Norway, Tales of Sexcapades: Trump Slinks on

(From Lillyhammer, with Steve Van Zandt)

With his comments on Haiti, El Salvador and Africa, Donald Trump exposed himself Thursday as the vulgar, insensitive man we all knew he was.

More reports on Trump's alleged sexcapades appeared today.

Trump says things just to push people's buttons. It's how he deflects attention from his failings and how he sneaks atrocious policies in the back door while everyone's too busy clucking about his latest outrageous comments to focus on his actions.

He has single-handedly ruined the image of America around the globe in the last year. How many generations will it take to recover, assuming America is still here?

< Friday News and Open Thread | Monday Open Thread >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Philadelphia's Pulitzer-Prize-winning (5.00 / 2) (#6)
    by Peter G on Sat Jan 13, 2018 at 12:10:15 PM EST
    editorial cartoonist (an old friend) explores the idea of encouraging immigration from Norway, land of some of her ancestors.

    I will gladly trade places (none / 0) (#15)
    by Chuck0 on Sat Jan 13, 2018 at 03:52:06 PM EST
    with any Norwegian who wants to immigrate to south central PA,

    Speaking of (none / 0) (#21)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Jan 13, 2018 at 05:34:49 PM EST
    I was just thinking about this cartoon from 2015

    That Luckovich, he knows one when he sees one.


    I don't think Trump says things to push (5.00 / 4) (#13)
    by Anne on Sat Jan 13, 2018 at 02:52:46 PM EST
    people's buttons; I think he says things he believes and it just so happens to set people off.

    It's being reported that behind closed doors, Trump is happily admitting to his s-hole comment.  And he's reveling in the fact that even some so-called religious people have come out in support of the underlying message he was delivering.  Love these Christians, right?

    What's alarming is the number of people who see his comments as (1) needing to be made and (2) strong.  I've said for a long time that the danger of Trump is that he makes it okay again for people to be openly racist/discriminatory/cruel/ugly.  He's lifted the lid on this particular Pandora's Box, and predictably, there is terrible stuff flying out of it.

    He's not going to stop.  In fact, I think he will take it up a notch at the first opportunity.

    Trump would not be as much of a problem if the GOP was cutting him off at the knees - but they're not doing that.  They are giving him carte blanche as long as it is advancing their agenda.

    We need to fight the agenda, the policy, and if we can make some progress on that front, it makes Trump less important, less relevant.  

    In the meantime, I think he just gets worse.

    STATE OF THE UNION (5.00 / 2) (#73)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Jan 16, 2018 at 07:04:07 AM EST
    we should pressure every elected democrat to boycott this.  It is the perfect opportunity to passively resist.

    It's a close call, but I would applaud a member of Congress who chose instead to attend a State of the Union watching party with a group of "dreamers." That would be a noble gesture.


    I'd like to see the entire Democratic (5.00 / 1) (#74)
    by Anne on Tue Jan 16, 2018 at 07:23:16 AM EST
    side of the chamber empty for the SOTU.

    That would be (none / 0) (#75)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Jan 16, 2018 at 08:29:14 AM EST
    Perfect.  You know Trump would lose it and go off prompter

    I'd like to see (5.00 / 2) (#110)
    by Zorba on Wed Jan 17, 2018 at 02:21:06 PM EST
    The Democrats, at least some of them, attend, with Stormy Daniels sitting with them, front and center.

    Daniels along with the women who (5.00 / 4) (#111)
    by Anne on Wed Jan 17, 2018 at 02:27:53 PM EST
    have accused Trump of non-consensual sexual behavior - would be a good-sized group and impossible to ignore.

    And how could Trump complain when he was the one who sat all the Clinton accusers in the audience for one of his debates with Hillary?


    Exactly (5.00 / 1) (#112)
    by Zorba on Wed Jan 17, 2018 at 02:32:02 PM EST
    Just think how he would react!

    Can't she give a SOTU rebuttal? (5.00 / 1) (#113)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Jan 17, 2018 at 03:00:24 PM EST
    I would tune in for that

    Yes, the theme (5.00 / 1) (#114)
    by KeysDan on Wed Jan 17, 2018 at 03:32:04 PM EST
    could be: the sanctity of marriage and how Pence and Mother think Obergefell has led to the destruction of traditional marriage and threatened religious liberty...followed by a first-hand account by Stormy about how Trump was forced to cheat on his third wife with a boutique film star.  

    It is obviously same-sex marriage that causes (5.00 / 3) (#115)
    by Peter G on Wed Jan 17, 2018 at 03:46:34 PM EST
    heterosexual men to cheat serially on their wives, commit domestic violence and child abuse, and otherwise destroy their marriages. Before Obergefell in 2015, such conduct was virtually unheard of.

    I thought that (none / 0) (#116)
    by Zorba on Wed Jan 17, 2018 at 04:10:11 PM EST
    Same-sex marriage, and gayness in general, caused hurricanes, floods, fires, earthquakes, and tornadoes, as well.

    Yes, the gays (none / 0) (#118)
    by KeysDan on Wed Jan 17, 2018 at 05:17:05 PM EST
    and Obama.  The Evangelicals now have the divinely chosen Trump to guide them safely through life.

    Evangelicals (none / 0) (#121)
    by MKS on Wed Jan 17, 2018 at 07:37:59 PM EST
    have forfeited any credibility they have by unconditionally excusing all things Trump.  Most recently the sh*thole comments....(no, it isn't about using curse words.)

    White HOuse Doctor (5.00 / 2) (#81)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Jan 16, 2018 at 02:44:30 PM EST
    Would like to see Trump lose 10-15 pounds of ugly fat.

    Here's an idea, lop off his head.

    Might not help, since it appears (5.00 / 5) (#84)
    by Anne on Tue Jan 16, 2018 at 03:38:29 PM EST
    he does most of his talking out of his a$$...

    Am I the only one who struggled not to feel disappointed that the president is the picture of cardiac health?


    I would have been deeply disappointed with the (5.00 / 5) (#101)
    by vml68 on Wed Jan 17, 2018 at 09:42:13 AM EST
    results of Tr*mp's check-up, if I had believed for a second the doctor was telling the truth. I am calling bull$h!t on that health report.

    My favorite comment I've read so far, "I want to see his real girth certificate"


    Yes (5.00 / 2) (#102)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Jan 17, 2018 at 09:58:31 AM EST
    The girther movement is the best.

    Funniest thread (none / 0) (#85)
    by Chuck0 on Tue Jan 16, 2018 at 03:46:53 PM EST

    Oh goodness (none / 0) (#82)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Jan 16, 2018 at 02:45:48 PM EST
    I have offended McBain

    Ghandi supposedly (5.00 / 1) (#103)
    by jondee on Wed Jan 17, 2018 at 10:18:39 AM EST
    used to drink a cup a day of that stuff Trump has sprayed on him. Maybe they're onto something..

