home

Monday Open Thread

I've got court this afternoon, here's an open thread, all topics welcome. No blog-clogging please, and keep it civil.

< SuperKush to Save America | Mortality Rate Climbs for Underinformed White Males >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Very good article on Trump agenda/changes (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by Green26 on Mon Mar 27, 2017 at 01:15:25 PM EST
    This is a very good summary of what Trump has done and is doing. I was discussing this subject several weeks ago with a poster who was saying Trump's agenda/plan is DOA. Some of the big name things maybe, but not all of this stuff. Huge changes being made.

    WaPost article.

    I still think he's off to a good start (none / 0) (#3)
    by McBain on Mon Mar 27, 2017 at 02:00:57 PM EST
    The healthcare failure was a big swing and a miss but not a strikeout. Having it pass and fail would have been much worse.

    Parent
    It exposed the vacuum (5.00 / 3) (#5)
    by Repack Rider on Mon Mar 27, 2017 at 02:16:42 PM EST
    ...that is the Republican Party.

    The healthcare failure was a big swing and a miss but not a strikeout.

    It was not a "big swing," it was looking at three strikes thrown slowly across the middle of the plate.

    The healthcare failure exposed the emptiness of the GOP, which had SEVEN YEARS to discuss, hone, and formulate their plan, while endlessly complaining about the one that was in place.  The fact that after all that time they turned out to be all talk and not a single actual effort should be a message that even the most imbecilic Tr*mp supporter should be able to understand.  

    There is no evidence that ANYONE DID ANYTHING to devise a "replacement."  These guys are stealing taxpayer money by remaining in offices they do not work in.

    Does that sound right to you?

    Parent

    What Repack said. (5.00 / 3) (#9)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Mar 27, 2017 at 02:32:29 PM EST
    D.J. Trump & Co., LLC are proving themselves to be even emptier suits than Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz -- and that's one helluva lot of wasted office space in D.C. which we're talking about here.

    The fiasco that was the American Health Care Act speaks volumes about the Republicans' lack of capacity to govern competently. They've become a party where gimmicks, stunts and political slogans pass for policy development. Not surprisingly, the AHCA crashed and burned before a single vote was taken on a chamber floor.

    The real losers here are the American people.

    Parent

    Yet the Repubicans won big in November (none / 0) (#11)
    by McBain on Mon Mar 27, 2017 at 02:45:18 PM EST
    I think it's safe to say the American people don't really feel great about either party right now.  If Obamacare gets worse there will plenty of blame to go around...
    Trump: he promised to repeal and replace "immediately"
    GOP: 7 years to work something out
    Obama:  People still call it Obamacare... to many, it has his name on it.  

    The AHCA could have been a fiasco had it passed.  Trump might have dodged a bullet here.

    The real losers here are the American people.

    Maybe. As much as we like to complain, our quality of life is pretty darn good. I don't see that changing any time soon.    

    Parent
    Then you would be wrong (5.00 / 4) (#12)
    by Repack Rider on Mon Mar 27, 2017 at 03:01:45 PM EST
    I think it's safe to say the American people don't really feel great about either party right now.

    It's only "safe to say" that in a GOP echo chamber where facts are not relevant.  Unfortunately, you loosed that fatuous statement here at Talk LEFT.

    Democrats get millions more votes for president and for members of Congress, but the mechanics of the electoral system and gerrymandering allow the GOP to hold the presidency a majority in Congress with a minority of votes.

    The fact that you can no longer defend the GOP does not mean that everyone shares your opinion of the Democrats.  The first stage of recovery will be your admission that the GOP has nothing to offer the citizens of the United States.

    If you can do that, we can discuss the flaws of the Democratic party, the most important of which is that they are not liberal enough.

    Parent

    The GOP didn't "win big" in November. (5.00 / 3) (#17)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Mar 27, 2017 at 05:04:44 PM EST
    Trump lost the national popular vote by 3 million and 2.1%, and the Republicans lost 3 seats in the U.S. Senate and seven seats in the U.S. House.

    But more to the point here, the collapse of the AHCA was a political fiasco for the GOP, because it revealed the Republicans as unready and / or unwilling to assume responsibility for governance of the country. The oddly strawman-like notion you're proffering, that Trump somehow "dodged a bullet here" because an extraordinarily lousy and counterproductive bill wasn't somehow passed and signed into law, only underscores that very point.

    The AHCA became TRUMP'S bill because he almost immediately claimed credit for its idea upon its introduction by Speaker Ryan 40 days ago; it wasn't the Democrats' bill or anybody else's.

    You can't then credit Trump and Ryan for killing the same bad legislation which they had initially foisted upon everyone in the first place, as though the subsequent avoidance of folly this past week is somehow indicative of their innate wisdom as policy makers.

    The GOP is a clown car driving headlong down a cul-de-sac at 80 m.p.h.

    Parent

    That is so removed from reality . . . (5.00 / 4) (#24)
    by Towanda on Mon Mar 27, 2017 at 06:02:00 PM EST
    Republicans won big?  I have to wonder if you are innumerate.

    Parent
    Had to look (5.00 / 2) (#57)
    by MKS on Tue Mar 28, 2017 at 12:37:20 AM EST
    up the word "innumerate." Love it!

    Parent
    I agree with your comment, but (none / 0) (#44)
    by Green26 on Mon Mar 27, 2017 at 10:35:31 PM EST
    304 to 227 in the electoral vote is not close.

    Obama was 332 to 206 in 2012. .

    Parent

    I find (none / 0) (#64)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Mar 28, 2017 at 07:16:07 AM EST
    that statement hysterical since most people would say 1960 was a close election and the electoral college was 303 to 219. The close election comes from the popular vote in that case. In 2016 the popular vote wasn't even close.

    Parent
    "Not close" -heh (none / 0) (#65)
    by Yman on Tue Mar 28, 2017 at 07:34:36 AM EST
    If you count by counties filled with tumbleweeds, it's a landslide!

    Parent
    Oh to be privileged enough ... (5.00 / 2) (#28)
    by Erehwon on Mon Mar 27, 2017 at 06:55:00 PM EST
    to claim: "As much as we like to complain, our quality of life is pretty darn good" under this regime.


    Parent
    This is evidence (none / 0) (#130)
    by Repack Rider on Tue Mar 28, 2017 at 05:21:56 PM EST
    As much as we like to complain, our quality of life is pretty darn good. I don't see that changing any time soon.

    ...that you are not Black, Latino, single and pregnant, unemployed, or poor, or female, which actually puts you into a minority that is happy and doesn't mind the fact that other people suffer needlessly.  

    Luck of the draw, but do not pretend that everyone hits the jackpot.  "Born on third base" and all that.

    Parent

    Right wingers love to evoke (none / 0) (#132)
    by jondee on Tue Mar 28, 2017 at 05:53:44 PM EST
    the argument that poor people here aren't really poor because they're not as miserable as the people living in the slums of Calcutta. And they're not malnourished because they're not dying off at the rate that people in South Sudan are..

    And of course every conservative knows another conservative who saw a poor person driving what looked like an expensive car and using an expensive smartphone.

    I just thought I'd save McBain the trouble.

    Parent

    is that a joke? (5.00 / 4) (#52)
    by Jeralyn on Mon Mar 27, 2017 at 11:50:39 PM EST
    I think he slipped on the banana peel big-time and its effects will be long lasting. Probably longer than he has his desk in the oval office, which hopefully won't be long. From his latest tweets saying Russia is a hoax and asking why the Clintons aren't being investigated instead of him, it seems like he is becoming unhinged.

    Parent
    Yes, it's like he's become completely unhinged (5.00 / 2) (#55)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Mar 27, 2017 at 11:58:57 PM EST
    He does the deny, deflect, make counter-accusations with the competence of my kindergarten grandson. Nobody is fooled anymore, we all know where he hid the snickers wrapper and we all know his chocolate covered lips ate it :)

    I am simultaneously horrified and fascinated. How did Murica elect this?

    Parent

    No joke, Jeralyn (none / 0) (#95)
    by McBain on Tue Mar 28, 2017 at 12:58:20 PM EST
    I respectfully disagree with your assessment.  This is the same Trump we saw all throughout the election process.

    If a new election were held today, he'd win again.  Trump voters aren't  concerned about the Russia investigation and they don't blame him, completely, for the failed healthcare bill.

    In a couple years things could change significantly, but for right now many people believe he's good for business, jobs, economy.  

    Parent

    Yeah, perhaps in a couple of years ... (5.00 / 3) (#103)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Mar 28, 2017 at 02:06:33 PM EST
    ... we'll find that he's been removed from office for having betrayed his country to the Russian oligarchy and kleptocracy. In the meantime, given his 35% approval rating, anyone who believes he's good for the economy is a stark raving fool who doesn't know his a$$ from a hole in the ground.

