over winger fantasies:

    The standard for senior officials to learn the names of U.S. persons incidentally collected is that it must have some foreign intelligence value, a standard that can apply to almost anything. This suggests Rice's unmasking requests were likely within the law.

    You just keep falling for the spin (none / 0) (#131)
    by Green26 on Mon Apr 03, 2017 at 10:51:41 PM EST
    Keep watching. Rice will have to justify her requests. There will be considerable information in writing.

    Starting the obvious (none / 0) (#132)
    by Yman on Mon Apr 03, 2017 at 10:58:49 PM EST
    ... isn't supporting your tinfoil claims.  The only one falling for the spin is you.

    Stating the obvious (none / 0) (#133)
    by Yman on Mon Apr 03, 2017 at 10:59:05 PM EST
    ... isn't supporting your tinfoil claims.  The only one falling for the spin is you.

    Did your sniper son tell you this? (none / 0) (#160)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Apr 04, 2017 at 09:11:00 AM EST
    Haven't talked to him recently (1.00 / 1) (#162)
    by Green26 on Tue Apr 04, 2017 at 09:15:39 AM EST
    Can't wait to see how impressed he is with people who do SHARP training.

    I do not expect YOUR son (1.00 / 1) (#167)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Apr 04, 2017 at 09:36:59 AM EST
    To care about good order and conduct.

    I don't expect you to understand (1.00 / 4) (#169)
    by Green26 on Tue Apr 04, 2017 at 09:43:27 AM EST
    anything about the battlefields of the Middle East, civil liberties or the Constitution.

    Bahahahahaha! (none / 0) (#171)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Apr 04, 2017 at 09:57:29 AM EST
    As if he would know (none / 0) (#166)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Apr 04, 2017 at 09:34:02 AM EST
    I'm sure (none / 0) (#129)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Apr 03, 2017 at 10:46:37 PM EST
    Fox will be on it and Trump will be tweeting about it because it's on Fox and then Fox will talk about Trump's tweet and on it goes. And it will end up in the same place the whole Obama is spying on me conspiracy theory went. And then everybody will be laughing at conservatives once again.

    show reviews (none / 0) (#1)
    by linea on Sat Apr 01, 2017 at 09:10:20 PM EST
    Grace and Frankie
    five-stars on netflix. recommended by a TL poster. only watched the first ten minutes of the first season first episode. in real life this would have been a painful tearfull scene but it was made lighthearted with some food childishly thrown and calm "sofisticated adult dialog" like the worst stereotype of french films. im think perhaps in a week i'll try watching more? not sure.

    Black Mirror
    five-stars on netflix. watched first season three episodes. all three episodes (one hour short-story sci-fi future imaginings) were male fantasies centered on fetishness and possesiveness. i cant watch anymore. not saying it's bad; im the wrong audience.

    I've watched all of Grace and Frankie (none / 0) (#4)
    by Jeralyn on Sat Apr 01, 2017 at 10:02:29 PM EST
    and like it a lot, especially the last several of the 13 new episodes. The addition of Peter Gallagher was very welcome as a multi-millionaire tech company owner who sues Grace and Frankie to get a date with Grace. I especially like June Diane Raphael who plays Grace's daughter Brianna, who is career-driven and can't stand children. (The "American Gigolo" scenes were a bit too predictable.) I also liked Frankie's boyfriend Jason. Her son Coyote was also more likable this season.

    I really like the way the show deals with the trauma of sudden medical issues. Jane Fonda was like a walking encyclopedia (I won't say on what in case you haven't watched yet.)

    The story line did sag the first few episodes, and I never like the Martin Sheen/Sam Waterston parts, (and was bored by the Sheen "1776" scenes) but Jane Fonda and Lily Tomlin are so perfect in their roles, I don't see how anyone wouldn't recommend the series.  I just hope it gets renewed for season 4.


    i'll try watching more (none / 0) (#5)
    by linea on Sat Apr 01, 2017 at 10:19:39 PM EST
    i think im not getting the comedy.

    i felt like the most heart-wrenching things were made light of. when frankie (lily tomlin) said to her husband who was leaving her "i cant remember the last time i slept in a bed without you" i started to cry but some "sofisticated adult dialog" ensued and they spooned. i felt like, "no! dont spoon!"


    I haven't watched it as much as I'd like ... (none / 0) (#11)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sat Apr 01, 2017 at 10:47:10 PM EST
    ... this year. But what I've seen is excellent. And yes, Lily Tomlin and Jane Fonda are marvelous together. I also agree that the Martin Sheen-Sam Waterson pairing has become quite tedious. Personally, I feel that they pretty much served their purpose in the show when they came out to their wives as gay, declared their love for one another and moved in together. At this point, they're excess baggage in a storyline that rightly centers on their former spouses' lives and friendship.

    There are some very good episodes (none / 0) (#39)
    by McBain on Sun Apr 02, 2017 at 08:41:18 PM EST
    of Black Mirror.  I think it has more to do with how technology can effect relationships and what that says about human nature.  Some dark stuff but very interesting.   The first episode of season two "Be Right Back" has more of a female theme.  

    ok i will watch the second season (none / 0) (#43)
    by linea on Sun Apr 02, 2017 at 10:49:29 PM EST
    i do realize that it is an anthology of short stories. so thank you.

    but i do feel the initial episode was spy and the two subsequent episodes were an expression of male posessivness. if you didnt see that when you watched it; then watch it again.


    The Bulldogs advance to their very first NCAA championship game in school history in any sport with a gutsy victory over the Gamecocks. Next up for the Zags is the winner of the Oregon-No. Carolina seminfinal. Tar heels are currently up on the Ducks, 48-43, with 14:40 to go in the game.

    open topic! wooo! (none / 0) (#3)
    by linea on Sat Apr 01, 2017 at 09:45:53 PM EST
    while i hate sports; i love how the "bulldogs advance" and are "gutsy!"  i hope we get more honestly open topic posts on this thread. fish soup recipes? science topics? where are the anti-whaling atheists?

    If you don't like sports, linea, ... (none / 0) (#6)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sat Apr 01, 2017 at 10:29:46 PM EST
    ... then please ignore the post, and don't denigrate those who do, as though you're somehow their moral superior.

    Never mind. (none / 0) (#7)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sat Apr 01, 2017 at 10:30:37 PM EST
    i dont understand (none / 0) (#10)
    by linea on Sat Apr 01, 2017 at 10:40:43 PM EST
    i liked your post and was enthusiastic that the "bulldogs advanced" and were "gutsy!" even if i didnt understand it.

    I apologized below. (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sat Apr 01, 2017 at 10:48:08 PM EST
    I misread your post. My bad.

    {{hugs}} (none / 0) (#13)
    by linea on Sat Apr 01, 2017 at 10:52:18 PM EST
    I misread your post. My apologies. (none / 0) (#9)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sat Apr 01, 2017 at 10:37:42 PM EST
    NCAAM G2: No. Carolina 77, Oregon 76. (none / 0) (#8)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sat Apr 01, 2017 at 10:36:52 PM EST
    The Ducks can't say that opportunity never presented itself in this one. They took a lot of hasty and bad shots down the stretch when to didn't have to, and lose a heartbreaker as a result.

    North Carolina will now play Gonzaga on Monday night for the NCAA Men's basketball championship. In the NCAA Women's championship tomorrow night, Mississippi State will take on South Carolina.

    Two more potentially great games to go.


    Billo Reilly's harassment issues (none / 0) (#15)
    by Repack Rider on Sun Apr 02, 2017 at 03:57:05 AM EST
    According to the NYT, Billo has cost FOX at least $13M for settlements over harassment claims.

    He responds (of course) that because he is such a high profile guy, he is subject to such accusations and rather than fight them the company has settled.  It doesn't seem to happen to a lot of other high profile guys.  Maybe that's because he does not accept that you can be any higher profile than he is.

    The Andrea Mackris recording, which got leaked somehow, makes a lie of his statement.  It was extremely graphic and not exactly romantic, esp. considering the source.

    The custody battle that he lost left a public record that he was not the best of husbands either.

    Why am I not surprised that he doesn't just play one on TV, he really is one.

    Catching up on this now (5.00 / 2) (#17)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Apr 02, 2017 at 10:42:53 AM EST
    Repulsive and his contract is renewed too. We have pu$$y grabber who is Commander in Chief also putting a stamp of approval on Fox sexual harassment News.