    Though I have a feeling Trump could be in a padded cell scrawling Crooked Hillary tweets on the wall and they'd still be compelled to assure the nations of the world that everything is jake.


    Given that (none / 0) (#117)
    by Zorba on Wed Jan 17, 2018 at 04:20:00 PM EST
    It's a very small sample size: based on our friends and relatives in Europe, and Japan, at least some of the nations of the world do not believe that "everything is jake."
    They're nervous as all get out about what Trump might do next.

    Nope (none / 0) (#83)
    by FlJoe on Tue Jan 16, 2018 at 03:03:54 PM EST
    tRump has already talked about chopping terrorists heads off, so you cool. I bet you couldn't get away with shooting some one on 5th avenue though.

    Trump does not drink or (none / 0) (#86)
    by KeysDan on Tue Jan 16, 2018 at 05:31:55 PM EST
    smoke so he has that going for his health.  He is likely on Lipitor or some other statin drug to provide a lipid panel that counterbalances, to an extent, his unhealthy diet. A loss of 10 to 15 pounds would hardly dent his underlying problem...he needs to lose at least 100 pounds.

    would help but Trump does not believe in it---he thinks that we are born with a finite energy level and exercise depletes that depot.  He does golf a lot, of course, but that is not much, if anything, in the good exercise department.  However, it addresses his biggest challenge...stress reduction.

    Trump appears to have a memory problem, according to Michael Wolff, repeating and "I do not recall." Which is catching among members of his Administration.  (A horrible stress-reducer is Alzheimer's and dementia...many such patients live longer).

    Of course, Trump's mental condition is of national security, and what we can observe is more than just being a jerk.  Trump is well beyond eccentricity, which usually covers for rich dementia patients.  Don't know exactly, but that boy is not right.


    The doctor said Trump passed (5.00 / 1) (#88)
    by caseyOR on Tue Jan 16, 2018 at 06:14:57 PM EST
    the cognitive test and shows no sign of mental/cognitive decline.

    I find that hard to believe. So, I am left to wonder if a Navy doctor would lie to the American people about the president's health. And I just do not know. I certainly hope that is not the case, but I do have an uneasy feeling.


    IMO of course he woud lie (5.00 / 1) (#89)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Jan 16, 2018 at 06:43:14 PM EST
    OTOH what kind of cognitive test?  heres one made for Donald



    A Navy doctor would lie (5.00 / 2) (#96)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Jan 16, 2018 at 09:57:49 PM EST
    Since having the world know we have an ill President is considered a national security risk.

    Am I reading the correct wording from the doctor? He said Trump's given weight? So Trump wasn't actually weighed, he was asked what his weight was?


    Yes, lying is in (5.00 / 4) (#98)
    by KeysDan on Tue Jan 16, 2018 at 10:40:19 PM EST
    the job description.   But, the Rear Admiral was so nervous in doing so, I almost felt sorry for him.  His joke about Trump being able to live to age 200 was lame.   He should have noted that Trump is as healthy as a racist horse.  That would have been a knee slapper.

    The cognitive test alone should not be (5.00 / 2) (#105)
    by Anne on Wed Jan 17, 2018 at 10:48:54 AM EST
    the determiner of someone's cognitive status; it's a snapshot with no frame of reference.

    In reality, there are other things that speak to where one is on the cognitive spectrum, the biggest being just how someone is managing life in general.  Has there been any loss of vocabulary?  Is there any confusion? Does there seem to be more repeating of stories, questions, etc.?  Have there been any changes in personality?

    Dr. Jackson presented himself as someone who "knows the president well" because his office is across the hall from the residence, and they have occasion to speak almost daily.  I'm not sure that's enough to be as definitive as Jackson was about the president's cognitive health - and of course the other thing that wasn't addressed was the broader area of mental health.

    As anyone who's experienced the decline of a family member can tell you, no one gets through this life without changes of some kind.  Maybe the changes aren't enough to seriously interfere with someone's daily life, but the one thing that's certain is that the change does not reverse itself.

    It was quite a little show, though, wasn't it - and Huckabee Sanders couldn't disguise her glee.

    Not sure why anyone would be gleeful about thinking the wool had been successfully pulled over the eyes of the American people, but then, I don't know why anyone would want to associate him- or herself with the Trumpers.


    More than likely (none / 0) (#97)
    by jondee on Tue Jan 16, 2018 at 10:26:55 PM EST
    they found a doctor who believes deregulation is part of God's eternal, scripturally-based plan, and that having a mentally unstable President is worth the risk.

    Dr. Ronny Jackson was also Obama's (none / 0) (#99)
    by leap on Tue Jan 16, 2018 at 11:32:15 PM EST
    Physitian to the President. For what that's worth. Probably worth another admiralty star for his mash of jacket decorations and gummint pension.

    The test (none / 0) (#119)
    by Lora on Wed Jan 17, 2018 at 05:31:40 PM EST
    Trump's cognitive test

    This is not an IQ test.  It would very generally assess if your brain is working all right in terms of being able to think. If there had been damage from a stroke I expect it would show up. I do not think it would determine subtle changes.

    My parents both had cognitive impairments as they aged but I don't think those would have shown up on a test like that for a long time. It doesn't appear to measure higher-order decision making functions or the like.


    I don't know how far a president's doctor (none / 0) (#122)
    by McBain on Thu Jan 18, 2018 at 11:08:58 AM EST
    would go to hide negative health results but I wonder if people in here would apply the same level of skepticism to Hillary Clinton's doctor?  During the election there were all kinds of rumors about her health.  Dr. Drew Pinsky's HLN TV show was cancelled shortly after he said he was concerned about Clinton's health.  Is CNN going to can Dr. Gupta for saying Trump has heart disease? I doubt it.

    Part of the problem (none / 0) (#123)
    by CST on Thu Jan 18, 2018 at 11:17:04 AM EST
    Was how big the lie was.  If, say, Trump had an illness of some kind that wasn't disclosed - there would be less of an uproar - because it wouldn't be obvious to everyone with eyes.

    Instead, he went completely over the top, added inches to his height, took a ton of weight off, in a way that anyone with two eyes can tell he's lying.

    If Hillary was blatantly lying about things that people could see with their own eyes, yea, I do think she'd get similar flack.  But the reality is that she's also not stupid or egotistic enough to do something that moronic.


    Pinsky is a psychiatrist (none / 0) (#124)
    by jondee on Thu Jan 18, 2018 at 11:41:10 AM EST
    who used dirty trickster site Breitbart as a source of information for some of his speculations on Clinton's health.

    One good turn deserves another.


    I don't agree with the doom and gloom (none / 0) (#1)
    by McBain on Sat Jan 13, 2018 at 10:52:35 AM EST
    I do agree with this...
    Trump says things just to push people's buttons.