    Parent
    Other than a few cranks on here (5.00 / 3) (#128)
    by Chuck0 on Tue Mar 28, 2017 at 05:12:44 PM EST
    I don't know of any "people" who believe he's good for business, jobs or the economy. And I work in the defense industry! I am amazed at how many of my co-workers (granted not all) are appalled and disgusted with this guy as president. Maybe because many are ex-military and have ethics and honor. I work with a number of recently separated US Army warrant officers and senior NCOs (plus one Major), who are absolutely disgusted and dismayed with Trump. They did not serve this country so that a petulant narcissistic child could be its leader.

    Parent
    So they are stupid (5.00 / 2) (#131)
    by Repack Rider on Tue Mar 28, 2017 at 05:26:53 PM EST
    Trump voters aren't  concerned about the Russia investigation and they don't blame him, completely, for the failed healthcare bill.

    I hope you are telling us that they are so stupid they have to be paid to breathe.

    Just so we're clear, YOU understand that Mr. Tr*mp is a crook, a moron, a liar and a traitor who has no business directing anything more important than a convenience a store, correct?

    Please assure us that you voted for Hillary, because you understood that she was eminently qualified, all the scurrilous attacks on her were lies and that Tr*mp colluded with Russians.

    Parent

    it really harder and harded (none / 0) (#140)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Mar 28, 2017 at 09:12:45 PM EST
    to tell

    Parent
    Gosh (none / 0) (#13)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Mar 27, 2017 at 03:05:13 PM EST
    I don't think I've ever seen so much Trump apologia in one place.

    Some reporters are reporting that privately GOP senators are saying the Gorsuch nomination is dead. We shall see if they are willing to blow everything up to put him on the court.

    Parent

    Let's be honest here. (5.00 / 2) (#20)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Mar 27, 2017 at 05:12:57 PM EST
    Can you really trust a guy who answers "Gosh!" and "Golly!" and "Oh, my goodness!" under repeated questioning, with the sort of regularity offered by Judge Gorsuch? The guy's entire confirmation hearing was a prolonged and conscientiously stage-managed exercise in sincere disingenuousness on his part.

    We don't need another John Roberts on the High Court.

    Parent

    I don't care that much about Roberts (none / 0) (#54)
    by Jeralyn on Mon Mar 27, 2017 at 11:54:37 PM EST
    We can't take another Alito or Clarence Thomas.

    Parent
    Please remember, Jeralyn, that it was ... (none / 0) (#56)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Mar 28, 2017 at 12:28:32 AM EST
    ... John Roberts who similarly refused to be pinned down on anything during his confirmation hearing for the post of Chief Justice. Under his leadership at SCOTUS, we've since seen over a century's worth of campaign finance law be eviscerated with Citizens United, and the Voting Rights Act of 1965 be undermined with Shelby County v. Holder.

    I thoroughly detest stealth judicial candidates like Roberts, who don't possess the moral fiber or personal courage to state forthrightly to the general public their philosophical orientation, and who falsely reassure senators that they're not who their critics say they are. Both Roberts and Alito reduced the confirmation process to a game of charades.

    Gorsuch is cut from the exact same deceptively folksy cloth as Roberts. I'm not interested in having a beer or going fly-fishing with them; I want an idea as to how they actually view the law.

    That's what I meant.

    Parent

    Can you offer any links for the notion (none / 0) (#19)
    by Peter G on Mon Mar 27, 2017 at 05:10:05 PM EST
    that some senators are concerned about the Gorsuch nomination? I find that hard to fathom.

    Parent
    I should start (1.00 / 1) (#22)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Mar 27, 2017 at 05:30:42 PM EST
    saving these because when I go to find them I can't find them again.

    Parent
    The WashPo says that Gorsuch may not have (none / 0) (#29)
    by Peter G on Mon Mar 27, 2017 at 07:21:39 PM EST
    60 votes. In other words, the R's would have to reverse the traditional threshold for approval of a Supreme Court nominee and go to a simple majority to force his confirmation. Or abandon the nomination and advise the President* to find a more moderate nominee.

    Parent
    Thanks Peter (none / 0) (#31)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Mar 27, 2017 at 07:42:09 PM EST
    Yes, I read where Schumer I believe it was said that he would not filibuster a moderate and that they would work with the Republicans on finding a moderate to nominate.

    Parent
    that's what they are threatening to do (none / 0) (#53)
    by Jeralyn on Mon Mar 27, 2017 at 11:53:57 PM EST
    if the Dems filibuster...

    Senate Republicans have indicated that they are willing to invoke the so-called "nuclear option" - shorthand for changing the Senate's rules with a simple majority vote - to eliminate the filibuster for Supreme Court nominees.


    Parent
    yes, very good article (none / 0) (#33)
    by linea on Mon Mar 27, 2017 at 08:11:39 PM EST
    Christ (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by Repack Rider on Mon Mar 27, 2017 at 01:39:34 PM EST
    ...commanded His followers to feed the poor and care for the sick.  He even couched it as a personal gesture to Him, and stated that those who did not meet this standard were doing harm to Him and were as a result subject to eternal punishment.

    The Republican Party stands against everything Christ required of His followers.  You cannot be a Republican and a Christian at the same time.

    QED

    Oops! (5.00 / 3) (#4)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Mar 27, 2017 at 02:05:20 PM EST
    Donald from Hawaii (to jimakaPPJ, from last Friday's Open Thread): "The only ones calling it a 'smoking gun' are your buddies at Fox News. But since nobody's actually seen this so-called evidence except Rep. Nunes, and he was further unable to describe it publicly with any real degree of rationality and coherence, it appears to be less smoking gun than red herring. Nunes best be careful, lest he implicate himself in this growing scandal by aiding and abetting an attempt at a cover up."

    Too late! So sad.

    Los Angeles Times | March 27, 2017
    Devin Nunes plot thickens, as his spokesman concedes he met source for surveillance claim at White House - "The day before the House Intelligence Committee chairman revealed that conversations by Trump transition officials may have been inadvertently picked up by  U.S. surveillance, he met with the source of the information at the White House, his spokesman said Monday. Rep. Devin Nunes (R-Tulare), went to the White House because there was a facility there for reviewing classified information,  said Jack Langer, a spokesman for Nunes, who has refused to divulge the identity of his source. 'Chairman Nunes met with his source at the White House grounds in order to have proximity to a secure location where he could view the information provided by the source,' Langer said."

    Just for the record, while Chairman Nunes claims that members of Congress don't have networked access to these kinds of intelligence reports, there are in fact a number of secure sites outside of the White House where lawmakers may review classified information via Sensitive Compartmented Information Facilities (SCIF). In fact, several locations on Capitol Hill itself have SCIFs, as does the FBI Building and CIA HQ at Langley, VA.

    Citing a need to protect his 'sources and methods,' Nunes has thus far refused comment when asked by reporters if the White House itself was the source of his so-called revelations from last Wednesday. He held two press conferences that day regarding these findings and had privately briefed Trump about them, without ever bothering to disclose the information to his Intelligence Committee's ranking member Adam Schiff and other committee members. That unfortunate decision has been roundly criticized by Schiff and even Republicans such as Sen. John McCain.

    The following day, Nunes apologized to committee members for what he claimed was an inadvertent oversight on his part, yet as of this writing, he's still not shown this evidence to Rep. Schiff or other committee members. Then he walked back his claim this weekend, and today comes news that he received his information while on White House grounds.

    Chairman Nunes is likely working on both sides of the fence here, and he has thoroughly compromised himself as a direct result of last week's shenanigans. Speaker Ryan would be wise to replace him as head of the House Select Committee on Intelligence, at least with regard to this ongoing investigation into the Trump campaign's purported ties to the Russian government and its intelligence services.

    Aloha.

    UPDATE: Rep. Schiff calls for Nunes' recusal. (5.00 / 3) (#60)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Mar 28, 2017 at 03:57:27 AM EST
    The ranking Democratic member of the House Intelligence Committee has called on Chairman Devin Nunes to recuse himself from the current investigation surrounding Russia's interference in the 2016 election:

    "After much consideration, and in light of the Chairman's admission that he met with his source of information at the White House, I believe that the Chairman should recuse himself from any further involvement in the Russia investigation, as well as any involvement in oversight of matters pertaining to any incidental collection of the Trump transition. as he was also a key member of the Trump transition team."

    It's an unfortunate but necessary call, given the circumstances. Nunes should accede to his colleague's request. Failing that, Speaker Ryan should replace him.

    Aloha.