    We have secret Facebook military groups collecting nude photos of female soldiers, breaking in on them in bathrooms and dressing rooms. Taking photos of them clothed but bending over, and then all sorts of rape comments made. The first Marine Corp group was shut down, but they quickly reconstituted into a 2.0 group. Then they threatened Sargeant Major Green. Sergeant Major Green holds a B.S. in Cybersecurity and a M.S. in Cybersecurity Policy from the University of Maryland University College, and he was in charge of bringing them down. They threatened to post photos of Green's wife to their private Facebook.

    3 Marine wives belong to my support group, 2 of them are at Lejeune. Dunsford showed up at Lejeune on fire. We kept waiting as a group for the story to break in MSM so we could begin calling Congresspersons but with everything going on in the Trump administration it isn't going to break.

    When have Marines ever been this out of control? Threatening their command? Trump's history and sexism feeds this! His stamp of approval on Fox News feeds this too.

    The desk clerk, who teaches SHARP training to Lieutenants and Captains, said that he was notified yesterday that the 2.0 secret Marine Corp page has now been shutdown.


    I was so saddened by this story (5.00 / 3) (#18)
    by Towanda on Sun Apr 02, 2017 at 11:53:03 AM EST
    as some of my favorite, hardworking students were ex-military, including Marines, and including women Marines (who even asked me to be their faculty advisor).  

    The male Marines among them also were so impressive -- and so respectful, far more than were many students to a woman prof -- that I cannot imagine that they were part of this culture.  

    Maybe so many good ones, men and women, did not re-up because of this culture?


    You are right, it isn't everyone (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Apr 02, 2017 at 02:22:28 PM EST
    The sick ones find each other and then support each other in being predators. When the commander is a predator too though, accountability becomes easily questionable in the minds of the sick predators.

    I was told that at the hearing, (none / 0) (#25)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Apr 02, 2017 at 02:38:41 PM EST
    Before they threatened Green, she could have had the Commandant in tears if she had wanted. I have not watched that portion of the hearing yet, but I will now. I'm told the Commandant admitted to her that he'd known about the group for years.

    If you follow (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Apr 02, 2017 at 01:02:59 PM EST
    Kristen Gillibrand on twitter you should bring this to her attention as she has been on this kind of thing for quite a while.

    You are right (none / 0) (#22)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Apr 02, 2017 at 02:16:58 PM EST
    There's so much crap going on sometimes it is easy to forget the next right thing to do.

    Given that the situation has been going on (none / 0) (#77)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Apr 03, 2017 at 04:00:16 PM EST
    for quite awhile I would say that Obama is responsible.

    OTOH Trump is responsible for dandruff, flat feet, bad breath and the heartbreak of psoriasis.  


    Obama never bragged about grabbing (5.00 / 1) (#79)
    by jondee on Mon Apr 03, 2017 at 04:07:16 PM EST
    pussies. And by that he didn't mean roughly accosting Tall Cotton fans.

    He also never, as far as we know, paid to run through the spring showers of Moscow with the daffodils in bloom, like Trump the eternal nature-lover.



    To which many of would say ... (5.00 / 1) (#81)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Apr 03, 2017 at 04:31:20 PM EST
    jimakaPPJ: "Given that the situation has been going on for quite awhile I would say that Obama is responsible."

    ... that you're a hateful little moron who clearly has terminal Obamaphobia on the brain. Taking your dimwitted screed to its logical conclusion, I suppose that one could also say that Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush were responsible for the Tailhook scandal.

    But then, you're anything but logical.


    Donald I truly wish you were as smart as (none / 0) (#86)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Apr 03, 2017 at 06:11:21 PM EST
    you think you are. That would mean you are capable of being educated.

    My point was simple.

    It is silly to blame the cause of something on the man who has been President for less than 75 days.

    Especially when, prior to 11/8/16 no one gave him a chance of winning and he was widely disrespected and made fun on in and by the media.

    And, of course, my comment was satire.

    the use of humor, irony, exaggeration, or ridicule to expose and criticize people's stupidity or vices, particularly in the context of contemporary politics and other topical issues.

    Your comments, besides trying to be personally hateful, reveal a scurrilous personality and follows in the same vein as attention to the number of homeless always going up when a Repub president is elected.

    Worse, it removes the focus of the problem from the Marines and places it on Trump. That's like shooting your neighbor's cat because his dog is barking and keeping you awake.

    Even worse, or better from Trump's view. it places your claim in the ridiculous category and reduces your support.

    Keep it up!


    You constantly traffic in misinformation, innuendo and outright falsehoods, you engage in slander and smear, and you regularly insult the intelligence other posters, all for no apparent purpose other than trolling and blog-clogging.

    I couldn't possibly care any less about what a bigoted ignoramus like you thinks of me, never mind your opinions -- such as they are -- about the issues of the day.

    Have a nice evening.


    I know exactlty what I speak of (none / 0) (#152)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Apr 04, 2017 at 07:38:29 AM EST
    Donald. And you display your true self for all to see.

    Please keep on proving my point.


    This rough tough right wing guys (5.00 / 2) (#71)
    by jondee on Mon Apr 03, 2017 at 01:41:05 PM EST
    who puff themselves up, raise their voices, and point their finger in order to prove to the world they're winning a debate, know that when a woman rebuffs their advances, it just means that she's playing hard-to-grope.

    It sounds like Fox has been fostering a rape culture the same way the Marines have.

    The difference being of course, that you can't work for Fox unless you've had at least four military deferments.

    And you can't be a real hardcore Fox fan of you've ever seen action anywhere.


    Fox News (none / 0) (#16)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Apr 02, 2017 at 08:15:32 AM EST
    has massive problems that apparently they are unwilling to deal with.

    So what else is new? (none / 0) (#24)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sun Apr 02, 2017 at 02:37:37 PM EST
    For many years now, Fox News has long had a rather notorious reputation as a hostile environment for women. Just look at the abysmal manner in which Fox management handled the Roger Ailes affair. Any decent board of directors would've shown both Ailes and Bill O'Reilly the door a long time ago, certainly way before matters reached this point.

    But in my honest opinion, several of the more high-profile female on-air personalities at Fox News haven't help matters any with the contrary public positions they've often espoused on women's rights and issues. Further, several of them took some gratuitous swipes at Gretchen Carlson, undercutting her credibility when she finally stood up to Ailes and was punished for it. Rather than stand in solidarity with her, they defended the boss for whatever their reasons. (Greta Van Susteren in particular ought to be ashamed of herself on that account.)

    Suffice to say that when any woman raises such an issue as sexual harassment in the workplace, we should all take immediate notice and consider it very seriously. And when more than one woman makes the same claim in the same setting, alarm bells should be going off. "Boys will be boys" should no longer be an acceptable rote response and ready-made excuse to legitimize the illegitimate and defend the indefensible.



    Thank you for calling out (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by Towanda on Sun Apr 02, 2017 at 03:35:48 PM EST
    Greta van Susteren, the latest of MSNBC's mistakes.  I really did not understand, at all, Maddow's beyond-warm welcome of van Susteren.

    Maybe Maddow didn't do her homework on van Susteren, not only at Fox but before then . . . although what else is to be expected of the daughter of a disagraced judge and campaign strategist for Joe McCarthy -- who even picked the rabid Tailgunner Joe to be his best man.


    Fox News viewers by and large tend to be quite loyal to the company brand, and aren't likely to follow those two women to their new networks. (Reportedly, Carlson is being slotted for a show on MSNBC, while Kelly is being prepped to take over Tamron Hall's and Al Roker's 9:00 a.m. weekday slot on NBC's Today Show.)

    So, I'm not quite sure what the NBC honchos expect to gain by these particular moves, particularly with Kelly, who's engaged in race-baiting on more than one occasion. In Dec. 2013, she manufactured a wholly unnecessary public brouhaha over her nonsensical insistence that Santa Claus was white. Does NBC News really want someone like that anchoring the third hour of its flagship morning show?



    link to the article (none / 0) (#21)
    by linea on Sun Apr 02, 2017 at 01:29:57 PM EST
    looks like (none / 0) (#26)
    by linea on Sun Apr 02, 2017 at 02:58:50 PM EST
    neil gorsuch will be the next scotus justice

    Sen. Joe Donnelly (D-Ind.) says he will vote to confirm federal appeals court judge Neil Gorsuch, becoming the third Democratic senator to back President Donald Trump's nominee to the Supreme Court.

    "After meeting with Judge Gorsuch, conducting a thorough review of his record, and closely following his hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee, I believe that he is a qualified jurist who will base his decisions on his understanding of the law and is well-respected among his peers," Donnelly said in a statement released on Sunday.