    When Trump says something politically incorrect, he knows the reaction from many will be so over the top, it will often play to his advantage.  The best way to get your revenge is to ignore him while promoting strong democratic candidates, policies or ideas. Hating Trump mostly helps him.

    Ignore (5.00 / 2) (#2)
    by FlJoe on Sat Jan 13, 2018 at 11:21:48 AM EST
    him? This is not some drunk at the end of the bar, this is arguably the most powerful man in the world, who can push "buttons" that can destroy the human race, ignoring him is not an option. not reacting strongly to him would be a dereliction of duty as a human.

    Right.. (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by jondee on Sat Jan 13, 2018 at 11:57:22 AM EST
    He's the President of the United States. He's not going to be ignored. At the very least, a media obsessed with ratings isn't ever going to ignore him.

    And he certainly isn't going to be ignored by the rest of the world, that's understandably concerned that we may have an unstable loose canon as a head of state.


    Actually (5.00 / 2) (#4)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Jan 13, 2018 at 11:40:35 AM EST
    no, hating Trump does not help him. It might not hurt him because the 1/3 of the country that supports Trump really does not care that everybody hates him and embraces that hate.

    I now see "politically incorrect" is a cover word for STUPID, IGNORANT, RACIST or any other ugly character trait you want to put forth as you have explained in your post.

    You know you can do both. You can be against Trump and for policies like DACA. The two are not mutually exclusive.


    The anti Trump coverage helped (none / 0) (#24)
    by McBain on Sat Jan 13, 2018 at 06:41:42 PM EST
    during the election.  It was free advertising.
    I now see "politically incorrect" is a cover word for STUPID, IGNORANT, RACIST or any other ugly character trait you want to put forth as you have explained in your post.

    I don't find Trump to be stupid or racist.  Some of his comments show some ignorance.  

    Says a white man (5.00 / 5) (#32)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Jan 14, 2018 at 07:52:45 AM EST
    Now we know (5.00 / 7) (#44)
    by Repack Rider on Sun Jan 14, 2018 at 03:37:38 PM EST
    I don't find Trump to be stupid or racist.  Some of his comments show some ignorance.

    You are just messing with us for the attention, exactly like Mr. Trump does. Negative attention seems to be your goal. No wonder you empathize so much with him.

    I say "seems to be" because I obviously can't prove that you crave negative attention. At the same time I can't find any alternative interpretation for your defiance of reality and passionate defense of the indefensible.

    Just so we're clear, can you give me an example of someone that YOU consider stupid, and what behavior or statements you use to make that assessment?  Who, in your opinion is racist, when you have to go to David Duke to find anyone making statements as racist as Mr. Trump's?

    Do you consider Barack Obama SMARTER or DUMBER than Donald Trump? Hillary?

    I'm trying to establish your baseline for reality.  I'm working my way in from both ends of the reality spectrum.  You are a lot closer to the "crazy conspiracy theory" end of the spectrum than I am.


    I usually ignore trolls (none / 0) (#26)
    by leap on Sat Jan 13, 2018 at 07:12:24 PM EST
    but, you do not find this racist???

    Sen. Durbin noted after that meeting:

    "When it came to the issue of `chain migration,' I said to the president, `Do you realize how painful that term is to so many people? African-Americans believe that they migrated to America in chains. And when you speak about chain migration it hurts them personally.' He said, `Oh, that's a good line.'"

    Now I will continue to ignore you.


    "chain migration" (none / 0) (#125)
    by thomas rogan on Sun Jan 21, 2018 at 07:44:00 PM EST
    Spare me.  How many American blacks believe that "chain migration" means that their ancestors were enslaved and are hurt personally by this?  How many American blacks even know what "chain migration" is?  Or how many American whites either?  

    I prefer (none / 0) (#127)
    by MKS on Sun Jan 21, 2018 at 07:48:15 PM EST
    family reunification.  It is more accurate and avoids pejorative labels.

    It used to be (none / 0) (#128)
    by MKS on Sun Jan 21, 2018 at 07:55:55 PM EST
    that conservatives said they did not oppose legal immigration, just illegal immigration.  That always seemed dubious--it was that they did not like immigration at all.

    And, now, voila!, anti-immigration (legal or illegal) rhetoric is now the stated policy of the GOP.

    And, Trump just wanted to change to a merit based immigration system????   Well, that is not what he talked about when he wanted no people from Africa and preferred instead people from Norway. That had nothing to do with individual merit--it was about  broad brush categorization based on where you came from, not your individual merits.

    This was the antitheses of judging people based on the content of their character, instead of the color of their skin.

    The racism and bigotry is now laid bear, and considered a good appeal to the GOP base.  Case closed.


    I prefer (none / 0) (#129)
    by linea on Sun Jan 21, 2018 at 08:41:00 PM EST
    the term family unification too but it's actual less accurate. Clearly, some people do not understand the English word chain as used in this context.

    Chain: a series of things linked, connected, or associated together; a chain of events.

    Look, can we just be honest here? (5.00 / 2) (#131)
    by Anne on Mon Jan 22, 2018 at 07:08:49 AM EST
    Republicans are notorious for assigning negative labeling to things as a way of manipulating people's understanding of issues, and they don't much care if the labels they choose are inaccurate or downright wrong.  All that matters is controlling the way the public thinks about something in a way that benefits the conservative agenda.

    I decided to look up "chain migration," to see if these hard-line anti-immigration types were representing it accurately.  

    Here's what I found:

    Chain migration is a term used by demographers since the 1960s[1] to refer to the social process by which immigrants from a particular town follow others from that town to a particular destination city or neighborhood. The destination may be in another country or in a new, usually urban, location within the same country.

    Chain migration can be defined as a "movement in which prospective migrants learn of opportunities, are provided with transportation, and have initial accommodation and employment arranged by means of primary social relationships with previous migrants."[1] Or, more simply put: "The dynamic underlying 'chain migration' is so simple that it sounds like common sense: People are more likely to move to where people they know live, and each new immigrant makes people they know more likely to move there in turn."[2]

    Since approximately 2013, the term "chain migration" has been used in the United States by political opponents of immigration to refer to the distinct process of family reunification,[2] that is, the process by which foreign nationals immigrate to a new country under laws permitting their reunification with family members already living in the destination country. Demographers reject this usage, noting for example that "There is a distinction between conventional family reunification on the one hand, where a migrant husband invites his family to join him abroad, and chain migration on the other, where women invite sisters, mothers, female cousins and friends to join them."[3]

    And why isn't "family reunification" used by anti-immigration supporters?  Because it doesn't scare anyone.  Because it sounds like it makes sense - who can't understand wanting to bring one's family members here?

    Why else is it being used?  Because of the children here under DACA.  The children brought here illegally by their parents, who are still here illegally.  If we protect the DACA kids, isn't the next step to protect the parents that brought them here, to make sure these families are unified?