    Parent

    Yes, Paul Ryan (none / 0) (#102)
    by KeysDan on Tue Mar 28, 2017 at 01:50:53 PM EST
    should replace him.  But, after the Trumpcare fiasco, Nunes has become as strong link in Ryan's job security. Nunes stopped by to say hello to Ryan and get Ryan's blessings before he put his roller skates on and made a bee-line up to the "White House Grounds," to meet his leaker/source and prepare for his bizarre unveiling of something or other.

     Speculation is rampant about that leaker/source.  My guess is Michael Ellis, of the WH counsel's office and deputy national security advisor, and previously, general counsel of the House permanent select committee on intelligence, and a former colleague of Nunes.

      But, the exact person is unimportant to the scheme; it is the scheme itself that needs to be investigated and unraveled.  

    Ryan's role may have been to ingratiate himself to Trump so as to help make his dream to cut taxes on the rich and cut benefits for the poor finally come true. But, the Trumpcare contraption fell apart taking some of the wheels off Ryan's speakership along with it.

     Trump recommended we all tune in Judge Jeannine on Fox to watch a coincidental  rant about Ryan needing to step down from the Speakership, since he knew or should have known that Trump is just a businessman and knows nothing about getting things done.

     By Ryan keeping Nunes, he maintains the helpful investment Trump has made in Nunes as well as his job.  If Nunes goes, Ryan may, too. And, who knows about Trump or his lumpens. A lot of potential losers, except for the American people.

    Parent

    Who cares about all the attempts (1.33 / 3) (#23)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Mar 27, 2017 at 05:52:35 PM EST
    to cover the Demos tracks by issuing blathering statements that tell us what we know and approved of.

    Nunes had a source that told him Obama's buds had listened in on conversations "inadvertently." (Sure they did and the Beamers paid for,)

    He then went and told the Prez.

    Okay fine.

    The Demos don't like it. (Tell someone who cares.)

    John McCain doesn't like it. (Tell someone who cares.)

    without ever bothering to disclose the information to his Intelligence Committee's ranking member Adam Schiff

    We now know where many of the leaks came from.

    Jail time for some folks.

    Parent

    You mean for whoever leaked ... (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by Yman on Mon Mar 27, 2017 at 07:26:37 PM EST
    ... to Nunes?

    Seems a bit premature, but if you say so ...


    Parent

    Jail time (none / 0) (#26)
    by jondee on Mon Mar 27, 2017 at 06:05:41 PM EST
    oh well, when it doesn't happen, you can always post a photo shopped picture of them all in prison together with all the America-hating climate scientists, and you'll feel better.

    Parent
    Naw (none / 0) (#27)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Mar 27, 2017 at 06:17:29 PM EST
    Nunes is in big trouble. More than likely he went to the white house to either tell them that Flynn had flipped or he saw himself in the intel because Flynn had flipped and was telling about the meeting with Nunes and the Turks.

    He's completely destroyed any credibility the house intelligence committee had and has increased the calls for an independent panel or independent prosecutor to handle the case.

    Parent

    "more than likely" (none / 0) (#32)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Mar 27, 2017 at 08:11:09 PM EST
    Really??

    And you have proof?

    Would you be so kind as to show some proof?

    Parent

    Bottom line (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Mar 27, 2017 at 08:58:34 PM EST
    he destroyed the intelligence committee by going to the white house. You who was having a meltdown over Bill Clinton exchanging baby pictures with Loretta Lynch and let me tell you this is serious stuff but you would not recognize it because you would be perfectly fine with democracy being destroyed. We've all seen Republicans from Trump and Pence all the way down to Sarah Palin praise Putin. Oh, and Nunes actually owns a vineyard with a Russian. He has a vested interest in protecting Russians.

    Parent
    Sorry, but I don't get how Nunes (none / 0) (#45)
    by Green26 on Mon Mar 27, 2017 at 10:39:49 PM EST
    is in trouble. Please provide reasons and analysis. Maybe I just don't understand, but I don't see the big problem for him.

    Parent
    For some who loves to regale everyone ... (5.00 / 7) (#58)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Mar 28, 2017 at 12:53:18 AM EST
    ... with his expertise, you don't seem to get lots of things about this scandal, perhaps willfully so:

    (1) Rep. Devin Nunes (R-CA) is chair of the House Select Committee on Intelligence, which has been tasked by Speaker Paul Ryan to lead one of the two congressional investigations into burgeoning security scandal over the growing number of documented contacts between the Trump campaign and the Russian government, its security agencies and its surrogates.

    (2) Nunes also so happened to have served on Trump's transition team between November and January, which creates an appearance of a conflict of interest above and beyond the nonsense of last week.

    (3) It's since been reported by the Turkish newspaper Daily Sabah that in January, Nunes attended a meeting between then-National Security Advisor designate Michael Flynn and Turkish Foreign Minister Mevlut Cavusoglu at the Trump International Hotel in Washington, D.C., during which the proposed kidnapping and rendition of exiled Turkish cleric was allegedly discussed. As we now know, Flynn was an unregistered lobbyist for the Turkish government, and is also under investigation by Nunes' committee.

    (4) Last week Monday, at the committee's first open hearing into the matter, FBI Director James Comey told members as well as the general public that contrary to President Trump repeated assertions that he had been under surveillance during the late presidential campaign per the direct orders of former President Obama, there was absolutely no evidence to support Trump's contention.

    (5) Two days later on Wednesday, Nunes held two press conferences in which he claimed that the Trump transition team's communications had somehow been intercepted by U.S. intelligence agencies, and that he had privately briefed Trump about them. His so-called finding ran counter to FBI Director Comey's statement to the committee just two days prior. Further, Nunes did this without ever bothering to disclose the information to his Intelligence Committee's ranking member Adam Schiff and other committee members, which constitutes a breach of longstanding protocol.

    (6) On Thursday, under withering public criticism for his actions the day prior, Nunes apologized to Schiff and committee members and promised to disclose his findings to them the following day. That disclosure never happened. Instead, Nunes' office announced that the public hearing scheduled with Sally Yates, James Clapper, et al., for the following Tuesday (tomorrow) had been cancelled, because the committee needed to first meet with Comey in closed door session on Monday (today). That closed door session was also subsequently cancelled without explanation.

    (7) This past weekend, Nunes appeared to walk back his initial surprising claims, and today brought the news that he had apparently received his secret information from an undisclosed source while both of them were on "White House grounds." This quite understandably led to public speculation that the Trump White House itself was the source of Nunes' supposed intelligence, and had orchestrated this past week's circus.

    By either blowing a lot of smoke up everyone's a$$ on behalf of the Trump administration, or be being its willing dupe, or both, Chairman Nunes has thus thoroughly compromised himself ethically with his inexplicable actions and behavior over the past five days. He can no longer be entrusted with leading this investigation, and he needs to be replaced by Speaker Ryan.

    Aloha.

    Parent

    How has Nunes compromised himself (none / 0) (#84)
    by Green26 on Tue Mar 28, 2017 at 11:59:16 AM EST
    ethically? I keep reading all kinds of stuff like that, but I haven't read any good explanation and it doesn't make sense to me.

    Parent
    Good question! Not. (5.00 / 3) (#93)
    by Repack Rider on Tue Mar 28, 2017 at 12:45:59 PM EST
    How has Nunes compromised himself ethically? I keep reading all kinds of stuff like that, but I haven't read any good explanation and it doesn't make sense to me.

    He was a member of the transition team that is being investigated.  Do you believe he can investigate himself and his colleagues honestly?

    Showing no respect for the separation of powers, he took information to the subject of the investigation, and denied that same information to his colleagues on the committee.

    This is not rocket science, and I tried to use short words, but I can't get around the fact that important words like "separation," "investigate," "transition," and "information" have more than one syllable.  I hope that is not a problem.

    Parent

    Green26: "How has Nunes compromised himself ethically? I keep reading all kinds of stuff like that, but I haven't read any good explanation and it doesn't make sense to me."

    ... which is based upon the coordinates and bearings of my own ethical compass, since you appear to have conveniently misplaced yours. But that said, and for the mere sake of argument because I'm now rather curious to see how far you'll actually take this, I'll indulge you.

    Let's say that you were asked to investigate someone for alleged fraud and malfeasance on behalf of your firm's client, who's filed suit against that person, but you had enjoyed a prior amenable personal or professional relationship with that defendant. Would you not feel at all obligated to recuse yourself from that particular case?

    And if not, would you then consider it perfectly okay to give that defendant regular briefings and updates regarding the current status of your inquiry, without first disclosing your intent to your client or partners and at least seeking their prior concurrence? (And if that's the case, then you likely you work for that legendary legal firm of Dewey, Cheetham & Howe.)