    He is not (none / 0) (#29)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Apr 02, 2017 at 03:34:42 PM EST
    going to make a difference. It's dependent on whether Schumer has 40 votes to make a filibuster hold or if Schumer has enough to hold a filibuster if McConnell is willing to blow it up to put Gorsuch on the court. If in fact Gorsuch makes it to the supreme court he is going to be forever known as the guy put on the court by Vladimir Putin.

    Senator McConnell (none / 0) (#32)
    by KeysDan on Sun Apr 02, 2017 at 04:03:04 PM EST
    and his Republican cohorts would not so much as meet with Merrick Garland, let alone hold hearings and vote on his nomination, because we can't fill Supreme Court nominations during an election.

    (note: we can disregard McConnell's assertion that the Garland nomination was too late in the Obama term, since Anthony Kennedy was confirmed as Associate Justice, in Feb 1988, with 11 months remaining in Reagan's term.)

    Since Donald Trump is a candidate for president, having filed for re-election in 2020 on Jan 20, 2017, we are, once again, in an election campaign. Hence, following McConnell's "rule" Gorsuch's nomination will surely be withdrawn by Republicans. It was just a slip-up that hearings were held.


    On October 15, 1956, three weeks before ... (5.00 / 2) (#37)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sun Apr 02, 2017 at 05:23:26 PM EST
    ... he was to face voters for re-election, President Dwight Eisenhower used the recess appointment process to place William Brennan on the U.S. Supreme Court upon the retirement of Associate Justice Sherman Minton, because Congress was not then in session. The Senate subsequently confirmed Brennan in March 1957.

    So, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell's argument that a president cannot nominate someone for the High Court during an election year is nothing but a baseless exercise in political expediency. Critics have every right to cry foul over his effort to steal a Supreme Court appointment.



    im reading this (none / 0) (#33)
    by linea on Sun Apr 02, 2017 at 04:11:01 PM EST
    McConnell Says Gorsuch Will be Confirmed This Week, With or Without Democrats

    Democratic and Republican leaders in Congress set the stage for what will be a fierce battle in Congress this week over the confirmation of Judge Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court. Regardless of what happens, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said there will be a vote and Gorsuch will be confirmed this week.

    So what? (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by Towanda on Sun Apr 02, 2017 at 05:49:47 PM EST
    Of course, McConnell says that.

    What is Dems' count?


    Doesn't matter (none / 0) (#87)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Apr 03, 2017 at 06:14:21 PM EST
    Harry Reid opened the door and the Repubs are walking through it.

    Can you ever (none / 0) (#92)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Apr 03, 2017 at 07:29:45 PM EST
    quit blaming someone else? Harry Reid is not making McConnell do anything. He has his own free will to make choices. I find it kind of ironic that McConnell might blow it up to put Vladimir's choice on the supreme court for a lifetime appointment. Gorsuch will always be known for that even if he rules somebody else should die of frost bite instead of using common sense.

    GA, blaming someone else for what you have (none / 0) (#93)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Apr 03, 2017 at 08:01:58 PM EST
    done is a serious case of denial...and juvenile.

    But I gotta admit that you're tenacious in blaming everything on Putin.

    BTW - Have you heard that it was Obama's Number One who did the outing??

    AKA Susan Rice.


    Seriously, moron? (5.00 / 1) (#94)
    by jondee on Mon Apr 03, 2017 at 08:22:24 PM EST
    You who claim man-made greenhouse gases are a hoax and that Hillary sold uranium to Russia have any grounds whatsoever to lecture other people about anything?

    You've thrown your lot in with brutal p*ssy grabbers and Alex Jones fan boys who threaten the Newtown parents. Those are your people, Billy Bob.

    You're a waste of space and oxygen.


    jondee...... (1.00 / 3) (#99)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Apr 03, 2017 at 08:56:30 PM EST
    Please. I am embarrassed for you, since you can't even insult in an original and interesting way.

    And you seem so frightened of things...

    Tens of millions of dollars from uranium investors flowed into the Clinton Foundation, and Bill Clinton received a $500,000 speaking fee from a Russian bank tied to the Kremlin before Secretary of State Hillary Clinton helped decide whether to approve the sale to the Russian government of a company that held one-fifth of America's uranium capacity.


    Got that "...helped decide.....approve sale ...."

    If you can, answer me this simple question. Why in God's name would any American allow, much less help, one-fifth of America's uranium capacity be sold to any country much less Russia.

    Wait. I know. The SecofState of an administration that would help an avowed, vocal and declared enemy of the USA would...wait...make that DID.

    Catch a clue. She drove the getaway car.


    Are you one of those clinically (none / 0) (#101)
    by jondee on Mon Apr 03, 2017 at 09:09:25 PM EST
    paranoid types who arrives at a delusion-conclusion and then proceeds to twist all available facts to fit the already-arrived- at conclusion?

    Like your King James Bible believin' scientific observations?

    You do realize that that uranium deal was approved by five government agencies..

    So you're attributing God-given omnipotence to the Clintons? Is that how the whole thing played out in your crack-brained Alex Jones universe?


    jondee, you are making things up again (none / 0) (#153)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Apr 04, 2017 at 07:42:32 AM EST
    but I love it. It so approves my point.

    BTW - I do love it that the enemy du jour gave Clinton for $500 million.


    Why don't you try learning the language (none / 0) (#178)
    by jondee on Tue Apr 04, 2017 at 11:47:44 AM EST
    before you move on to the heavy lifting of figuring out what "approves your point" and what doesn't?



    "Catch a clue"??? (none / 0) (#103)
    by Yman on Mon Apr 03, 2017 at 09:15:37 PM EST
    The guy LYING about Hillary Clinton and some tinfoil uranium conspiracy theory citing wingnut website WND is telling someone to "catch a clue"???

    Hahahahahaha ...

    It's like Trump or Conway telling others that telling the truth is important.

    What a joke.


    so much wrong with statement (none / 0) (#159)
    by ding7777 on Tue Apr 04, 2017 at 09:08:13 AM EST
    If you can, answer me this simple question. Why in God's name would any American allow, much less help, one-fifth of America's uranium capacity be sold to any country much less Russia.
    1. the uranium was not sold to Russia
    2. it was a 20% stock purchase in Uranium One - a company which mines 11% to 20% of America's uranium.
    3. the mined uranium stays in the USA
    4. Assistant Secretary Jose Fernandez, recommended the deal - Clinton concurred
    5. the State Dept was one of 9 Agency/Dept to sign-off on the deal
    6. Russia has been disposing US supplied uranium for years - since 1993(Bush the 1st)

    I hope this helps you to ditch your wrath or if not then to expand it to all players going back to 1993

    ROTFLMAO (5.00 / 2) (#106)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Apr 03, 2017 at 09:25:31 PM EST
    Yes, Russia Today is trying to make Susan Rice doing her job into something to fleece the rubes with.

    I know it's hard for you to understand but repeating a lie over and over and over does not make it into the truth.

    A number of big bombs dropped on Trump's head today

    Carter Page Russian spy?

    Betsy Devos' brother Erik Prince set up a secret network to communicate with Putin and the Russian computer that went to Trump towers also connected to Betsy Devos' company in Michigan link

    And the FBI is forming a special task force to investigate nothing but Trump and his advisors links to Putin and the Russian mob and oligarchs.


    Hahahahahahahaha .... (none / 0) (#96)
    by Yman on Mon Apr 03, 2017 at 08:22:40 PM EST
    I hope you're right ... she should get a medal.  

    But the fact that you're citing a Fox News report citing anonymous sources is hilarious, particularly when you were just criticizing the use of anonymous sources just a few weeks ago.


    No nio no (none / 0) (#97)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Apr 03, 2017 at 08:34:49 PM EST
    I did not criticize the use.

    I just, as you just did, pointed out they were qualified.


    Yes, yes, yes ... (none / 0) (#102)
    by Yman on Mon Apr 03, 2017 at 09:09:40 PM EST
    You absolutely did.  Just like you feigned outrage over "leaks!" and now support these kind of leaks.

    It's the blatant  hypocrisy that's so amusing.

    But I hope the report is right.  Rice has broad authority to unmask and should receive a medal.  The fact that you wingers are are scurrying for cover and apoplectic over it is just a bonus.


    He's the only one here (none / 0) (#104)
    by jondee on Mon Apr 03, 2017 at 09:17:50 PM EST
    who will tell a bald-faced lie about something he said five minutes before on the same thread.