    And God knows we can't have that.  Why?  Because it smacks of something immigration hard-liners hate even more: amnesty.

    "People must be punished."  I think that's the first line of every chapter in the "We hate furriners (especially the brown ones from poor countries)" handbook.

    In spite of the fact that you would be hard-pressed to find any sitting member of Congress, or even the president, who is not here because at some time, at some point, they had relatives who came to this country - some legally and some not.  I guess it's a case of "that was then, this is now" or "this isn't about me, it's about them."

    I am not saying I think our doors should just be unconditionally open to anyone who wants to come here.  But neither am I saying we should be deporting people who are here, working, supporting themselves and their families and contributing to the community.

    Finally, please, I beg of you: stop lecturing people on the meaning of English words and terms that you don't have an accurate understanding of yourself.


    The term "chain migration" (none / 0) (#132)
    by Towanda on Mon Jan 22, 2018 at 03:43:21 PM EST
    long has been standard in immigration studies -- immigration history, immigration sociology, immigration poli sci, etc.

    I have to say that every time that I see otherwise smart media commentators and others attack this term, I wonder if they know that they are revealing that they have not read basic works -- books, articles -- on immigration.


    you identified (none / 0) (#27)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Jan 13, 2018 at 07:18:34 PM EST
    the exact problem that most Trump supporters have and that's they are still stuck in November 2016 and act like nothing that has happened since then has mattered. Yes, Trump believes that there is no such thing as bad press. As long as he is getting attention he is happy I'm sure whether it's bad or good. However the presidency is not like reality TV show where people will tune in out of morbid curiosity about someone getting bad press. All Trump seems to be doing is making more and more people want to vote against him. His approval rating in GA has sunk below 40% to 37%.

    Not surprising (none / 0) (#30)
    by Chuck0 on Sat Jan 13, 2018 at 09:56:34 PM EST
    that stupid racists don't recognize stupidity and racism.

    What is surprising is that's not even your worst (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by McBain on Sat Jan 13, 2018 at 11:44:57 PM EST
    comment lately Chuck. The one you made on the Monday thread about laughing at ATF agents being shot was the worse thing I've ever read on this site. Jeralyn must not have read that one.



    Oh now, Chuck was just being un-pc (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by jondee on Sun Jan 14, 2018 at 07:06:36 PM EST
    don't be a hypersensitive snowflake.

    No, Chuck was taking pleasure (none / 0) (#52)
    by McBain on Sun Jan 14, 2018 at 10:05:30 PM EST
    in the pain, suffering and death of ATF agents. Very sick.  

    SAD! (5.00 / 3) (#54)
    by jondee on Sun Jan 14, 2018 at 10:42:32 PM EST
    or alternatively, he may've just been pushing the buttons of those of us who can't get enough of men in uniform exercising lethal force.

    ATF got what they deserved that day. (none / 0) (#133)
    by Chuck0 on Mon Jan 22, 2018 at 07:56:56 PM EST
    What was sick was attacking a religious commune with small army with automatic weapons. Even the local sheriff asked why they didn't knock on the front door. Koresh went outside nearly every day before the assault. My view is that these were people exercising the right of self defense. The ATF effed up royally and paid for it.

    Forte v Jones, U.S. District Court (1.50 / 2) (#41)
    by linea on Sun Jan 14, 2018 at 02:44:06 PM EST
    One would think calling someone a racist was defamation per se. But U.S. Courts have ruled it is opinion that cannot be proven or unproven. Still, it's current status as an overused general-purpose pejorative feels vulgar to me.

    You really believe (5.00 / 5) (#42)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Jan 14, 2018 at 03:13:07 PM EST
    That pointing out Trump is a racist amounts to simply an overused general-purpose pejorative?

    Jesus phucking Christ!!!!

    (There is an overused general-purpose pejorative in this comment, but it isn't the fact that Trump is a racist)


    Read the thread (none / 0) (#46)
    by linea on Sun Jan 14, 2018 at 05:54:05 PM EST
    Chuck0 called McBain a racist.

    Actually, I did not. (5.00 / 2) (#47)
    by Chuck0 on Sun Jan 14, 2018 at 06:10:36 PM EST
    I merely observed that stupid and racist people can't recognize stupid and racist remarks. I did not accuse anyone of being a racist. You and possibly McBain made that leap entirely on your own. Makes a mind go "hmmmmmm?"

    Reads like a snipe to me (none / 0) (#49)
    by linea on Sun Jan 14, 2018 at 06:35:46 PM EST
    McBain; "I don't find Trump to be stupid or racist.  Some of his comments show some ignorance."

    Chuck0 in direct reply; "Not surprising that stupid racists don't recognize stupidity and racism."


    He did not (none / 0) (#48)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Jan 14, 2018 at 06:25:51 PM EST
    A generous interpretation. (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by oculus on Sun Jan 14, 2018 at 08:50:18 PM EST
    Of course he called me a racist Tracy (none / 0) (#79)
    by McBain on Tue Jan 16, 2018 at 10:52:12 AM EST
    Just like when you flipped out and said I look like someone who enjoys beating women recently.   Intolerance to other opinions got the better of both of you again. That needs to stop.    

    Actually no, you wouldn't think so (5.00 / 3) (#58)
    by Peter G on Mon Jan 15, 2018 at 10:05:41 AM EST
    Because "racist" is not in any of the traditional common law categories of slander per se. Anyway, some states continue to recognize such categories and some do not. Defamation law in the U.S.A. is state-based, except to the extent that it is limited by federal constitutional (First Amendment) boundaries. Plus, it is quite an exaggeration to say that "U.S. Courts have ruled," when what you have is one federal trial court in Eastern California applying California state law precedent as announced by one intermediate-level state appellate court. In any event, "racist" cannot be a defamation or any sort, when used as a description of a public figure, if it is true. Nor even if it is false, unless the speaker knows it to be false or doesn't care about the truth of it one way or the other.

    Thank you Peter (2.00 / 1) (#67)
    by linea on Mon Jan 15, 2018 at 07:03:19 PM EST
    I'm sorry that my post generated so much controversy and hostility. I don't feel either is justified. I spent a lot of time researching the topic and I linked to what I believed to be a Court Opinion that I thought was representative of the issue.

    I also wasn't aware, as another person asserts, that "not having a legal education, you would perhaps refrain from looking things up online" was a rule. I thought this was a legal blog that welcomed non-lawyers interested in legal discussion.


    Oh, good - you not only like playing (none / 0) (#68)
    by Anne on Mon Jan 15, 2018 at 07:15:27 PM EST
    a lawyer online, you like truncating people's comments so you can play victim, too.

    Swell.  I feel a major snit fit coming with even more self-pitying blather.

    As you know, it wasn't that you looked something up online, linea - we all look things up, for heaven's sake - it was the way you presented your so-called legal conclusion.  As if, as Peter said, you could define the subject via one court opinion.