    Seriously, if you require further explanation, then I'd suggest that you consult one of your senior partners at your firm, and ask that he or she define the term "conflict of interest" for you. That would be a very good place to start.

    Have a nice day.

    Parent

    Donald, the legal ethical rules (none / 0) (#137)
    by Green26 on Tue Mar 28, 2017 at 06:35:01 PM EST
    don't apply to the Nunes situation, so your question or question is N/A.

    Parent
    Oh, really? (5.00 / 3) (#142)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Mar 29, 2017 at 02:52:06 AM EST
    When it comes to conflicts of interest, you are clearly in desperate need of a clue. For the record, a conflict of interest exists when on the basis of past experience and objective evidence, the existing circumstances are reasonably believed to create a risk that one's decision making in a particular matter may be unduly influenced by other secondary interests.

    Give his past participation and affiliation with the Trump campaign and transition team, Nunes has an obvious conflict of interest here which ought to preclude him from overseeing a subsequent investigation into their conduct in his present capacity as Chair of the House Intelligence Committee. His bizarre behavior this past week bears that out.

    What a pity you as an attorney can't see something so basic as that. Perhaps that accounts for our differences here. You practice law, whereas I've actually written it.

    Regardless, I'm through discussing this any further with you. You 're wasting my time, as well as everyone else's.

    Have a nice evening.

    Parent

    Sorry, Donald, just don't agree with your analysis (none / 0) (#150)
    by Green26 on Wed Mar 29, 2017 at 01:56:28 PM EST
    or conclusion. I believe the Nunes committee is investigating Russian influence on the election including the possible role of some Trump people. Nunes has said the recent info he received from the anonymous source does not involve Russian contacts. This looks like politics to me at this point. Schiff is not exactly being unbiased. So far, Nunes says he is not stepping aside. Ryan is backing him.

    Regarding the politics, is it just coincidental that the division of support and criticism is essentially down party lines? To me, that says politics.

    Congressional committees operate under far different rules than lawyers.

    I don't care if Nunes committee investigates this subject or not. There's a Senate committee. There's an FBI investigation.

    I supported an independent investigation (not special counsel) long ago. Still do.

    Parent

    Whatever, dude. (none / 0) (#154)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Mar 29, 2017 at 04:22:01 PM EST
    Green, please stop asking other (5.00 / 2) (#113)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Mar 28, 2017 at 03:18:06 PM EST
    commenters to prove something to you. This is a place for people to post their views. If you want to direct the conversation, please start your own blog.

    And please don't blog-clog the threads.

    Thanks,

    Parent

    J, I have not asked anyone to "prove" (1.50 / 4) (#136)
    by Green26 on Tue Mar 28, 2017 at 06:33:37 PM EST
    something to me. I don't understand the strong statements by some that Nunes has been "unethical" or that what he has done recently violates "separation of powers". So, I have asked anyone who wants to explain their position to explain it, and specifically said that I'm asking so that I can learn.

    How can a discussion be had, if questions can't be asked? I assume you don't really mean that all people should do on this site is post their views. How does anyone learn anything by only reading what other people's views are?

    In my view, most of the blog-clogging is coming from certain posters snipping at me.

    Parent

    I thought you were a Stanford educated attorney (5.00 / 1) (#144)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Mar 29, 2017 at 05:36:46 AM EST
    You don't understand the separation of powers?

    Parent
    Yes, I generally understand separation (none / 0) (#147)
    by Green26 on Wed Mar 29, 2017 at 09:13:20 AM EST
    of powers, but I don't see how it applies in this situation with Nunes. Still hoping someone will educate me, or provide link to an explanatory article. I have not noticed anyone providing anymore information than a single statement/opinion. I am here to learn.

    Parent
    It is about bias (5.00 / 2) (#151)
    by MKS on Wed Mar 29, 2017 at 02:33:29 PM EST
    If the head of the committee is taking marching orders from the subject of the investigation, that is not a fair investigation.

    Regardless of the actual technical rules, Trump is running the House Committee.  Adam Schiff had I right:  Nunes can be either a Trump surrogate or run an impartial investigation, but not both.

    Seems pretty basic.  

    Parent

    Schiff had "it" right (none / 0) (#152)
    by MKS on Wed Mar 29, 2017 at 02:34:53 PM EST
    Grean26: "Yes, I generally understand separation of powers, but I don't see how it applies in this situation with Nunes. Still hoping someone will educate me, or provide link to an explanatory article. I have not noticed anyone providing anymore information than a single statement/opinion. I am here to learn."

    First of all, Professor Kingsfield, the constitutional doctrine of separation of powers is really basic legal stuff, as is the definition of conflict of interest. You're supposed to be the Stanford-educated attorney at law here, so far be it for me, a mere biology / history dual major as an undergraduate, to have to explain either one to you.

    Secondly, others here including myself have indeed provided information on most any number of topics here at TL to underscore our respective contentions, which you've otherwise and time and again pointedly chosen to ignore. It's quite understandable, therefore, for us to conclude that you're really not interested in considering any relevant facts or analyses which may run counter to your own personal opinions.

    Finally, if it's really the case that you're "here to learn" as you so plaintively contended above, then why do you refuse time and again to acknowledge what we're actually saying and then worse still, further insist upon telling us repeatedly that we're wrong?

    At its best, the legitimate process of legal inquiry ought to be an honest and diligent quest for facts and truth. Instead, Chairman Nunes and his friends in the Trump administration are apparently seeking to reduce it to kabuki-like political theatrics and verbal gymnastics as a means to obfuscate and bury the same.

    As such, you're obviously not here to learn, Green. Rather, in this particular instance, you're conveniently ignoring pre-1L subject matter for the readily apparent purpose of defending the very people whom you've otherwise claimed here to have opposed and voted against. It's therefore hardly surprising that so many of us find your statements to the contrary to be entirely disingenuous.

    If you want to debate in an honest and forthright manner, then I'm certainly game, as I'm sure many others here are, too. But if you're going to keep assuming that we're your intellectual inferiors, and if you continue to pee on our legs while trying to reassure us in vain that it's merely raining -- well, then you ought to best steady yourself for some vigorous pushback, and be prepared to run a gauntlet of increasingly exasperated and caustic remarks.

    I'm sorry if I've somehow hurt your feelings here, but that's simply how I feel. It's become a near-constant exercise in frustration to engage you and frankly, I'm tired of it. So, I promise that this is the last I'll say to you in this thread.

    Aloha.

    Parent

    You had me at eye roll (none / 0) (#155)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Mar 30, 2017 at 09:10:35 AM EST
    Donald, once again you provide (none / 0) (#156)
    by Green26 on Thu Mar 30, 2017 at 10:37:57 AM EST
    a long-winded post that doesn't provide information on the topic.

    I still have not seen anyone address your Nunes separation of powers point. Repeating the same assertion over and over doesn't explain or support it.

    I sometimes don't agree with certain assertions, but I rarely tell people they are wrong. Some posters seem to like to just make up stuff. Guess you are one of them.

    Separation of powers involving Nunes. That one makes me chuckle each time I read it.


    Parent

    Your intent here is to browbeat others into silence, and not to engage in a discussion. You're a complete waste of my time.

    Parent
    Careful, that is called "sniping" (none / 0) (#163)
    by Towanda on Fri Mar 31, 2017 at 09:02:14 AM EST
    when some of us say that, Donald, to Green.

    Parent
    Definition of recusal (none / 0) (#157)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Mar 30, 2017 at 11:26:03 AM EST
    transitive verb. : to disqualify (oneself) as judge in a particular case; broadly : to remove (oneself) from participation to avoid a conflict of interest.

    Parent
    Dumb (none / 0) (#158)
    by FlJoe on Thu Mar 30, 2017 at 11:36:12 AM EST
    as a Yoho
    The Florida Republican then misrepresented the Constitution's separation of powers to justify Nunes briefing President Donald Trump on the surveillance, even though some members of his transition team -- and possibly the president himself -- are under FBI investigation for alleged ties to Russia.

    "You have to keep in mind who he works for," Yoho told MSNBC. "He works for the president and answers to the president."

    does all the fancy edumication make you forget what everybody else learnt in JR. High?

    Parent
    Personally, I find the guy to be both sanctimonious and condescending, and it's a waste of time engaging him. Of course he understands the doctrine of separation of powers and the concept of conflict of interest, if he's the Stanford-educated attorney he says he is. (I've no reason to doubt that.) But like so many obnoxious wingers, he's far too slavish in his devotion to his own politics to ever acknowledge that we're right about Chairman Nunes. In that regard, he's being completely disingenuous.

    Parent
    your link (none / 0) (#159)
    by linea on Thu Mar 30, 2017 at 08:18:43 PM EST
    Dumb as a Yoho

    isnt authoritative.