    From (none / 0) (#107)
    by FlJoe on Mon Apr 03, 2017 at 09:27:48 PM EST
    the unmasking files ,
    A court filing by the US government contains a transcript of a recorded conversation in which Podobnyy speaks with one of the other men busted in the spy ring, Igor Sporyshev, about trying to recruit someone identified as "Male-1." BuzzFeed News has confirmed that "Male-1" is Page.
    he actually unmasks himself
    Page confirmed to BuzzFeed News on Monday that he is "Male-1" in the court filing and said he had been in contact with Podobnyy, who was working at the time at Moscow's UN office in New York City under diplomatic cover, although he was really an SVR agent.
    nothing to see here of course, going from hanging out with Russian Spies to hanging out with tRump's campaign to unemployed to perhaps soon convicted felon. , a downward career trajectory if you ask me.

    First to sing?


    Why no link? (none / 0) (#155)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Apr 04, 2017 at 08:03:30 AM EST
    Real interesting stuff. Let's see it all.

    about trying to recruit someone

    I wonder how many people the Russians have tried to recruit.

    But since you like BuzzFeed:

    The revelation of Page's connection to Russian intelligence -- which occurred more than three years before his association with Trump -- is the most clearly documented contact to date

    And then:

    Page was quickly cut from the Trump team following reports that federal investigators were probing his ties to Russian officials. White House press secretary Sean Spicer said last month that the campaign had sent Page cease and desist letters last year, demanding he stop associating himself with it.

    Now. Tell me what Susan Rice wanted with all that info that was "incidentally" picked up. Why did she want all the info on the Trump team?

    Look. Again. We have ways to get at traitors. Let the justice department review the information and then decide if a grand jury is needed.

    You don't "leak it."

    Otherwise you are just Joe McCarthy.

    "Are you now or have you ever been a spy for Russia."


    Page was (5.00 / 2) (#157)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Apr 04, 2017 at 08:07:41 AM EST
    cut after it became public knowledge. Much like Flynn they were fine with the Russian connections as long as the public did not know about them. These are the same people that were setting up backdoor connections to Putin with Eric Prince.

    GA, you have absolutely no way of knowing (none / 0) (#194)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Apr 04, 2017 at 01:42:39 PM EST
    about any of that.

    Look at this post.

    The United Arab Emirates arranged a secret meeting in January between Blackwater founder Erik Prince and a Russian close to President Vladi­mir Putin as part of an apparent effort to establish a back-channel line of communication between Moscow and President-elect Donald Trump, according to U.S., European and Arab officials.

    Unnamed source. Qualifier word "apparent." That means the writer doesn't know.

    The meeting took place around Jan. 11 -- nine days before Trump's inauguration -- in the Seychelles islands in the Indian Ocean, officials said. Though the full agenda remains unclear, the UAE agreed to broker the meeting in part to explore whether Russia could be persuaded to curtail its relationship with Iran, including in Syria, a Trump administration objective that would be likely to require major concessions to Moscow on U.S. sanctions.

    Though Prince had no formal role with the Trump campaign or transition team, he presented himself as an unofficial envoy for Trump to high-ranking Emiratis involved in setting up his meeting with the Putin confidant, according to the officials, who did not identify the Russian.

    Unknown officials and unknown Russian. Prince's relationship is described as unofficial. That means he isn't part of anything.

    But really, so what? What do we know from these claims? IF true, Prince was trying to find out what it would take to get Russia to quit supporting Iran and Assad.

    Given that the US's goal is to get rid of Assad and dstroy ISIS that appears a very laudable goal.

    You know. establish a Islamic government friendly to the US, stop the killing by ISIS of Jews, gays, Christians.....and marginalize Iran, an Islamic theocracy that has declared its intent to destroy Israel and the US.

    Do you have a problem with that?


    That's just sad (5.00 / 3) (#201)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Apr 04, 2017 at 02:57:01 PM EST
    Jim. Eric Prince's response to all this was just lame. You would have thought if it wasn't true that he would have been able to completely deny it.

    Trump supports Assad staying. He said that the US will not go after Assad probably because Putin is an Assad supporter.

    You are asking a question based completely false information. LOL. Trump is a-okay with Assad.


    What exactly was (none / 0) (#158)
    by FlJoe on Tue Apr 04, 2017 at 08:57:45 AM EST
    leaked that has you all bunched up?

    The Justice department is not the only avenue to get at traitors or terrorists, the other agencies and the WH must be involved, this by nature must include the process of unmasking by multiple persons involved in tracking these evil doers down.

    Nobody has shown one shred of evidence that any unmasking was done for political reasons, matter of fact most of the reporting indicates that the Obama administration did it's best to keep the investigations quiet before the election.


    Actually no one has shown one shred of (none / 0) (#195)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Apr 04, 2017 at 01:56:55 PM EST
    evidence that the Russians actually hacked the DNC's email servers.

    I mean if you wanna get technical. ;-)

    What should be done is to follow the rules.

    Impanel a Grand Jury. All of its proceedings are secret. Present the evidence to the GJ. Said evidence collected by the FBI.

    Indict or not indict.

    Nothing else is needed.

    No need to unmask anyone. In fact, by warning any criminal they can take defensive measures.

    But Susan wanted info on Trump's campaign. She started her major efforts when he was nominated and then increased it as the election proceeded.

    That may not bother you now.

    You think the Repubs won't reciprocate?

    Look at how they are using Reid's rule changing.

    Welcome to a conservative majority. Especially when Trump gets his second, maybe third, nominee on board.


    Just Joe McCarthy, eh? (none / 0) (#179)
    by jondee on Tue Apr 04, 2017 at 12:08:02 PM EST
    maybe you should think back to what you love to say about McCarthy: that he was essentially right about there being anti-democratic enemies in our midst.

    Though, apparently you're happy continuing to exemplify the essential point about those who put rampant irrational ideology ahead of country..

    Though you have to give the Marxist-Leninists for at least valuing cultural and scientific literacy, as opposed to the science and textbook burners you front for.


    Yes I did (1.00 / 1) (#196)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Apr 04, 2017 at 01:58:32 PM EST
    The difference is that he was right and you sore loser Democrats are just making noise because Hillary lost.

    Opening Day!! (none / 0) (#27)
    by desertswine on Sun Apr 02, 2017 at 03:06:57 PM EST
    And the Mets are still in first place, a glorious re-affirmation of life.

    The Ghost of Bob Murphy... (none / 0) (#84)
    by kdog on Mon Apr 03, 2017 at 05:12:04 PM EST
    here with The Happy Recap of an Opening Day victory by the New York Mets, 6-0 over the Atlanta Braves. Behind strong shutout pitching by Noah "Thor" Syndergaard and the Mets bullpen, and a 6 run feasting on the Braves bullpen in the 7th fueled by Asdrubal Cabrera's RBI single and Lucas Duda's base clearing three run double, the Mets improve on their major league best record on Opening Day.

    Wire to wire d'wine...here we go!


    See you in the playoffs! (none / 0) (#88)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Apr 03, 2017 at 06:16:06 PM EST
    Cards win 4-3 over the dreaded Cubbies.

    Hey, dawg, did you (none / 0) (#117)
    by oculus on Mon Apr 03, 2017 at 10:04:58 PM EST
    get my text message re Shakespeare in the Park?

    NSA musta intercepted... (none / 0) (#177)
    by kdog on Tue Apr 04, 2017 at 11:36:43 AM EST
    as I got no text...email me!

    game of thrones (none / 0) (#28)
    by linea on Sun Apr 02, 2017 at 03:33:24 PM EST
    im sorry (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by linea on Sun Apr 02, 2017 at 03:40:09 PM EST
    that's a fan video.

    the official video can be viewed here.


    Something I can agree with you on (none / 0) (#45)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Apr 03, 2017 at 12:15:21 AM EST
    linea, watching Game of Thrones. I saw the new trailer tonight. It was stirring, they did a great job. Everything about the television series has been spectacular.

    Just got the Kindle version of 'The White Princess' too. Another poster here oculus suggested Phillipa Gregory's book on Cleopatra, and since reading it I decided to read her books thus far on the women of the Tudor dynasty. Have not had a chance to read 'The White Princess', but must get it in quickly as that series is starting soon too.


    i know! right? (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by linea on Mon Apr 03, 2017 at 12:49:21 AM EST
    Everything about the television series has been spectacular.

    Just one gown! (none / 0) (#127)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Apr 03, 2017 at 10:34:09 PM EST
    I'd like to wear just one Cersei or Margaery gown to a military ball. What a hoot but then again uhhhh...no...not a hoot Tracy, not funny at all.