    Your tendency to go to dishonesty when you feel slighted just kills most of the points you think you're trying to make.


    Peter educates us all with (5.00 / 2) (#69)
    by oculus on Mon Jan 15, 2018 at 08:32:57 PM EST
    remarkable politesse.

    Mucho patience (5.00 / 4) (#71)
    by MKS on Mon Jan 15, 2018 at 10:48:06 PM EST
    I stand by my post (none / 0) (#91)
    by linea on Tue Jan 16, 2018 at 08:50:26 PM EST
    ONE: Again, there is no reason my post should generate this level of controversy and hostility. But then, my film reviews also received numerous down-votes from the usual suspects - film reviews. I realize it's entertaining and fun for many of you but it's also petty.

    TWO: it is my opinion from the research I did, that the court ruling I posted is typical if not representative of defamation laws in the U.S. and in the several states. If someone has information that the cited court ruling is atypical, please post it.

    Forte v Jones, U.S. District Court (1.50 / 2) (#41)
    by linea on Sun Jan 14, 2018 at 02:44:06 PM EST
    One would think calling someone a racist was defamation per se. But U.S. Courts have ruled it is opinion that cannot be proven or unproven. Still, it's current status as an overused general-purpose pejorative feels vulgar to me.

    But Trump said (none / 0) (#59)
    by MKS on Mon Jan 15, 2018 at 10:17:30 AM EST
    he would would look at changing the libel laws.

    Does not matter the libel laws are a combination of state laws and the N.Y. Times v. Sullivan Supreme Court case and progeny.


    He should (5.00 / 2) (#60)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Jan 15, 2018 at 10:22:05 AM EST
    be careful what he wishes for because if libel laws are relaxed between the Clintons and the Obamas they could take down the entire conservative media empire in short order.

    Ha! (5.00 / 3) (#62)
    by MKS on Mon Jan 15, 2018 at 10:34:33 AM EST
    That would be interesting.

    And, even now Trump is arguably libeling his women victims, who are not public figures.  So, the women do not need to prove actual malice by Trump.


    Did you see this NYT article? (none / 0) (#70)
    by oculus on Mon Jan 15, 2018 at 08:55:33 PM EST
    A DACA Question: Should Judges Use Local Cases to Halt National Orders?
    January 14, 2018

    One would also think that, not being a (4.33 / 6) (#53)
    by Anne on Sun Jan 14, 2018 at 10:42:07 PM EST
    lawyer, and not having a legal education, you would perhaps refrain from looking things up online and posting comments meant to substitute for actual legal knowledge.

    Sorry for that digression.

    If there is vulgarity resident in the term "racist," it only seems somehow appropriate that it it being directed at someone who has great familiarity with and a penchant for vulgar: the current occupant of the WH.

    Racism itself is vulgar; it seems especially so coming from someone who is himself vulgar and common, but the reality is that you cannot separate racism and vulgarity - there's no way to be polite about it.


    Non-psychiatrists (none / 0) (#126)
    by thomas rogan on Sun Jan 21, 2018 at 07:46:29 PM EST
    I wonder how many people on this website who are not psychiatrists or PhD psychologists freely express their opinions about Donald Trump's mental health.  I guess being a lawyer is more of a closed guild.

    If a person were standing (5.00 / 4) (#130)
    by jondee on Mon Jan 22, 2018 at 12:41:30 AM EST
    on the corner and gesticulating wildly and talking to themselves, would non-professionals be out of line in expressing opinions about the state of that person's mental health?

    The same principal applies when people express opinions in response to Trump's repeatedly demonstrated grandiosity and childish hypersensitivity, insistence on drawing attention to himself.

    For people who aren't on a mission from God, the way so many conservatives think they are, some things are just a matter of commonsense.


    Crocodile "concern" (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by Yman on Sat Jan 13, 2018 at 12:40:32 PM EST
    Trump is doing faaaaar more than making "politically incorrect" musings.  His statements are bigoted, r@cist, $exist and ignorant.  His statements are much more than embarrassing.  They are damaging our country's reputation and relations with other nations who we depend on for cooperation.  They are degrading our vital institutions and governmental functions.  They are creating a vacuum of world leadership which will happily be filled by the Chinese and Trump's Russian friends.  

    Those who try to minimize his statements while blaming the very reasonable reactions to them while purporting to do so under the guise of "helpful advice" are laughably transparent.


    You obviously have no problem (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by Chuck0 on Sat Jan 13, 2018 at 03:58:58 PM EST
    with the US becoming a laughingstock on the world stage. Due to this clown and the things he says, the US has lost its standing and influence around the world. He does more for China & Russia than he does the US.

    I am and always have been (2.00 / 2) (#23)
    by McBain on Sat Jan 13, 2018 at 06:38:17 PM EST
    proud of our county.  Sometimes I find our media coverage embarrassing but I've noticed other countries to be just as bad or worse.

    Politically incorrect? (5.00 / 6) (#33)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Jan 14, 2018 at 07:55:42 AM EST
    The man would be diagnosed an abusive personality at the very least if he were tested. He isn't politically incorrect, he's mentally ill and abusive.

    You don't know what his mental state is (none / 0) (#34)
    by McBain on Sun Jan 14, 2018 at 10:19:42 AM EST
    Labeling Trump as mentally ill is just an emotional reaction to things about him you don't like.  Many of the media criticisms of him are worse than anything he says.  

    Before armchair diagnosing someone as mentally ill, take a look at some of the outrageous comments in this blog.  Some of your own.  The human race is at least partially crazy. We don't always make decisions based on logic and common sense. We often overreact.  And that is what Trump feeds on.  


    Seriously? (5.00 / 3) (#36)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Jan 14, 2018 at 10:37:45 AM EST
    Many of the media criticisms of him are worse than anything he says.  

    So the problem is not that the President of the U.S. called the central engine of the 21st century a shithole it's that the media reported it?

    Is that your point?


    The media often looks much worse than Trump (1.33 / 3) (#38)
    by McBain on Sun Jan 14, 2018 at 02:10:38 PM EST
    that's my point Howdy. Some of the people questioning his mental health are the ones who look crazy and/or obsessed right now.  

    The only thing that could make the (5.00 / 4) (#43)
    by Anne on Sun Jan 14, 2018 at 03:21:00 PM EST
    media look worse - and by "media" I assume you are referring to the so-called liberal media and not the FoxNews contingent and its allies who also cover this but from a different direction - is if they didn't report on it.  If they pretended what Trump says and does is not just normal, but acceptable, just a case of "the other side," that would be worse.  That, by the way, is where Fox News is, and that's pretty bad.

    People don't just need to know that Trump lies as easily as he breathes, or that he can't be bothered to learn actual policy, or that he is apparently utterly bored by actual work.  They also need to see and understand the ugliness that is at the heart of this damaged and dangerous man, and consider its consequences.