    "Travis Gettys is an editor for Raw Story"

    i googled and cant find that he is a lawyer much less an expert on constitutional law.

    i think i might agree with the original poster as i dont understand how a congressmember briefing the president is a violation of the separation of powers doctrine. perhaps it's a violation of that specific committee rules?

    Parent

    Congress is a check on Presidential power (none / 0) (#164)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Apr 05, 2017 at 10:45:31 AM EST
    Unless you are Devin Nunes

    Parent
    Proof that Nunes is doing good (none / 0) (#68)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Mar 28, 2017 at 09:18:53 AM EST
    is in the Demo attacks.

    He isn't in trouble.

    Parent

    He's doing (5.00 / 3) (#69)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Mar 28, 2017 at 09:25:25 AM EST
    a great job making himself a laughingstock and taking down the entire GOP with him. You should watch some of his interviews. He just sits there and spews nonsense. He's changed his story so many times it's kinda funny.

    Parent
    The (5.00 / 1) (#71)
    by FlJoe on Tue Mar 28, 2017 at 09:35:31 AM EST
    real reason he went to the WH is to have his chipset upgraded to run Spicer  v2.1 spin software.

    Parent
    Shorter (1.00 / 1) (#73)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Mar 28, 2017 at 09:51:18 AM EST
    FlJoe doesn't have an answer so he snarks.

    Parent
    You (none / 0) (#79)
    by FlJoe on Tue Mar 28, 2017 at 10:40:10 AM EST
    and the rest of the tRumpsters should be taking it as gallows humor.

    Parent
    Let's extend that logic (5.00 / 1) (#126)
    by Repack Rider on Tue Mar 28, 2017 at 04:35:13 PM EST
    Proof that Nunes is doing good is in the Demo attacks.

    Wow, that just about makes Obama a saint then. The attacks on HIM make the attacks on Nunes look like a pillow fight.

    Parent

    What's also funny is ... (none / 0) (#6)
    by Yman on Mon Mar 27, 2017 at 02:17:15 PM EST
    ... how the conservatives screaming about "Leaks!" (while ignoring the fact that the Russians interfered in our election to help their candidate, possibly with collusion from his campaign) are suddenly quiet as crickets about the leaks to Nunes.

    Parent
    So (none / 0) (#10)
    by FlJoe on Mon Mar 27, 2017 at 02:44:54 PM EST
    it goes, from so called smoking gun to what have you been smoking.

    Parent
    No, he did not meet (none / 0) (#67)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Mar 28, 2017 at 09:12:15 AM EST
    his source at the WH.

    Parent
    WTF? Nunes most certainly did! (5.00 / 3) (#114)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Mar 28, 2017 at 03:22:32 PM EST
    In fact, he already publicly admitted as much yesterday. Please stop trafficking in known and obvious falsehoods, Jim.

    Parent
    Trump may be (5.00 / 2) (#18)
    by KeysDan on Mon Mar 27, 2017 at 05:09:28 PM EST
    experiencing so much losing (e.g., Trumpcare, Muslin ban, General Flynn, Budget, Nunes, Lying Tweets, FBI/Intel Agencies), that he is sick of losing.

    Gallup has him at a new low of 36 percent approval. So what to do?  Soldier onward with the help of Putin and Rasputin, or take a deep breath and shift gears taking a leaf from the playbook of Arnold Schwarzenegger, who jettisoned his hard right turn after being tamed by California nurses, and, managed to, at least, limp through his term.

    Trump, as with his executive orders and Trumpcare, demonstrated that he has the attention span of a goldfish.  Just get something done, get someone in there. Anything, anyone. And, do it quickly. He will really run everything, along with his companion humans and advisors, Ivanka and Jared. And, Rasputin, who has right wing/white nationalist ideas, but not the right wing/white natinalist personnel contacts.  However, Pence does and is at his service.

    Trump can correct course, for starters, by working with ACA or working against it. But, working with it requires overcoming the Republican's barrier to the very idea: Attract people who don't presently need health care to pay for the bills for those who do, with the understanding that the favor will be returned, if and when necessary. And, reduce the overriding fear that "those people" will be getting our money, once again.

      Repeal and replace with something terrific or repeal and replace with nothing.  Trying to make Obamacare terrific would be relatively easy, essentially, cure its present problem of being underfunded.

     In lieu of the $310 Billion tax cuts for the very wealthiest as part of that contraption known as Trumpcare, and that late promise of $85 Billion in a reserve fund to help older (50-64)Americans to receive tax credits, ACA will be properly supported.

     And, if that is not enough, maybe, just maybe, that $54 Billion proposed in the Trump budget in addition funds for the Pentagon could be pared down, to say, $50 billion.  We may not need a larger Navy to get ISIS in their desert hideaways.

    But, I believe Trump will chose to sabotage ACA and not co-opt or otherwise provide help--as was seen in his willingness to job out Trumpcare to Ryan.  And, to now depend on Tom Price to provide health care to Americans using the regulatory provisions available to him to make it "explode".  

    Adam (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by FlJoe on Mon Mar 27, 2017 at 06:02:46 PM EST
    Schiff calls for Nunes to recuse himself. Nunes looked like an idiot in CNN trying to explain himself to Blitzer.

    There's really nothing for him to explain. (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Mar 28, 2017 at 02:43:45 AM EST
    We all saw for ourselves what happened over these past few days. Either Nunes got played for a chump by the Trump Oh-So-Very-White House, or he's a willing player in a mutual attempt to cover up the scandal.

    Parent
    Trump has sent "500" more US troops (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Mar 27, 2017 at 09:06:10 PM EST
    Into Raqqa Syria. We no longer have an official count on the number of boots on the ground inside Syria.

    My view is that if Obama (2.00 / 2) (#46)
    by Green26 on Mon Mar 27, 2017 at 10:47:18 PM EST
    had reacted and defended properly years ago, we wouldn't have the current Syria problem, the Syria humanitarian and refugee problems, as much of an immigration problems in Europe, nearly as many civilans killed in Syria, Russian and Iranian influence in Syria, and egg on our face.

    Sorry, but Obama was just too timid. Hillary Clinton has made statements in the past that indicate that she agrees with some of this.

    Parent

    And what should Obama have done? (5.00 / 4) (#63)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Mar 28, 2017 at 06:03:43 AM EST
    "For every complex problem, there is a solution that is simple, neat, and wrong."
    - H. L. Menken, journalist and satirist (1880-1956)

    Intervene in the civil war by invading Syria and removing President Assad from power? There was no public support in this country for doing that.

    Parent

    Obama should have supported Assad (1.00 / 1) (#70)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Mar 28, 2017 at 09:33:01 AM EST
    That would have kept Russian influence to a minimum and hurt ISIS.

    Of course if Obama hadn't cut and ran from Iraq ISIS.....

    Parent

    Why do we need to (none / 0) (#76)
    by vicndabx on Tue Mar 28, 2017 at 10:19:32 AM EST
    [keep]
    Russian influence to a minimum?

    Also. while I don't necessarily disagree with this:

    Obama should have supported Assad

    Do you really believe politically that would have been possible?  I don't.

    Parent

    And what would have kept Obama (none / 0) (#119)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Mar 28, 2017 at 03:51:29 PM EST
    from supporting Assad?

    Wait!!!

    Don't you know that the evileeee Ruskiess and nasty Repubs are in cahoots??

    lol

    Actually, Russia has now got in bed with Iran.

    That's why.

    Parent

    A certain desperation (none / 0) (#127)
    by jondee on Tue Mar 28, 2017 at 04:53:50 PM EST
    has been creeping into your trademark incoherent babbling lately.

    Oh wait!!!

    Your favorite house of cards is teetering a little more with each passing day.

    That's why.

    Parent

    Monday (none / 0) (#61)
    by FlJoe on Tue Mar 28, 2017 at 05:35:06 AM EST
    morning quarterbacking, and pretty crappy at that. You don't even offer up the alternate "plays" Obama should have run.

    Parent
    Twitter (none / 0) (#42)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Mar 27, 2017 at 09:35:28 PM EST
    is a flutter about Trump tapes and Trump is dragging up old conspiracy theories and talking about nonsense. I wonder if yet another story is going to drop tomorrow or if it is Jared testifying that is making him nervous? I sure would be nervous about Jared testifying for sure. Three contacts with the Russians recently. These people are idiots. They are under investigation and they are still meeting with the Russians?

    Parent
    Fine..don't believe it (5.00 / 3) (#51)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Mar 27, 2017 at 11:48:19 PM EST
    The study still exists. AND we had to Stop Loss. At that point your volunteer Army is broken. We couldn't make recruiting goals and needs for years...YEARS!