    But beautiful original gowns, just sayin


    Leery of watching (none / 0) (#68)
    by BackFromOhio on Mon Apr 03, 2017 at 01:29:46 PM EST
    several friends have told me the show is terrific but I would find the violence intolerable....

    Yes, very violent (none / 0) (#70)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Apr 03, 2017 at 01:37:33 PM EST
    But the scenes and clothing so out of the norm I don't attach to the violence. It's like a traditional Grimm's fairy tale, where it seems like there is a moral to the story...but then no.

    It may be too much for some sensitive people though.


    Spouse Towanda is fine (none / 0) (#76)
    by Towanda on Mon Apr 03, 2017 at 03:49:20 PM EST
    with the blood, gore, and more in Game of Thrones.

    However, he cannot handle the birthing scenes in Call the Midwives.

    (Yes, Call the Midwives is back this week -- and it's farther into the 1960s so continuing to deal with the onset of birth control and thalidomide . . . and now is dealing with domestic violence, too.  Paired with Big Little Lies last night, that meant unusual attention to domestic violence, especially from women's perspective.)


    Really enjoyed Big Little Lies (none / 0) (#83)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Apr 03, 2017 at 04:44:08 PM EST
    The best character development I think I have ever watched. The final revelation, how did I not see that coming? She was always so on the periphery protective in a way over everyone.

    Right there with him (none / 0) (#91)
    by Yman on Mon Apr 03, 2017 at 06:41:01 PM EST
    GOT gore/violence doesn't bother me much, but birthing scenes?  Break out the smelling salts ...

    it helps (none / 0) (#111)
    by Lora on Mon Apr 03, 2017 at 09:38:46 PM EST
    to watch it on demand, where you can pause it and take a break from the violence, mute it during the violent scenes and when they are over, if you want, rewind and watch it with soft sound.

    But yeah, stunning.


    The Doctor Blake Mysteries (none / 0) (#34)
    by ding7777 on Sun Apr 02, 2017 at 04:51:57 PM EST
    three seasons streaming on Netflix is very good

    that looks great! (none / 0) (#35)
    by linea on Sun Apr 02, 2017 at 05:04:25 PM EST
    i'll put that on my list. i'm currently watching the first episode of The Crown but nothing has happened yet.

    Officer Shelby tells her side of the (none / 0) (#40)
    by McBain on Sun Apr 02, 2017 at 08:57:13 PM EST
    Terence Cutcher shooting.
    One part I found important/interesting is when the CBS interviewer, Bill Whitaker, repeats a common myth about police training...

    Bill Whitaker: Do you think, "I could shoot him in the leg, I could shoot him in the foot"? Is there nothing else you could've done?

    Betty Shelby: No. And I'm not trained to shoot someone in the foot. We don't train to be cowboys and to be like what they show on the movies.

    I don't understand (5.00 / 4) (#41)
    by Repack Rider on Sun Apr 02, 2017 at 09:07:02 PM EST
    ...Your point.  She killed an unarmed motorist who had done nothing wrong, other than comply with police, which may have been his mistake.

    Are you suggesting that her training gets her off the hook for the murder that even her chief said was not justified?

    Seems to me that statement about training condemns her even more than she already was, if that is possible.  You do agree with her chief that the shooting was unjustified, don't you?

    Is it just me, or do you enjoy hearing about Black men killed by police over events that a white man would survive?


    Yes, you don't understand my point (none / 0) (#42)
    by McBain on Sun Apr 02, 2017 at 09:27:22 PM EST
    Years of unrealistic Hollywood violence has brainwashed people...... shooting someone in the leg, firing warning shots, etc...  

    As for my opinion on the justification of the shooting, I'm going to wait for more evidence.  Right now, it looks like another rush to judgement. From the link in my original post...

    Six days after the shooting, District Attorney Steve Kunzweiler filed charges against Betty Shelby. He accused her of overreacting when she shot Terence Crutcher. But the charges were filed before the police investigation of the shooting was complete....    
    The lead detective told us he would have found Shelby's actions justified.

    Hard to say but probably another police involved shooting that won't result in a conviction but will yield a hefty civil settlement.  

    Interesting we didn't see this comment (none / 0) (#52)
    by vicndabx on Mon Apr 03, 2017 at 08:20:32 AM EST
    or anything for that matter on the quick charging and conviction of one of two black cops that shot and killed a young white child.

    Right now, it looks like another rush to judgement.

    Defense attorneys accused investigators of rushing to judgment, arresting the officers less than a week after the shooting. One of Stafford's attorneys has questioned whether investigators would have acted more deliberately if the officers had been white.


    To be clear, my point here is the double standard. Punishment that seems to only be encouraged & enforced when certain people are the perpetrators.    


    Actually, I spoke out on that case as well (none / 0) (#58)
    by McBain on Mon Apr 03, 2017 at 10:34:22 AM EST
    Have you seen the body cam video? I haven't.

    No one knows why they started shooting.  Do you really believe they intended to execute the boy?  I find that extremely hard to believe. It's been reported they called for back up.  If that's true, why would they decide to murder someone in front of witnesses?

    One thing for sure the police wasted little time arresting the two marshals.  The superintendent of the Louisiana State Police basically said it was an unprovoked shooting. I'd still like to see the video and more evidence.  

    I've also made several comments about the Freddie Gray case/trials.  Three of those officers are black. There's no double standard with me.


    Thanks for the link (none / 0) (#60)
    by vicndabx on Mon Apr 03, 2017 at 10:48:21 AM EST
    my apologies.

    No worries (none / 0) (#64)
    by McBain on Mon Apr 03, 2017 at 12:14:18 PM EST
    The Mardis case is very strange and hasn't recieved the media coverage it probably deserves.

    oh my god! (none / 0) (#44)
    by linea on Sun Apr 02, 2017 at 11:29:03 PM EST
    obviously i would want to read the police and witness reports and the conclusions of the justice department before making a final conclusion.

    but it does appear that this person ignored the law enforcement officer's lawful orders because (i feel) she is a woman and (most likely) because he was high on pcp.

    An autopsy found Phencyclidine, or PCP, in Crutcher's system at the time of his fatal shooting, according to the toxicology report released with his autopsy by the Oklahoma Chief Medical Examiner's Office.



    What does I Support Women In Policing (none / 0) (#46)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Apr 03, 2017 at 12:20:05 AM EST
    Mean in this curcumstance? Are we so pathetic and spineless and mindless that it is our perogative to kill people male police officers wouldn't have needed to kill?

    i did preface my post with caveats (none / 0) (#49)
    by linea on Mon Apr 03, 2017 at 12:59:54 AM EST
    pathetic and spineless and mindless

    i feel...

    everything is structured against women in policing - the assumption should not be that a police officer needs to punch and wrestle and physically overpower a man high on pcp. because if that's the criteria than women can never be in policing and i reject that assertion.

    i do feel (in america specifically) the training is bad and the tools are bad the responses are bad. but when you are stuck within that framework, you place police women making split-second decisions in no-win situations. that's just how i feel.


    Are you a police officer? (5.00 / 2) (#69)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Apr 03, 2017 at 01:32:32 PM EST
    I don't understand how EVERYTHING is structured against women policing. And sorry, but if your only option in a confrontation is to kill the other person you probably aren't officer material. There wasn't even a confrontation in that shooting though.

    It's a "women" thing in general (none / 0) (#90)
    by Yman on Mon Apr 03, 2017 at 06:38:58 PM EST
    A prism through which everything is viewed.

    You jest :) (5.00 / 1) (#95)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Apr 03, 2017 at 08:22:35 PM EST
    Like men, women possess a wide range of skills as a group. I could never be in US military uniform. I can't just submit and do the next right thing hoping for a good outcome. But I know women who can. I know women who are extremely physically strong too. I know a TAC officer who runs 15 miles a day and her spouse is an MP. Her physical presence holds a room she commands.

    It's terrible when a woman attempts to paint all women as incapable. Just because I am not capable doesn't make other women incapable.


    Couldn't agree more (5.00 / 1) (#108)
    by Yman on Mon Apr 03, 2017 at 09:31:40 PM EST
    ... but that's the prism that she's looking through.

    Kinda sad.


    This is why he died (none / 0) (#54)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Apr 03, 2017 at 09:40:30 AM EST
    His family says Terence was a devoted father of four young children, but they admit he struggled with drug use.  He spent four years in prison for selling five grams of crack cocaine.  Officer Shelby didn't know any of this when she encountered him on that road, but she says she did suspect he was on drugs.  His autopsy showed he had PCP in his system.