    That there are people who share his beliefs, who are looking forward to a whiter America, doesn't relieve the media from its responsibility to hold Republican lawmakers accountable for their own roles in enabling it, and for their decision to choose Trumpism in order to advance their agenda.


    Is not "the media" ... (5.00 / 2) (#45)
    by Yman on Sun Jan 14, 2018 at 04:29:17 PM EST
    ... who are questioning Trump's mental health.  It's anyone with a triple digit IQ, including many of his fellow Republicans.  Let me know if you need a list.

    It's a classic case of (none / 0) (#104)
    by jondee on Wed Jan 17, 2018 at 10:40:18 AM EST
    In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king. If there ever was one.

    Trump is nothing but a refreshing breathe of fresh air to the opioid-and-scripture addled and those ahem begrudged folks who can't get enough of the rush of Trump offending the "politically correct"


    So let's be clear. (5.00 / 2) (#72)
    by Chuck0 on Tue Jan 16, 2018 at 06:44:15 AM EST
    In your opinion, the problem is not that the White House is occupied by a clueless, classless boor, but rather the problem is the media reporting those facts. Is that correct?

    I've been quite clear (2.00 / 3) (#78)
    by McBain on Tue Jan 16, 2018 at 10:41:12 AM EST
    I believe the overreaction by the media and sometimes people in here is far worse behavior than anything the president has said or done.  Just look at some of your recent posts.  I'm trying to give you the benefit of the doubt because I appreciate people who speak their mind.  

    So, really what you're saying is (5.00 / 4) (#80)
    by Anne on Tue Jan 16, 2018 at 11:40:17 AM EST
    that your standards for Trump are lower than your standards for the media and the TL community.  He's supposed to be able to talk out of his a$$, and the media and TL-ers are supposed to pretend, what?  That he didn't say or do these thing?  That what he said or did was perfectly appropriate for the so-called leader of the free world?  

    Are we supposed to be normalizing this?   Soon we may have to dig a trench so the bar can be lowered again.

    I sure hope you're not suggesting that, were he to be ignored, Trump would not escalate his crazy, but would somehow turn into something resembling a sane, rational statesman, because if you are, I'd like to suggest you don't know Trump's MO very well.

    In any event, this feels a lot like you trying to convince yourself that the emperor is fully dressed, and losing you sh!t because the media and the folks here are getting in the way of that mental charade.


    That's laughable (5.00 / 1) (#90)
    by Yman on Tue Jan 16, 2018 at 07:36:45 PM EST
    I believe the overreaction by the media and sometimes people in here is far worse behavior than anything the president has said or done.

    A POTUS who brags about sexually assaulting women.  Who insults actual war heroes.  Who makes bigoted attacks on Gold Star families who's son died for their country and compares his own "sacrifice" during Vietnam working in his daddy's business.  Who defends white nationalists and neo-nazis.  Who calls other countries "$hitholes".

    Do people usually laugh at you when you make these claims in person ... or do you only do it from behind your keyboard?  Because I would laugh about 1/2 inch away from your face.



    We do know what we see (5.00 / 3) (#37)
    by Towanda on Sun Jan 14, 2018 at 10:38:22 AM EST
    in Trump's actions, and we call it as we see it.

    And we also see that you did not deny that he is abusive. If you think abusive behavior is healthy, that is telling about you.


    Who is he abusive too? The thinned skinned (none / 0) (#39)
    by McBain on Sun Jan 14, 2018 at 02:17:00 PM EST
    who already hate him? If people could only ignore Trump, or at least not go bananas every time he says something controversial, he would look like the bully.  Instead he's the underdog.  It's as if people learned nothing from the election.

    You sound like someone who (5.00 / 7) (#40)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Jan 14, 2018 at 02:30:03 PM EST
    Beats women and loves it. Refusing to acknowledge the abuse, blaming your victims

    you can maybe be an underdog (5.00 / 5) (#76)
    by CST on Tue Jan 16, 2018 at 09:04:11 AM EST
    When you are running for president.  The president of the united states does not get underdog status.  They get "the man" status.

    And you know what they say about great power.  What they don't say is that the people who live under it are the ones with great responsibility.


    An "emtional reaction?" (5.00 / 2) (#55)
    by MKS on Mon Jan 15, 2018 at 01:23:53 AM EST
    Your confidence in that assessment is troublesome.

    Many are worried about Trump.  To dismiss such concerns as an "emotional reaction" is to trivialize some very real issues.

    Tagging the concerns as "emotional" is something that I have heard conservatives say to diminish others.   As if they are the only ones who can reason, and all the others are just being "emotional."   They are fully confident in their own assessments.  The irony is that they are completely un-self aware.  They are the ones who impose their own unproven assumptions as fact. They do this from deep prejudices that they may be unwilling to admit.

    But it is ultimately a very smug attitude that the contrary view is just an "emotional reaction."


    Being "emotional" (none / 0) (#56)
    by MKS on Mon Jan 15, 2018 at 01:26:08 AM EST
    also echoes the assertion that women just are being hysterical.  

    A lot men bypass hysteria altogether (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by jondee on Mon Jan 15, 2018 at 09:54:35 AM EST
    and go straight to full-blown, dangerous psychosis. Do not pass go, do not collect 200 dollars.

    Maybe they could do with a little temporary hysteria to let some of the pressure off.


    Men are strange creatures (5.00 / 5) (#61)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Jan 15, 2018 at 10:24:56 AM EST
    Pity them.  They wrestle daily with the irony they have been able to, for now, take most of the high level decision making from women while at the same time accepting they make most or all the family decisions at the granular level.

    We all know this.  In the average household the woman makes all the really important decisions.  Including intimacy.  

    Note this comment ignores the aggressive abusive situations.  By hoping they are not normal.  Or at least not the majority.

    Since the days of the goddess religions of early, logical, human history men have been scratching and tearing at the grip on authority they see as existentialy  threatened.

    The hate and need women it seems to me.  And find them utterly mysterious.  Hence goddess centered religion. Understanding women is like understanding a language they do not speak.  

    Then there is gay men.  Some, like me, find common cause and interests with women from childhood.  As a little kid I always was more interested in the female adult conversation than the adult male conversation.  Then again some closeted gay men also hate and fear women.  As if it was some lizard brain relic of "wanting to be a man".  They also often have another "male" train if making a fetish of male authority.  

    I guess my point is one often made.  All the problems like the ones recently being outed are about power.  Not sex.  About power and who has it.


    Some years ago (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by jondee on Mon Jan 15, 2018 at 01:29:29 PM EST
    I was having some contentious times with both my wife and my daughter, and then one night I had a very intense, numinous-feeling dream that featured a giant, godzilla-sized european wild boar that men were paying homage to. I did a little research and found out that the wild boar was one of the earliest known symbols of the Great Goddess.