    Turned out no American wanted to die in Iraq for????

    I get my advice from multiple current and former (none / 0) (#80)
    by Green26 on Tue Mar 28, 2017 at 10:58:24 AM EST
    military people, many of whom fought in Iraq and Afghanistan, including my former Ranger son. A large percentage of his friends, even in law school, were military. Many of them were "shooters". They were in danger and risked their lives most everyday. Great guys and women in his group of friends, including his wife.

    Most of them believed that when Obama was elected there was no longer strong support for the military, for the wars (rhetoric, goals, policies, financially). They were very disappointed that Obama just gave up the gains they had fought so hard for in Iraq, by pulling out of Iraq.

    The military was pushed hard with the 2 wars, but don't minimize the negative impact that Obama had on the morale.


    Parent

    I am a veteran (5.00 / 3) (#86)
    by Repack Rider on Tue Mar 28, 2017 at 12:07:51 PM EST
    Army, E5, Honorable.  One of my HS classmates and a lifelong friend, a fellow National Merit Scholar, was a Marine lieutenant squad leader in Vietnam.

    We are both more liberal than Pete Seeger, if that is possible.

    Parent

    And as an added plus, you're culturally literate (5.00 / 2) (#99)
    by jondee on Tue Mar 28, 2017 at 01:23:05 PM EST
    enough to know how to spell his name.

    Parent
    Military Liberals and Progressives (none / 0) (#141)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Mar 28, 2017 at 10:55:29 PM EST
    That are serving right now are more out front too. I'm not used to that. Conservatives are always in uniform and confidently loud. Independents walk around acting mature and like they are the adults at the party. Liberals have always been mum in uniform until just recently. I don't even know what to think about that yet. I'm stunned. Nobody has said anything anti leadership, but in uniform Liberals no longer feeling like in hiding red headed step children? Proudly saying they are Liberals.

    Parent
    in case you haven't realized it (5.00 / 5) (#116)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Mar 28, 2017 at 03:31:58 PM EST
    TalkLeft opposes our involvement in the Middle East and especially war. Our comment rules say:

       All points of view are welcome on TalkLeft, with the following exception:

        TalkLeft will limit commenters to four comments a day if, in its sole discretion, the commenter is a "chatterer," loosely defined as one who both holds opposing views from those expressed by TalkLeft and :

            Posts numerous times a day with the intent of dominating, re-directing or hijacking the thread; or

            Posts numerous times a day and insults or engages in name-calling against other commenters or the site's authors or repeatedly makes the same point with the effect of annoying other commenters. (i.e. is a blog-clogger)

        A message will be left in the last thread that the commenter chattered on advising that he or she has been limited to four comments a day. All comments in excess of this amount will be deleted. Repeated violators will be banned.

    TalkLeft, as is apparent to anyone who reads it, is vehemently opposed to all things Trump. Thus, any comments defending him or people associated with him will be limited to four per commenter per thread.

    You really need to take your comments elsewhere on those topics (it's no different than commenting in favor of the death penalty. Contrary views from TalkLeft are allowed in moderation, per my discretion, since it's my blog.

    Parent

    He's kind of cracking me up (5.00 / 3) (#74)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Mar 28, 2017 at 09:54:35 AM EST
    Calling my spouse a desk clerk. Mostly because I don't think the Army has desk clerks anymore. I'm not certain about that, I just know I've never met one outside of MASH :)

    Most of those jobs are now civilian. As my husband says, "The Army doesn't have rock painters in it anymore."

    My brother was a Marine lifer (5.00 / 2) (#96)
    by jondee on Tue Mar 28, 2017 at 12:58:45 PM EST
    my father served on subs during the height of the Cold War, and my grandfather fought in the Russian revolution/civil war.

    All of that doesn't, by some mysterious osmosis, automatically make me a combination of Sun Tzu and Von Clausewitz.

    Parent

    Sorry (5.00 / 1) (#75)
    by FlJoe on Tue Mar 28, 2017 at 10:17:28 AM EST
    Jim, Nunes has admitted that he went the WH complex on the day before. So your info is wrong, as usual.

    Saying he went to the White House (none / 0) (#121)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Mar 28, 2017 at 04:02:56 PM EST
    is like saying the cable guy I spoke to this morning in the yard about my lousy TV reception  is like saying he visited my home.

    n an interview Monday, Nunes told me that he ended up meeting his source on the White House grounds because it was the most convenient secure location with a computer connected to the system that included the reports, which are only distributed within the executive branch. "We don't have networked access to these kinds of reports in Congress," Nunes said. He added that his source was not a White House staffer and was an intelligence official.  

    This is suggestive, though not yet proof, that White House officials privy to the Russia investigation wanted keep tabs on Trump and his advisers in the period after the election and before his inauguration. It also fits together with other facts in this story as well. For example, on March 1, the New York Times reported that Obama White House officials sought to preserve intelligence in the final days and weeks of his presidency on Team Trump's connections to Russia and Russia's campaign to influence the election. Though Nunes says the reports he viewed had nothing to do with Russia.

    Link

    Parent

    And as I noted above, Jim: (5.00 / 2) (#124)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Mar 28, 2017 at 04:16:26 PM EST
    "Just for the record, while Chairman Nunes claims that members of Congress don't have networked access to these kinds of intelligence reports, there are in fact a number of secure sites outside of the White House where lawmakers may review classified information via Sensitive Compartmented Information Facilities (SCIF). In fact, several locations on Capitol Hill itself have SCIFs, as does the FBI Building and CIA HQ at Langley, VA." (Emphasis is mine.)

    There was no logical reason for Nunes to go to the White House himself. This constitutes a rather ham-handed attempt on his part to regain control the prevailing public narrative at the behest of the Trump administration. Instead, he's made a rather spectacular spectacle of himself, further costing him his personal credibility as House Intelligence Committee Chair.

    Aloha.

    Parent

    Talk about ham-handed, imprecise analogies.. (5.00 / 1) (#129)
    by jondee on Tue Mar 28, 2017 at 05:13:24 PM EST
    Nunes as everybody's friendly neighborhood cable guy..

    This is your brain on Fox and talk radio.

    It ain't pretty.

    Parent

    My LTE was published today (5.00 / 2) (#77)
    by Repack Rider on Tue Mar 28, 2017 at 10:20:09 AM EST
    This comment started as a post here, got edited and refined and sent to the local rag, where it ran in today's paper.  Here is the text:

    Republican leaders blew their chance

    The Republican Party had seven years to create their health plan and explain it to the public. With that much time and passion devoted to a single subject, you would think they would write something down.

    You would think there would be thousands of pages of analysis and the plan would be honed to a razor edge. Everyone would be on the same page, they would have held dozens of meetings and seminars, and anyone in the party could explain in detail why their plan was better.

    The Republican plan turned out to be complaining about the features of Obamacare that were compromises to get enough votes to pass it, and holding 60 symbolic repeal votes, safe in the knowledge that they would be met with a veto.

    This is more than a political setback. It is a metaphor for politics of image and automatic objections to anything proposed by the other party.

    It is the difference between using the power of government to help people, and using that power against them.

    President Barack Obama spent years hammering out a plan and most of a year getting it through Congress. Pinning his name on it was originally supposed to be an insult, but now it is a triumph.

    Mr. Obama and a Democratic majority created something that is a long way from perfect but a decided improvement. They spent years working on it. They campaigned on it and they got it passed.

    The GOP now owns the halls of power, and can't find the light switch. They don't do homework and they don't seem very smart.

    This contrast will make it difficult for the media to pretend that "both sides" are somehow equal, but I'm sure they are up to the challenge.



    It isn't hearsay (5.00 / 1) (#87)
    by Repack Rider on Tue Mar 28, 2017 at 12:13:31 PM EST
    Liberals pretending to know something about the military.

    My position on military matters is influenced by my own military service.  Please tell me about your service.

    If you didn't serve, where do you get the chutzpah to lecture those with more direct knowledge?

    That's funny. (5.00 / 1) (#89)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Mar 28, 2017 at 12:17:32 PM EST
    You know so little but attempt to act like you know so much. If you knew Tracie like I do you would not even venture to make such a clueless statement.

    I've mentioned Putin a lot but not nearly as much as conservatives who have been praising him to the skies for years now.

    Liberals.. (5.00 / 2) (#91)
    by jondee on Tue Mar 28, 2017 at 12:39:36 PM EST
    I love it.

    Twist an "independent's" ear just a little bit, and their inner Hannity comes to the fore.

    Did you ever hear of General Smedley Butler, Green?

    You should check out his War Is A Racket. It might shake up your inner rigid stereotypes a little.