    Had he not been on them it is very likely he would have kept his hands in the air and not walked back to the vehicle.


    Or alternatively, the police could've responded (none / 0) (#56)
    by vicndabx on Mon Apr 03, 2017 at 10:07:15 AM EST
    similar to this:

    An early sign that Chief Thomson's message was taking hold among his officers came on Nov. 9, 2015, when a 48-year-old man walked into a Crown Fried Chicken, behaved menacingly toward customers and employees, brandished a steak knife and left. Outside, officers ordered him to drop the knife, according to video from police body cameras. But the man began walking away, slashing the knife through the air as he went.

    For several minutes, the officers formed a cordon around the man and walked with him for a few blocks, trying to clear traffic ahead and periodically instructing him to drop the knife.

    The difference is simple (none / 0) (#62)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Apr 03, 2017 at 11:10:51 AM EST
    in your example the weapon was identified and plain to see.....a knife. In this situation the weapon was unknown. The officer assumed it was a gun.

    But if it was a knife and the man had grabbed it out of the car and charged the officers it is quite possible the police could have missed or his wounds were not sufficient to put him down before he wounded or killed the officer.

    A secondary issue in your example is that a group of police had the man surrounded with enough fire power to take him down if he attacked. That was not the case in this situation.

    The two lessons that I would want my Grandson to take away in this is:

    1. Don't use drugs. Using them puts you in harms way.

    2. If involved with the police do exactly what they tell. You can sue over their actions later.

    Naive much? (none / 0) (#75)
    by Repack Rider on Mon Apr 03, 2017 at 03:44:35 PM EST
    If involved with the police do exactly what they tell. You can sue over their actions later.

    Wrong.  If you don't stand up for your rights, you might as well not have them.  I have refused on a number of occasions to comply with an unlawful demand, such as a request for ID when it isn't required.  Turned 71 on my last birthday, still haven't been arrested.

    Officer wants to search your car after writing a seat belt ticket.  You tell him he does not have permission to do that, but he does anyway.  (This happened to me, happens to a lot of people who look like me.)  Then he "frisks" YOU.

    How do you get your car "un-searched?"  Since "battery" is a crime of unwanted touching, the frisk without cause is a crime.  But a frisk is like a rape in the sense that it can't be undone.  How do you get "un-frisked?"  Whom do you call to arrest the officer who just frisked you unlawfully?

    The "penalty" to the police for an unlawful search that turns up contraband is that the evidence is thrown out.  So police search you anyway, because they can still arrest you for the contraband and ruin your day, send you to court, cost you a lot in lawyer's fees, at no personal cost to themselves.

    I have actually FILED that complaint you seem to think is a solution to illegal policing.  It was investigated by the same department I complained about. It was rejected even though I brought in a half dozen examples of case law showing that the deputy's actions were unlawful.  The investigating officer told me that in his opinion the Supreme Court was wrong about the Fourth Amendment!

    That should tell you the fix is in.

    Later, a friend who is a detective with another department heard my story, told me to watch my back because the guy I complained about was a vindictive S.O.B.  He was right, I was subjected to several unexplained traffic stops over the next year.


    Sure tell a 17 year old (none / 0) (#78)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Apr 03, 2017 at 04:05:47 PM EST
    to not comply.



    You're wasting your time, Repack, ... (none / 0) (#82)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Apr 03, 2017 at 04:37:32 PM EST
    ... arguing with a guy whose sum total is exemplified by his answer: "Duh."

    Sure Donald (5.00 / 1) (#89)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Apr 03, 2017 at 06:28:40 PM EST
    "Well duh"

    is the only thing printable I can think to say to a supposed adult who wants me to tell my Grandson to get into conflict with the police.

    Laying aside Repack's egotistical and continual claims of heroism in the face of the police, the truth of the matter is contained in the song lyrics...

    I fought the law and the law won

    And maybe if someone had stressed this to Michael Brown he would still be alive today.

    If involved with the police do exactly what they tell. You can sue over their actions later.

    Cheap shot (none / 0) (#98)
    by McBain on Mon Apr 03, 2017 at 08:35:59 PM EST
    Jim's post was right on the money. It's simple, if you don't do what a cop asks you to do, you put your life, and others, at risk.  

    Would you seriously want your kids or grand kids have Repack's attitude and strategy when dealing with the police? I doubt it.


    Well then God help you (none / 0) (#100)
    by jondee on Mon Apr 03, 2017 at 08:57:57 PM EST
    if you misunderstand, are hearing impaired, or mentally disturbed enough to not be able to make coherent sense out of what the Judge, Jury, and Executioner says.

    God help you.

    These cops we're talking about are human beings, right? Not velociraptors or murderous robots preprogrammed only to kill and maim at the first sign of non-cooperation..

    There are other possible options to resolve difficult situations besides absolute cooperation = life and non-cooperation = destruction and death.


    It's really sad when someone who fits (none / 0) (#115)
    by McBain on Mon Apr 03, 2017 at 09:54:43 PM EST
    the description you listed gets killed by a police officer.  It's also sad when parents/grand parents don't teach their kids what to do when stopped by the police.

    My Daughter loves this story (5.00 / 3) (#140)
    by Repack Rider on Tue Apr 04, 2017 at 01:25:34 AM EST
    It's also sad when parents/grand parents don't teach their kids what to do when stopped by the police.

    After I had filed and had rejected a formal complaint about a rights violation, I was stalked for a year or so by deputies who knew the story.  I was warned by my detective friend that payback was coming and he was right.  It's hard to hide when you drive around in a big commercial vehicle with your name on the side in six foot letters.

    Driving back from a job I passed a California Highway Patrol vehicle.  The driver was clearly looking for me, because as I passed him at 55 mph he spit gravel and fishtailed off the shoulder to chase me down.

    For a seat belt violation.  We had them on, but he said we didn't when we passed him and he wrote us up.  How do you argue that?

    The deputy arrived to act as backup.  After citing me and one of my Black passengers for a seat belt violation, the CHP turned the scene over to the deputy, who removed my two Black passengers from the vehicle.  He frisked both of them, even though one of them had not been cited and had never been arrested.  Just a 25 y.o. Black man.  Frisked on the side of the road.

    The deputy asked me to step out of the vehicle, and then told me he was going to frisk me.  I was 61 y.o., no warrants, never been arrested, cited for a seat belt.  That does not entitle him to remove me from the vehicle and frisk me.  The purpose of the frisk was nothing more than showing me who was boss.  It's going to happen if you don't stop him, but how?  You have three or four seconds to think of something.

    First, you have to assert yourself.  I told him in profane and loud terms that he was going to keep his hands to himself.  I flipped my pockets out and dropped my jeans and shorts to the ground.  On the side of a busy highway.

    The effect was unexpected.  The CHP officer and both my Black friends busted up laughing.  At the deputy.  Who turned purple and quivered with rage.  It probably didn't help that I was five or six inches taller.  If his thought was to get the psychological edge on me, I had turned the tables.  I never owned anyone like I owned that deputy at that moment.

    So he searched the vehicle anyway over my objections, never found our stash, and later I beat the seat belt ticket in court when the judge told the CHP officer that he didn't appreciate the officer's lies in his court.  My trial in traffic court on this matter is another great story, but I'll put it in another post.

    I have a friend who is a prominent defense attorney.  When he found that I had beat a seat belt citation in court, going up against a professional witness, he was amazed.  He told me that traffic court in his opinion was, "the most rigged tribunal in the world.  Makes Russian trials look fair."

    Never been arrested.  For anything.  At this rate it might never happen.


    If people had complete control (5.00 / 2) (#182)
    by jondee on Tue Apr 04, 2017 at 12:29:11 PM EST
    of their reactions in highly stressful/frightening situations, it certainly would be a much more peaceful world, wouldn't it?

    I had a cop pull a gun on me once in Corpus Christi because I looked like someone he was looking for and because I supposedly "made a wrong move" (from his perspective.) All that happened before I even had a chance to think about how to respond. I feel lucky to be alive today.


    Sort of like for profit insurers killing people (5.00 / 1) (#200)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Apr 04, 2017 at 02:46:53 PM EST
    For a bigger bottom line, until it happens to you you might think there are arguments to be made for why it might be okay.

    Do you like having rights? (none / 0) (#138)
    by Repack Rider on Tue Apr 04, 2017 at 12:29:13 AM EST
    It's simple, if you don't do what a cop asks you to do, you put your life, and others, at risk.

    Help me here.  How does my refusal to identify myself to a police officer who is not entitled to that information put anyone at risk?  How does my refusal to allow a search of my vehicle endanger anyone?