    An example of what Jung was talking about when he said the unconscious sometimes attempts to bring balance to the conscious status quo..


    Yes (5.00 / 3) (#64)
    by Zorba on Mon Jan 15, 2018 at 05:29:28 PM EST
    For instance, go back far enough in Greek history, and you find several goddess-centered religions, before the male-centered Zeus religion caught on (and even that had some powerful female goddesses).
    My ancestors were from Crete.  I am a direct descendant of the Cretan Snake Godess.  So beware.   😉

    It's not nice to fool with mother nature (5.00 / 1) (#65)
    by jondee on Mon Jan 15, 2018 at 06:14:07 PM EST
    An exceptional comment Capt (none / 0) (#66)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Jan 15, 2018 at 06:22:30 PM EST
    I walk the line (none / 0) (#77)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Jan 16, 2018 at 10:19:11 AM EST
    I agree with your solution (none / 0) (#3)
    by Jeralyn on Sat Jan 13, 2018 at 11:33:41 AM EST
    and I ignore him as much as possible, but I really don't like avoiding the news because its about him. I want a Trump Free channel.

    Spammers are hitting... (none / 0) (#12)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Sat Jan 13, 2018 at 01:35:00 PM EST
    the old "Third Friend of Dzhokhar Tsarnaev Indicted" post.

    "Politically incorrect?" (none / 0) (#19)
    by MKS on Sat Jan 13, 2018 at 05:01:06 PM EST
    Oy.  This is a disappointing comment.

    The real takeaway (none / 0) (#7)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Jan 13, 2018 at 12:28:35 PM EST
    from this story is that if Trump would pay a porn star 150K to not talk about their one night stand what would he do for Putin if Putin had kompromat on Trump? Surely Putin having kompromat on Trump explains a lot of his behavior towards Russia over the past year and before. And it certainly makes the story about the Russian hookers more likely to be true.

    I will bet you ten dollars (5.00 / 2) (#20)
    by MKS on Sat Jan 13, 2018 at 05:29:55 PM EST
    Trump authorized the leak about the whole story.

      He had an "affair", not a coerced one time encounter, with her--the implication being that she was so attracted to him.

    Trump is bragging.....


    Oh, I'm sure (none / 0) (#22)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Jan 13, 2018 at 06:12:53 PM EST
    that is definitely his spin on the story. It's interesting to see evangelicals now defending Trump having an affair or one night stand with a porn star. This was while he was married to Melania. Stories are that she cried on election night. We now know why. She knew she was going to be stuck with this clown for longer than she had planned.

    How quaint (none / 0) (#25)
    by MKS on Sat Jan 13, 2018 at 06:44:21 PM EST
    the Democrats' banishment of John Edwards must now seem.  Although Elizabeth Edwards was beloved....

    Not to mention Gary Hart. (none / 0) (#28)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Sat Jan 13, 2018 at 07:25:07 PM EST
    I don't remember the entire Gary Hart story (none / 0) (#35)
    by McBain on Sun Jan 14, 2018 at 10:21:28 AM EST
    but I do recall thinking he was my #1 choice for president at some point.  

    I seem to recall... (none / 0) (#29)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Sat Jan 13, 2018 at 07:28:13 PM EST
    reading somewhere that she would have been pregnant with Barron at the time.

    Hawaii wakes up (none / 0) (#9)
    by smott on Sat Jan 13, 2018 at 12:48:12 PM EST
    To an emergency msg "inbound ballistic missile"

    EMA says sent in error. Presume they're testing their disaster-response systems.

    This is how it starts.

    Not exactly surprised... (none / 0) (#10)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Sat Jan 13, 2018 at 01:11:08 PM EST
    more sad than anything - Eric Clapton admits to being a racist, blames it on the drugs.

    Very old quote. Plus, he loves (none / 0) (#17)
    by oculus on Sat Jan 13, 2018 at 04:14:30 PM EST

    Very old quote. Plus, he loves (none / 0) (#18)
    by oculus on Sat Jan 13, 2018 at 04:14:55 PM EST

    He borrowed most of his good stuff (none / 0) (#11)
    by jondee on Sat Jan 13, 2018 at 01:17:20 PM EST
    from Buddy Guy and Freddie King, but he has a big problem with "wogs" overrunning England. How does that work exactly?

    Also Albert King (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by Repack Rider on Sat Jan 13, 2018 at 03:17:39 PM EST
    The guitar solo in "Strange Brew" is note for note Albert King's from "Crosscut Saw."

    Trump's biggest success (none / 0) (#87)
    by Lora on Tue Jan 16, 2018 at 05:55:29 PM EST
    Trump has managed to get the entire country... no, world... talking about him all the time.

    Besides money and power, or maybe more than money and power, this is what he wants.

    I am so grateful for Colbert on the Late Show.  I stay up for his monologue and then I can go to bed with a smile on my face.

    But... I don't think there has been a show in the past year that he hasn't mentioned Trump.  I would love to issue him a challenge.  Can he go an entire show without mentioning Trump once?

    Maybe we should take the "Do Not Feed The Trolls" meme to include the one in the Whitehole (thanks, Colbert!).

    A question for our lawyers: can the (none / 0) (#92)
    by caseyOR on Tue Jan 16, 2018 at 08:51:12 PM EST
    White House invoke executive privilege to compel a witness in a criminal case, like Mueller's investigation, to refuse to testify?

    Brannon refused to answer questions posed by the House Intelligence Committee today because the White House told him not to answer. Can the WH order someone to refuse to answer grand jury questions?  

    I thought a grand jury witness could only refuse to answer questions by invoking the 5th amendment.

    Do I have this wrong?

    All valid privileges apply (5.00 / 1) (#95)
    by Peter G on Tue Jan 16, 2018 at 09:32:59 PM EST
    in a federal grand jury, not just the Fifth Amendment self-incrimination privilege.  Doctor-patient, priest-penitent, marital, attorney-client, for example, also apply. Similarly, a U.S. Senator could invoke the legislative Speech & Debate privilege, were it to apply. So yes, it is my understanding that the President can direct an aide to invoke Executive Privilege, where it applies. The privilege belongs to the Executive, not the aide, to invoke. That is not to say that a judge will find that it applies in any given situation.

    But only when the executive (none / 0) (#106)
    by Towanda on Wed Jan 17, 2018 at 11:09:45 AM EST
    was the executive. I read that there is ckear prcedent that executive privilege cannot apply to the transition period, as Bannon claimed.

    That sounds right. Altogether, the scope (none / 0) (#108)
    by Peter G on Wed Jan 17, 2018 at 12:38:17 PM EST
    of the privilege is generally held by the court (whatever court has the case before it) -- or the Congressional committee, for that matter -- to be significantly narrower than what the White House or the witness tries to assert. This has been true since Nixon and remained true under Clinton, and will remain true under Tr*mp.