    ... on the right-wing plot to overthrow President Franklin Delano Roosevelt by coup d'état in 1934. He was widely disparaged by conservative critics at the time as delusional and an unstable crackpot, but the now-unclassified evidence (as of 2007) vindicates him.

    Parent
    Are you for real? (5.00 / 2) (#98)
    by Chuck0 on Tue Mar 28, 2017 at 01:13:55 PM EST
    And you claim to be an attorney?

    Separation of powers. It was designed for checks and balances. If members of the legislative branch are colluding with the executive, where is the checks? Nothing says they can't talk. But collusion would be a crime.


    I believe this person is trolling TL at this point (5.00 / 5) (#101)
    by vicndabx on Tue Mar 28, 2017 at 01:46:26 PM EST
    prior detailed comments suddenly give way to "What?"  "Really?" "I never saw that, can you point me to where I can find that?"

    Parent
    Yes, I have seen that (5.00 / 1) (#104)
    by Towanda on Tue Mar 28, 2017 at 02:23:23 PM EST
    In this poster, too.  But Jeralyn sided with him, so beware rebutting him.

    Parent
    Exactly. (5.00 / 1) (#105)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Mar 28, 2017 at 02:24:29 PM EST
    If he's not trolling, the I'd have to say that for someone who's so enamored with his own brilliance and deductive reasoning, he somehow regularly manages to find himself enveloped by his own dust cloud. Got to give him points for chutzpah, though. This is a guy who'd undoubtedly insist on explaining the plot of "Star Wars" to George Lucas, after first berating him for not knowing what he's talking about.

    Parent
    he's moving in that direction (5.00 / 2) (#115)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Mar 28, 2017 at 03:25:37 PM EST
    And I just warned him not to post comments directing other people to respond to his questions. No one directs the conversation here. He's also starting to blog clog.

    Parent
    Thank you, Jeralyn. (none / 0) (#122)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Mar 28, 2017 at 04:03:42 PM EST
    I'll now take my cue from you and ignore any further comments from him, so as to not further contribute to that clogging. In fact, I'll sign off from this thread, having said enough. Aloha.

    Parent
    I think those (5.00 / 3) (#133)
    by KeysDan on Tue Mar 28, 2017 at 05:56:21 PM EST
    Macedonia teenagers have been infectious.

    Parent
    How Nunes may have broken the law (5.00 / 1) (#118)
    by vicndabx on Tue Mar 28, 2017 at 03:51:02 PM EST
    "In my view, the existence or non-existence of a FISA warrant that the Congressman revealed during his press conferences today is in itself a classified fact," Moss said. And it appears FBI Director James Comey might agree with this assessment.

    During Monday's House Intelligence Committee, he told Senators, including Nunes,  "All FISA applications reviewed by the court and collection by us pursuant to our FISA authority is classified."

    Furthermore, the Department of Justice also confirmed that revealing the existence of a FISA warrant would amount to divulging classified information.

    The Espionage Act (18 USC 798) prevents disclosure of classified information "concerning the communication intelligence activities of the United States or any foreign government.

    Lawnewz.com

    Yeah but Comey says it's okay (1.00 / 1) (#123)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Mar 28, 2017 at 04:05:39 PM EST
    because he didn't mean to...

    Oh. Wait.

    That was Hillary he was talking about.

    Parent

    Silly, false analogies (5.00 / 1) (#135)
    by Yman on Tue Mar 28, 2017 at 06:16:27 PM EST
    Flawed in facts AND logic.

    Parent
    CNN reporting (5.00 / 3) (#125)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Mar 28, 2017 at 04:31:16 PM EST
    that Kushner will testify under oath in secret and will plead the 5th to every question.

    Jaz Z to produce Trayvon Martin movie (none / 0) (#7)
    by McBain on Mon Mar 27, 2017 at 02:22:57 PM EST
    and documentary.
    The projects are based on two books to which producers have acquired rights: "Suspicion Nation: The Inside Story of the Trayvon Martin Injustice and Why We Continue to Repeat It," a firsthand account by Lisa Bloom about covering the Zimmerman trial as an NBC analyst; and "Rest in Power: The Enduring Life of Trayvon Martin," a biographical book about Mr. Martin written by his parents.

    Lisa Bloom blames the prosecution for failing to convict Zimmerman of murder (not the compelling evidence of self defense) and Martin's parents are Martin's parents, therefore I doubt these projects will be very accurate.  

    I enjoyed the movie Fruitvale Station.  Perhaps the Martin film will be like that and, at least, show Trayvon to be a real person, not the 12 year old angel the media first tried to sell us.

    As for the documentary, I'd love to see a thorough examination of Martin and Zimmerman's lives before the shooting.  I'd like to hear more about Martin's high school days and why he was suspended so many times.  I'd also like to hear from Alicia Stanley, the woman who often was more of mother to Trayvon than Sabrina Fulton.  More detail about "star witness" Rachel Jeantel would also be interesting.

    However they turn out, I can't wait for Jeralyn's reviews.


    No doubt (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by Yman on Mon Mar 27, 2017 at 02:28:21 PM EST
    Some still want to blame the victim.  OTOH, we could take all the areas you're curious about with Martin and supply them to Zimmerman - the grown man.

    THAT would be interesting.

    Parent

    The Only Interesting Thing About the Case (none / 0) (#14)
    by RickyJim on Mon Mar 27, 2017 at 03:39:32 PM EST
    is how it became a national obsession and not just another entry on the police blotter dealing with a banal confrontation in the dark between two lowlifes.  I believe that some lawyers, interested in making a financial killing, brought in a  professional publicist, Ryan Julison I think was his name, and the parents were coached into making a scrubbed narrative of their son's life and the MSM took it from there. It is one of the few instances where the Conservative Tree House had an account more accurate than the Huffington Post.

    Parent
    Lowlifes? (5.00 / 3) (#15)
    by Repack Rider on Mon Mar 27, 2017 at 04:04:40 PM EST
    a banal confrontation in the dark between two lowlifes.

    I found your mistake.

    Trayvon was an ordinary high school kid with no police record.

    Zimmerman meets your description though.

    Parent

    Rachel Jeantel on the Piers Morgan Show (none / 0) (#35)
    by RickyJim on Mon Mar 27, 2017 at 08:42:23 PM EST
    When somebody bashes like blood people, trust me, the area I live, that's not bashing. That's just called whoop ass. You do that (INAUDIBLE). That's what it is.
    ...
    And people need to understand, he didn't want that creepy ass cracka going to his father or girlfriend's house to go get -- mind you, his little brother was there. You know -- now, mind you, I told you -- I told Trayvon it might have been a rapist.


    Parent
    I felt somewhat sorry for Jeantel (none / 0) (#37)
    by McBain on Mon Mar 27, 2017 at 08:58:35 PM EST
    She clearly didn't want to be there.  How much did they (Crump/Fulton) force her to testify?  I'm not even positive she was the original "star witness".

    While I agree with your point about the Julison-fed media obsession being the most interesting part, I'd like to know more about the Trayvon high school locker/ burglary angle and why got away with a slap on the wrist.  

    As for Zimmerman's background.... the main stream media avoided the part where he helped out a black homeless man who was an alleged victim of police brutality.  

    Parent

    You don't think the gun lobby (none / 0) (#16)
    by jondee on Mon Mar 27, 2017 at 04:55:16 PM EST
    had anything to do with making it a national obsession?

    I think they had a hell of a lot to do with it.

    We all know promoting the righteousness of SYG equals profits for the gun manufacturers and dealers and more publicity and donations for the NRA.

    Parent

    Here is what made guns (1.00 / 1) (#34)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Mar 27, 2017 at 08:18:05 PM EST
    and the protection they give a national obsession.

    Mahoney said the homeowner's 23-year-old son shot the man and two boys with an AR-15 semi-automatic rifle after they broke into the house, which is about 2/3 mile east of the Broken Arrow city limits in Wagoner County. The property is just south of 91st Street and west of 241st East Avenue.

    The three intruders were wearing all black clothing, masks and gloves, Mahoney said. They forced their way into the home through a glass door in the back, he said.

    The son, who also lives at the residence, reportedly opened fire with a rifle when the intruders came inside. Two died in the kitchen, while the third made his way outside and succumbed to his injuries in the driveway.

    Link

    Parent

    Wow - three burglars?!? (1.00 / 1) (#40)
    by Yman on Mon Mar 27, 2017 at 09:18:42 PM EST
    I raise you 13,286 deaths in 2015 alone, not counting suicides or the 73,000+ injuries.

    Parent
    Oh well (3.00 / 2) (#43)
    by jondee on Mon Mar 27, 2017 at 10:18:14 PM EST
    those stories give guys like him hope that they still might be able to bag a sixteen year old some day.