    I have to ask, do you ALWAYS allow a search of your vehicle, even if there is not probable cause?

    Would you seriously want your kids or grand kids have Repack's attitude and strategy when dealing with the police? I doubt it.

    What is the purpose of having rights if you do not stand up for them?  Three generations of my family have been taught to stand up for our rights.  It's a patriotism thing.  Every Fourth of July the Declaration of Independence was read at the dinner table when I was growing up.  Some people do not value patriotism, and those people obviously would not understand us, but patriots do.

    My sister is a lawyer.  Her son was busted because the stick his dad used to whittle on was found under the seat of the car he was driving.  He had been pulled over in a "Terry stop," i.e. a traffic stop for a minor infraction, the actual purpose of which was to take a look inside the car.  

    An 18" stick  that had been whittled on was considered a "concealed weapon."  This was years ago, but from then on his mother made sure he did not allow a search just because the nice police officer asked politely.

    As soon as a police officer asks for something he is not entitled to, he is not your friend.  When a cop is not entitled to your ID, and asks for it, he or she plans to run a warrant check.  IOW, the purpose of the question is to find a reason to arrest you.  That is not a friendly question.  You are an unpatriotic idiot if you give up your ID under those conditions.


    Another false accusation and overreaction (none / 0) (#61)
    by Green26 on Mon Apr 03, 2017 at 11:00:36 AM EST
    by a university? The Coastal Carolina cheerleading squad suspended indefinitely after an anonymous letter to the president, alleging prostitution, buying alcohol for minors, and paying others to do their homework.

    "The team was questioned by authorities following their practice on Wednesday and some members were taken to the station for questioning shortly after the women were informed of the allegations. An anonymous cheerleader told WMBF their cell phones were searched before they were released when police were unable to discover any wrongdoing."

    A cheerleading camp this week at the school cancelled. A trip to the national cheerleading competition later this month in jeopardy.


    I don't like the lower burden of proof (none / 0) (#65)
    by McBain on Mon Apr 03, 2017 at 12:18:08 PM EST
    schools use when making important decsions.  

    It's SC (none / 0) (#72)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Apr 03, 2017 at 02:13:34 PM EST
    rumor there is treated as fact.

    Today's laugh at someone else's expense: (none / 0) (#85)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Apr 03, 2017 at 06:00:22 PM EST
    When a certain House committee chair visits his hometown, I wonder if former high school classmates don't simply pass him by on the street, refusing to acknowledge his presence with anything other than one word: "Mullet."

    How eminently befitting of a man who in his youth could have been cast by film director John Hughes in one of his '80s teen comedies. I can easily picture his one big scene as a luckless high school student, in which he first summons up the nerve to ask Molly Ringwald to the prom, only to then be dragged into the boys rest room by Molly's jealous ex-boyfriend Emilio Estevez and sidekick Judd Nelson, who rudely shove his head repeatedly into a flushing toilet bowl as the movie audience chuckles in cruel delight.

    And all this time, I though my senior yearbook photo was bad. Poor guy, he's probably been avenging himself over the last 26 years on everyone in America who picked on him in school.


    Polanski alert: (none / 0) (#122)
    by oculus on Mon Apr 03, 2017 at 10:10:36 PM EST
    L.A. Superior Court judge denied Roman Polanski's motions and corresponding requests.  Polanski was seeking a court order that, if he returned to the U.S., he would not have to serve and additional time in custody. See The Guardian.

    John Bolton view (none / 0) (#123)
    by Green26 on Mon Apr 03, 2017 at 10:12:38 PM EST
    "Rice defrauded the intelligence system: "She's got real legal problems here."

    Yes, Bolton is biased. But I assume the Trump DOJ may have the same bias.

    Oh, my God (5.00 / 3) (#125)
    by Yman on Mon Apr 03, 2017 at 10:18:35 PM EST
    Did you really just cite John Bolton as evidence for the conspiracy theory that Rice did something illegal?

    Heh, heh, heh, heh ...

    What does Rush think?


    Google (5.00 / 1) (#130)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Apr 03, 2017 at 10:48:06 PM EST
    what he wrote and every wingnut welfare site on the web is shopping the same thing. LOL.

    As opposed to the view ... (5.00 / 2) (#134)
    by Yman on Mon Apr 03, 2017 at 11:07:13 PM EST
    ... of actual experts who know what they're talking about:

    Experts Say Susan Rice Had Every Right To Request `Unmasking' In Intel Reports.

    Awwwwwweeeee ...

    ... and you guys were getting so excited!


    It took (none / 0) (#136)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Apr 03, 2017 at 11:27:02 PM EST
    like 2 seconds for me to debunk that silly wingnut welfare crap. And she had to give a reason to the NSA. She couldn't just "unmask" anybody at will and if her reason was not legitimate the NSA would have told her to pound sand. The fact that Trump is so prevalent on intelligence Republicans need to accept is not because anybody was spying on Trump because he's Trump. He was getting caught up in everything because of his relationships with Putin and the Russian mafia, the Russian oligarchs and even his associations with the mafia here in the US. None of should forget that he had a mobster clinking glasses with him at his new year's party.

    Where's the evidence to support this? (none / 0) (#137)
    by Green26 on Tue Apr 04, 2017 at 12:05:16 AM EST
    "If she's asking for specific names to be unmasked in order to understand what Russia may be doing to influence the U.S. political system and influence our elections, presumably in a way they thought would benefit them, she's doing her job."

    Nunes has said this wasn't about Russia.

    If she was legitimately looking at investigating Russia connections, why was the info then passed around to these agencies and people:

    National Security Council, some at the Defense Department, then-Director of National Intelligence James Clapper and then-CIA Director John Brennan - essentially, Ben Rhodes.

    I wonder if Rhodes was leaking some of this info to the press.

    At a minimum, this will be part of the Congressional investigations.


    Tell you what (5.00 / 2) (#148)
    by Yman on Tue Apr 04, 2017 at 06:30:47 AM EST
    Before you start asking "questions" that you know aren't public knowledge, provide evidence to back up your tinfoil smears.   Then, stop making additional smears based on nothing more than your own imagination.  Finally, cite the law(s) you think she violated, "counselor".

    Total (none / 0) (#145)
    by FlJoe on Tue Apr 04, 2017 at 05:53:04 AM EST
    BS as usual, you demand evidence when you are the one making the charges against Rice. You are basing your whole case on a couple of anonymous sources who have merely revealed that Rice was doing her job.

    Too bad for tRump that, like all of the IC, in the course of doing her job  she could not help but keep stumbling over tRumps minions.


    Where's your support for saying (none / 0) (#147)
    by Green26 on Tue Apr 04, 2017 at 06:14:20 AM EST
    "she was just doing her job"?

    Do you really think this information isn't true? Didn't she essentially admit that it was true generally, through a friend/spokesman?

    Do you really think she won't be the subject of Congressional and perhaps others investigations? That she won't be asked to testify? That she won't be asked who, if anyone, asked her to do this? Did Obama ask her to do this, or did she discuss this with Obama?


    No, she's (5.00 / 1) (#156)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Apr 04, 2017 at 08:05:59 AM EST
    not going to be the target of an investigation. Your ignorance of how the national security apparatus works doesn't mean that she's going to get investigated.

    The GOP of course might attempt to investigate because after all these are the same morons that spent 8 investigations attempting to find something anything that happened during Benghazi.

    But once again the GOP is showing the voters that all they are capable of doing is investigating rumors. Susan Rice should not be blamed for your own embarrassment and shame in supporting Trump.


    Didn't say she was going to be "target" (none / 0) (#161)
    by Green26 on Tue Apr 04, 2017 at 09:13:38 AM EST
    of any investigation, other than saying that she probably has some risk that the Trump DOJ will look to see if they can go after her. They don't like her. Also, she will undoubtedly be asked to testify at some of the Congressional investigations.

    What is going to be her justification for unmasking? Note that Nunes and others say this wasn't Russian specific.

    It's my understanding that each request/unmasking requires certain procedures to be followed, so there will be written information to be reviewed.

    Also, I thought we had established in prior discussion that using FISA to go after US persons required required a probable cause warrant. Can't imagine that was done. And Nunes talked about this info coming from incidental surveillance.

    I have never supported Trump. I a huge believer in civil liberties and the Constitution. I don't like the extent of the leaks. I don't like Obama's opening of the FISA raw data to some many agencies. I don't like what it appears that Rice did, i.e. intentionally gathering surveillance info on an incoming president and his people, during the transition and probably before the election.