    Laurence Tribe (none / 0) (#120)
    by Towanda on Wed Jan 17, 2018 at 07:04:37 PM EST
    has a term for the White House attempt to expand executive privilege to a "pre-presidential pseudo-executive privilege, including the transition period: "chutzpah masquerading as law."

    Is executive privilege enshrined in the law? (none / 0) (#107)
    by caseyOR on Wed Jan 17, 2018 at 12:16:35 PM EST
    Or is it ,more or less, a custom or gentlemen's agreement between the three branches of government?

    I certainly hope there is no law on the books that makes it possible for the President, any President, and his staff, Cabinet, etc., to conceal criminal acts.


    Executive privilege is well-established (none / 0) (#109)
    by Peter G on Wed Jan 17, 2018 at 12:41:10 PM EST
    in law (and U.S. history), but as to its proper scope see my comment # 108.

    Now being reported in DailyBeast (none / 0) (#93)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Jan 16, 2018 at 09:16:06 PM EST
    That he will not make any such claim to avoid testifying to Mueller.

    We will see if that holds.


    Here (none / 0) (#94)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Jan 16, 2018 at 09:17:38 PM EST
    Truly (none / 0) (#100)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Jan 17, 2018 at 04:30:36 AM EST
    if he has a lick of sense he should just tell what he knows to Mueller. It seems the Mercers have cut him off and Trump wants him to "protect" him for no benefit to Bannon for doing so. Plus it might keep himself out of trouble and at this point I would think most of them are wanting to save their own skin. There's no honor among theives etc.

    alleged sexcapades? (none / 0) (#134)
    by thomas rogan on Tue Jan 23, 2018 at 04:40:34 PM EST
    Trump had alleged sexcapades with a porn star when he was still a businessman nine years before the election and it's supposed to ruin America's image.  Even though he was a Denocratic donor and businessman in 2007.
    JFK had numerous sexcapades when he was president including with someone involved with the Mafia and America's image survived just fine.  Bill Clinton has sexcapades in the oval office and America's image survived just fine.

    Help me understand (none / 0) (#135)
    by Repack Rider on Wed Jan 24, 2018 at 04:15:42 PM EST
    Trump's immorality is legendary and unrepentant.

    Hillary Clinton, OTOH, had been the subject of dozens of investigations over 25 years.  All that investigation had not turned up so much as an overdue library book.

    So the GOP did all it could do to prove that Hillary was as honest as the day is long.

    WHY DID REPUBLICANS FALL FOR THE "CROOKED HILLARY" LINE, since it had been so decisively refuted by their own party?

    Why was Clinton's immorality worthy of impeachment, but Trumps's which includes just about every crime short of murder, isn't?

    An easy one (none / 0) (#136)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Jan 24, 2018 at 04:24:44 PM EST
    It was never about right or wrong. It's all partisan bullshi+.

    It explains both Hillary and Trump.

    I suspect that was rhetorical but worth an answer.


    I use (none / 0) (#139)
    by Repack Rider on Wed Jan 24, 2018 at 05:26:50 PM EST
    the Socratic method.

    But it actually worse (none / 0) (#137)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Jan 24, 2018 at 04:29:35 PM EST
    That you suggest.  There is now an earnest effort to undermine both the FBI and the Justice Department solely for the purpose of softening the ground for deflecting whatever Mueller comes out with.

    Think about that.  Think about what that means for legitimate law enforcement trying to do legitimate work in Trump country.

    The rising hysteria and desperation suggests to me the end is near.

    I believe Mueller will indict Trump.  He will not trust it to elected republicans.  

    Buckle up.


    DailyBeast (none / 0) (#138)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Jan 24, 2018 at 05:13:21 PM EST
    The Justice Department expressed deep concerns Wednesday about Republican efforts to release a controversial memo on alleged FBI surveillance of the Trump campaign that has been authored and peddled by Rep. Devin Nunes (R-CA).

    In a letter sent to Nunes on Jan. 24, Stephen Boyd, the Justice Department's top Congressional liaison, wrote that "it would be extraordinarily reckless for the Committee to disclose such information publicly without giving the Department and the FBI the opportunity to review the memorandum and to advise the HPSCI [the House intelligence committee] of the risk of harm to national security and to ongoing investigations that could come from public release."

    That letter also said the Department is "unaware of any wrongdoing" related to the FISA process - indicating the Department disagrees with the scores of Congressional Republicans who say Nunes' memo is proof of wrongdoing.

    The FBI's letter is another chapter in an escalating and increasingly bitter saga between the federal law enforcement community and congressional Republicans. For days, tempers have flared over the controversial memo alleging surveillance abuse of the Trump campaign.

    It's worth noting that the #releasethememo was the top trending topic of known Russian bots.  DiFi and Schiff pointed this out



    Re: the end is near (none / 0) (#140)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Jan 24, 2018 at 05:28:51 PM EST
    Trump just announced he will testify to Mueller under oath.

    Not true (none / 0) (#141)
    by linea on Wed Jan 24, 2018 at 09:10:44 PM EST
    Russian Bot conspiracies seems to be the Democratic Party version of pizza-gate. The link you provided - your link - refutes your assertion:

    Schiff and Feinstein, both California lawmakers, suggested that a trending Twitter hashtag, #ReleaseTheMemo, got a strong boost from Kremlin-linked groups.

    However, sources familiar with Twitter's internal analysis told The Daily Beast that the trending hashtag "appears thus far to be organically American" not Russian.


    Sen. Dianne Feinstein and Rep. Adam Schiff, two California Democrats, wrote to Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey and Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg.

    But a knowledgeable source says that Twitter's internal analysis has thus far found that authentic American accounts, and not Russian imposters or automated bots, are driving #ReleaseTheMemo. There are no preliminary indications that the Twitter activity either driving the hashtag or engaging with it is either predominantly Russian.

    No it doesn't (5.00 / 1) (#142)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Jan 25, 2018 at 01:02:16 AM EST
    On Friday, #releasethememo was trending at a level we haven't seen with any hashtag since we launched Hamilton" in August, Bret Schafer, a spokesperson for the project, told BuzzFeed News.

    "That said, it's important to put everything on the dashboard in context," he added. "Yes, Kremlin-oriented accounts were heavily engaged, but they likely represented a very, very small percentage of the overall engagement with the hashtag."

    Twitter has agreed to respond to Feinstein and Schiff by Friday. Until then, the company offered no official assessment.

    The only "assertion" was that congressional republicans and Russian bots have the same goal.  Not that they "drove" the hash tag.


    I can't remember which Republican Cuomo (5.00 / 1) (#143)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Jan 26, 2018 at 07:57:34 AM EST
    Was talking to two mornings ago, but the Republican decided to talk about the memo and Cuomo asked him if realized he was promoting a CT that confirmed Russian bots were also engaged in pushing?

    One of the finer press moments I've seen recently. More of this please.