    Parent
    I haven't met a angelic teenager yet (none / 0) (#21)
    by jondee on Mon Mar 27, 2017 at 05:28:50 PM EST
    but any adult who hawks confederate flags and posts photos online of a young man he shot is subhuman.

    Subhuman being the new "politically incorrect" for some these days.


    Parent

    You're talking about actions after the shooting (2.00 / 1) (#38)
    by McBain on Mon Mar 27, 2017 at 09:03:56 PM EST
    After a ridiculous media made him the most hated man in America.  After he had to fear for his life whenever he left his house.  I really can't blame  Zimmerman for the stupid things he's done.... especially those involving money because he can't get a regular job.   He's been put in an impossible situation.

     

    Parent

    And you're talking about ... (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by Yman on Mon Mar 27, 2017 at 09:23:35 PM EST
    ... actions before the shooting that are completely unrelated, as well as the actions of (and smears against) third parties.

    But no doubt you excuse Zimmerman's actions.

    Parent

    McBain please (none / 0) (#117)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Mar 28, 2017 at 03:34:58 PM EST
    stop with Zimmerman and Martin. We're all sick of it and it's been discussed to death. I know that's probably how you found this site, but no one here has any interest in the case. It's dead as a doornail. If you want to discuss something current, like a film about it, fine, but please stop rehashing the evidence (all of you not just McBain on that one)

    Parent
    To be clear, what other legal cases (none / 0) (#139)
    by McBain on Tue Mar 28, 2017 at 09:10:24 PM EST
    are suddenly off limits? There are several that are becoming relevant again because of anniversaries, documentaries, civil suits...

    I like to talk about film and TV but not many TLers seem to care (where's Howdy?). My recent movie posts didn't yield a single response, whereas this topic started a lengthy discussion.

    Parent

    Carlos the Jackal sentenced (none / 0) (#78)
    by McBain on Tue Mar 28, 2017 at 10:30:07 AM EST
    to life.
    The man known as "Carlos the Jackal" has been convicted in a French court of a deadly 1974 attack on a Paris shopping arcade and sentenced to life in prison for the third time.

    I don't know how accurate it was but the movie/min series "Carlos" was very entertaining. The lead actor, Edgar Ramirez, was also good as Roberto Duran in the movie "Hands of Stone".

    Dear Devin Nunes (none / 0) (#85)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Mar 28, 2017 at 12:02:45 PM EST
    Jusssss sayin

    How is it that the committee cannot view the intelligence only you have seen from any other scif if it's digitized? Okay, let's say it isn't digitized and it's paper documents...

    We all saw the classified lock bag on President Trump's carelessly organized desk. There seems to be a courier system in place to transfer classified documents from one location to another since we all know Barbara Eden was not blinking locked classified materials bags onto the President's desk.

    Jusssss sayin

    And today, we are told (5.00 / 3) (#107)
    by Towanda on Tue Mar 28, 2017 at 02:38:04 PM EST
    that the documents were about contacts with Russians by the Trump transition team -- and are reminded that Nunes hunself was on the transition team.

    To make his midnight run to see the documents, was Nunes teld that he was one of the team involved? Or running tomsee who else was involved, to warn them -- or, with his visit to the WH the next day, to warn Trump to warn them?

    And with Nunes and the WH refusing to allow Yates to testify, and with her work on the contacts with Russians by Flynn, what more now will come out about him, too -- even worse than what already got him fired, again?  Brennan also was to teatify, and word is that the WH also is trying to block that, so is that also about Flynn, even before his time on the transition team?

    With every day's revelations, this story really is not going away.

    Parent

    Abramson had a long time line tweet (5.00 / 1) (#138)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Mar 28, 2017 at 07:09:14 PM EST
    About this. He thinks the Dems will have an informal hearing with Steele in an attempt to make killing him worthless to Putin. My husband says that won't do it, dead men tell no more tales, Steele will be in danger for a long time.

    Abramson says the unmasking came out of the New York FBI office. He thinks that office has gone completely rogue, and everyone involved in the dossier other than Steele is mostly dead now. He said that New York FBI told Trump and friends what was had on them, Trump and friends informed Pootie, and then people in Russia began dropping dead like flies.

    If it's true, the New York FBI office is responsible for terrible murder and bloodshed.

    Parent

    Someone tweeting from AG Jeff Sessions acct (none / 0) (#143)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Mar 29, 2017 at 05:34:30 AM EST
    Is discussing Nunes' source, claims it is a senior IC member. So Sessions knows who the source is? Why would he be tweeting such things publicly in broad daylight? WTF?

    Parent
    Maybe it's (none / 0) (#145)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Mar 29, 2017 at 07:01:19 AM EST
    Pompeo.

    Parent
    I doubt (none / 0) (#149)
    by FlJoe on Wed Mar 29, 2017 at 10:06:44 AM EST
    it was Pompeo, or any senior IC official. Anybody at that level wanting to get that information out would have done it the old fashioned way and leaked it to the press, simpler and probably more effective than Nunes' ham fisted actions.

    I still see Bannon's fingerprints all over this, he got tRumps "partial vindication" out there while effectively shutting the HPSCI down.

    The only question is exactly why Nunes allowed himself to be used as such an obvious tool. Blind loyalty or does the WH have some other leverage over him (kompromat)?

    Parent

    It looks like that's not ... (none / 0) (#146)
    by Yman on Wed Mar 29, 2017 at 08:09:04 AM EST
    ... his official Twitter account, but a supporters account.

    Parent
    Thank you Yman (5.00 / 1) (#148)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Mar 29, 2017 at 09:18:29 AM EST
    Sources? It is to laugh. (none / 0) (#97)
    by Repack Rider on Tue Mar 28, 2017 at 01:08:32 PM EST
    Listed some of my sources.

    Right wing shills with no credibility who did not themselves serve either.  I saw that.

    How long ago were you in the military? Peter Seger reference.

    I finished my honorable service on 15-Feb-1968, in military parlance.

    I wonder what happened to the last person who called Pete Seeger "Peter" to his face.  Pete's dead now, after a heroic lifetime of patriotism.  Did you know that he was found in contempt of Congress for refusing to talk about his political associations?

    Pete was fined $100, and refused to pay it.  The sentence was overturned on appeal, but Seeger would have gone to prison had they sent him.

    We don't see that degree of patriotism among the conservatives.

    That's the standard? (none / 0) (#100)
    by Yman on Tue Mar 28, 2017 at 01:29:59 PM EST
    How long ago were YOU?

    Just because you know someone in the military doesn't make you an expert ... or even particularly knowledgeable on the subject.  Moreover, just because someone is a shooter doesn't make them an expert on force levels, reasons behind those levels, or ANY big-picture, military issues.  You want someone to kick in a door or discuss combat tactics?  Sure.  Other than that, they're just one opinion out of millions.

    Government needs to be run (none / 0) (#106)
    by KeysDan on Tue Mar 28, 2017 at 02:36:33 PM EST
    like a business, by a businessman.

    The Trump Administration added a $30 billion supplement to the Defense spending bill for 2017.  However, $5.2 billion of that supplemental request, which was argued as an urgently needed addition, was already in the bill.  About $3 billion of the supplement already passed the House and awaits Senate action and another $2 billion was in the bill poised for provision.  

    It is somewhat unusual to add money that is already in a bill along with justification for the duplicate request which was about l/6 of the urgent request to provide for what was already in the bill.  

    Here's (none / 0) (#111)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Mar 28, 2017 at 03:07:42 PM EST
    Make America...be all up in your business again? (none / 0) (#134)
    by vicndabx on Tue Mar 28, 2017 at 06:02:39 PM EST
    The House of Representatives is set to vote as early as today on a resolution that would reverse Obama-era regulations preventing internet service providers from selling your web browsing history on the open market. Those rules, passed by the Federal Communications Commission last year, have yet to take effect. But if the House follows the Senate, which voted to rescind the privacy protections last week, the agency could also never pass similar rules again.

    Wired

    And the FBI raided The Best Sunshine live (none / 0) (#160)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Mar 31, 2017 at 01:04:10 AM EST
    Casino in Saipan?

    The casino makes impossible profits? Trump protege runs it.

    And Its board members include James Woolsey, who ran the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency and was among national-security advisers to Trump's presidential campaign (attended the kidnap meeting with Flynn, claims he notified VP Biden about the criminal intent of that meeting. Former FBI director Louis Freeh and Ed Rendell, a former Pennsylvania governor and Democratic National Committee chairman, sit on an advisory committee, as does Haley Barbour, the ex-Mississippi governor and Republican National Committee chairman who's now a prominent lobbyist.

    Rendell at least returned comment and says he's received $5,000 a month to be on the committee. Seriously WTF?