    My view has nothing to do with politics or any political party. If the parties were reversed, I would be saying the same things. While some questionable, or worse, things appear to have occurred under Obama, the risk of them occurring under Trump are even more worrisome.

    I also don't like hypocrites.


    Rand Paul (1.00 / 2) (#163)
    by Green26 on Tue Apr 04, 2017 at 09:23:53 AM EST
    is calling the Rice thing a "smoking gun" and saying she needs to testify before Congress under oath. He is concerned that she was doing this for political purposes.

    He's a noted civil libertarian.


    Rand (none / 0) (#165)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Apr 04, 2017 at 09:33:36 AM EST
    Paul who has supported the Trump agenda 100%?

    The GOP is starting to melt down over Trump's ties to Putin. They realize that they have enabled a foreign agent into the white house. Paul is just flailing around like the rest of the GOP trying to figure something out attempting to save themselves. It's to their eternal shame what they did and until they own up to it they are going to continue to attempt to throw mud at the wall.


    just a coincidence, I'm sure (none / 0) (#168)
    by ding7777 on Tue Apr 04, 2017 at 09:37:16 AM EST
    but Rand Paul says this less than 24 hours after playing golfing with Trump

    And he brushed his teeth (none / 0) (#185)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Apr 04, 2017 at 12:36:12 PM EST
    Combed his hair...no doubt at Trump's direction.

    since all the information (none / 0) (#199)
    by ding7777 on Tue Apr 04, 2017 at 02:30:02 PM EST
    re Rice/unmasking which is publicly available has no "smoking gun", Rand Paul got his "smoking gun" revelation (if there is one) from someone in the know... Trump golfing with Paul is just a coincidence

    Nunes (none / 0) (#164)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Apr 04, 2017 at 09:29:12 AM EST
    the bag man for Putin/Trump? I'm sorry but anything he says should be meet with nothing short of peals of laughter.

    You always deny supporting Trump yet continually downplay anything he has done and you showed up here trolling against Hillary and shopping wingnut welfare with regards to the email BS.


    Voted for Hillary but (none / 0) (#170)
    by Green26 on Tue Apr 04, 2017 at 09:46:08 AM EST
    , as an independent, can also discuss the pro's and con's of candidates, including email and honesty issues.

    You are so partisan that you become a hypocrite on certain issues (because you support your party/person no matter what).


    Look in the mirror (5.00 / 4) (#172)
    by Yman on Tue Apr 04, 2017 at 10:04:26 AM EST
    The "independent" thing is always good for a laugh, although not nearly a funny as citing Bolton or Rand Paul as authorities to support your smears.  Strange that a "lawyer" can't cite a statute after making such accusations about Rice ("violated many principles (heh) and perhaps laws", "legal troubles", accusations against Obama by "questions", etc.).  

    Or, not strange at all.

    BTW - You haven't the slightest idea what her approved requests we're related to, but seem hung up on whether they were related to the Russian inquiry.  Apart from your reliance on Nunes to claim it wasn't related to Russia (which is seriously funny in and of itself), it doesn't need to be related to Russia to be a valid unmasking request.  It simply needs to have some foreign intelligence value.  So after being informed of the broad authority she has and that actual experts have noted this broad authority, you backpedaling and state the obvious - that the Trump DOJ may want to try to go after her.

    Too funny.


    Actually, I said the Trump DOJ may (none / 0) (#174)
    by Green26 on Tue Apr 04, 2017 at 10:43:41 AM EST
    try to go after her, in my first or second post on the subject. No backpedalling. You should learn to read better or improve your memory to avoid false accusations.

    I am not "smearing" anyone. By the way, you have no idea what her requests were for either. I am just trying to have a discussion. You are just being partisan.

    Yes, if Rice had a legitimate intel reason for doing what she did, she will be fine. However, my impression is that it's going to turn out that she didn't have legit intel reasons or the reasons will have been questionable. We will see.

    She is going to be asked to testify before Congressional committees. She will be asked all of these questions. She will be asked who the info was provided to. She will be asked what her discussions with Obama were. We may see if anyone left a trail of hints or clues, or dumb statements, in emails.

    You seem to forget that Trump and the Repubs are in power. It now matters more what people like Rand Paul think and say. I generally agree with your comments on Bolton, but he too is in the current governing party and has some influence with that party.


    I couldn't care less ... (5.00 / 1) (#176)
    by Yman on Tue Apr 04, 2017 at 11:35:58 AM EST
    ... about your baseless "impressions", or the fact that you pretend to be non-partisan.  My reading is just fine, which is how I can look at where you began your baseless smears (#105), and how after being confronted with the fact that you have absolutely no evidence (my post 118),you started backpedaling/stating the obvious by saying the Trump DOJ will investigate and could go after her.

    No kidding.

    You cited Paul and Bolton as evidence for the baseless claim that she may have violated the law, not because they're in positions of power.  They - like you -  haven't a clue about the law.


    I backpedaled from nothing (none / 0) (#180)
    by Green26 on Tue Apr 04, 2017 at 12:08:25 PM EST
    I made my Trump DOJ comment soon after I started posting in this thread. This was the first para of my first post on the subject, and I am the one who started the topic:

    "If true, this doesn't look good, in my view. Seems like it would violate many principles, and perhaps laws. Looks like this occurred during the transition. Don't understand what her legitimate intelligence reasons could have been."

    I have consistently taken the same position in this thread.

    You can't read. You are too partisan to discuss the subject. You are one of those posters who snips at other posters when you are unable to defend your position.


    Exactly (5.00 / 5) (#193)
    by Yman on Tue Apr 04, 2017 at 01:32:34 PM EST
    You started with baseless smears about violating "principles" and "perhaps laws", then backtracked to saying the Trump DOJ may go after her when confronted.  You have zero evidence, so you cite two partisans with no expertise, then ignore actual experts while complaining about partisanship. You can't even cite a statute you can claim was violated to back your specious slurs, "counselor".

    Citing a statute (1.00 / 2) (#197)
    by Green26 on Tue Apr 04, 2017 at 02:18:42 PM EST
    Now that is pretty funny. The story just comes out, and you think a statute has to be cited. Good joke.

    Again, didn't back off or change anything I've said on this subject. Consistent all along. Didn't smear anyone. Also, didn't cite Bolton for any support. Just showed what some people are saying. Yes, cited Rand Paul. He's a Senator, has some authority, and is a civil libertarian.

    You, on the other hand, have not cited anyone or anything with first hand knowledge of the specific information and request by Rice, to back up anything you have said. At least, I cited Nunes, who has seen the materials and has said that it didn't involve Russia.

    I don't need "evidence" to provide my opinions. Jeralyn recently posted that this forum is for expressing our opinions. Jeez, you have less "evidence" than I do, and you are expressing your opinions. I will refrain from calling your opinions "baseless".

    Is it your view that a National Security advisor in the White House can gather information on political opponents in this matter, by checking on every conversation the political opponents have with a person from a foreign country? Or, where do you draw the line? Will you think this is fine, if Trump and his Nat'l Security advisor start doing this?

    Doesn't the FBI and not the National Security office in the White House conduct investigations? What was Rice doing seeking this kind of information. Looks political to me. We shall see.


    and there you have it (5.00 / 7) (#198)
    by mm on Tue Apr 04, 2017 at 02:28:21 PM EST
    I don't need "evidence" to provide my opinions.

    This is where we are at today.  The wingnut mighty Wurlitzer media industrial complex makes all opinions equal.  We don't need no stinking evidence.


    Another independent that's better than everyone (none / 0) (#184)
    by vicndabx on Tue Apr 04, 2017 at 12:35:35 PM EST

    John Bolton (5.00 / 1) (#139)
    by Repack Rider on Tue Apr 04, 2017 at 12:39:51 AM EST
    ...is a treasonous moron.  Anything he says is almost certainly false and intended to harm the country.  Thanks for pointing that out.

    Anyone he hates must be doing something patriotic and ethical, because patriotism and ethics are Kryptonite to Mr. Bolton.


    From (none / 0) (#146)
    by FlJoe on Tue Apr 04, 2017 at 06:10:14 AM EST
    the Oh-Sht files
    At least 58 people, including nine children, were killed in an air raid that released "toxic gas" on the rebel-held Syrian town of Khan Sheikhoun on Tuesday, a monitor said.

    The attack caused many people to choke or faint, and some had foam coming out of their mouths, the Britain-based Syrian Observatory for Human Rights said, citing medical sources who described it as a sign of a gas attack.