HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » kpete » Journal
Page: « Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next »


Profile Information

Member since: Fri Sep 17, 2004, 03:59 PM
Number of posts: 67,620

Journal Archives

The stupidverse - by Tom Tomorrow


McConnell told potus that he had no leverage & w/o a clear strategy, he would be "boxed in a canyon"

McConnell (R-Ky.) told the president that he had no leverage and that, without a clear strategy, he would be “boxed in a canyon.”


Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) told the president that he had no leverage and that, without a clear strategy, he would be “boxed in a canyon.” He tried to make the case to Trump that even if Pelosi and Schumer were interested in cutting a deal with him, they would be constrained from compromising because of internal Democratic Party pressures to oppose Trump’s wall, these officials said.

Then-House Speaker Paul D. Ryan (R-Wis.) talked with Trump by phone for 45 minutes the day before the shutdown, warning that he saw no way to win as he paced in a Capitol hallway just outside a conference room where House Republicans were meeting. Then-House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) warned about the perils of a shutdown during the Christmas season.

Inside, some of the more hard-line members urged a showdown over border wall funding, arguing that Trump’s core supporters would revolt otherwise. But McCarthy asked, “Tell me what happens when we get into a shutdown? I want to know what our next move is.”…

Trump’s advisers are scrambling to build an exit ramp while also bracing for the shutdown to last weeks longer. Current and former aides said there is little strategy in the White House; people are frustrated and, in the words of one, “freaking out.”

The shutdown was born out of frustration. Angry that he was stymied by party leaders and his own aides from getting more money for the wall in 2018, rattled by conservative criticism and stung by his party’s midterm defeats, Trump decided in late December to plunge into a border fight after being encouraged by Reps. Mark Meadows (R-N.C.) and Jim Jordan (R-Ohio), both hard-line conservatives. It was a startling decision to McConnell and others, who thought they had White House assurances that a shutdown would be avoided.

“He has no choice here,” said Newt Gingrich, a Trump supporter who was House speaker in the Clinton administration and during the second-longest shutdown, an episode widely viewed as a disaster for Republicans. “He has to win. His entire reputation, his entire relationship with the base, it’s all a function of being committed on big things and not backing down. If he backs down on this, Pelosi will be so emboldened that the next two years will be a nightmare.”…

from: https://www.washingtonpost.com/

"People are such animals"

Eventually Trump is going to sell Delaware to Putin and.....

Eventually Trump is going to sell Delaware to Putin and use the money to pay off a bad real estate loan Jared got from a Turkish bank and then flip the building to some Qataris who funneled money into Ivanka's lipstick brand and maybe then like Jon Cornyn will say "Enough!"nt

The FBI investigation has operated on the assumption that Trump & Russia are coconspirators

The Washington Monthly article by Martin Longman is breathtaking. Here is the nut graf (dt'd) and the concluding graf:

The firing of Comey was interpreted as an effort to kill the Russia investigation for a simple reason. President Trump explained his decision in those terms. He did it in a memo he wrote that was spiked by his own White House counsel, Don McGahn. He did it in the Oval Office with the Russian ambassador and foreign minister. And he eventually did it on national television in an interview with NBC’s Lester Holt. It wasn’t just an effort to obstruct an investigation of himself. It was an effort to prevent the FBI from investigating Russia.

It has been fairly easy for people to contemplate that Trump might be trying to cover his own tracks, but there has been a widespread mental block when it comes to envisioning the American president as working to cover Russia’s tracks. The FBI overcame that hurdle after the firing of Comey. Ever since, the investigation has operated on the assumption that Trump and Russia are coconspirators both before and after the fact.


I’ve been arguing for a long time that people are underestimating how strong the case for impeachment will be and that even the Senate Republicans will not be able to shrug it off. With this new reporting from the New York Times, you’re beginning to get a sense of what I’ve been talking about.

It’s gratifying to see things starting to come to fruition, but it’s still frustrating to see people acting surprised after all the effort I’ve put in to make the case that this is an inquiry that began as an investigation into Russia but has long sought to prove, and will prove, that the president is acting as an agent of a foreign power.


Structural Engineer: The WALL is busted!

Fascinating read analyzing the flaws in Trump’s wall(s). President-expert-on-everything-in-Chief hasn’t addressed any engineering or environmental issues, and there are many, not to mention technology that will make the wall obsolete before it is finished. The WALL is busted!

Breaking News: Structural engineer Amy Patrick rips gigantic crater into Trumps wall.


LAWFARE: It was about Russia. It was always about Russia. Full stop.

What if the Obstruction Was the Collusion? On the New York Times’s Latest Bombshell
By Benjamin Wittes Friday, January 11, 2019, 8:43 PM


What is the significance of all of this? I have two big takeaways.

First, if this analysis is correct, it mostly—though not entirely—answers the question of the legal basis of the obstruction investigation. The president’s lawyers, Barr in his memo, and any number of conservative commentators have all argued that Mueller cannot reasonably be investigating obstruction offenses based on the president’s actions within his Article II powers in firing Comey; such actions, they contend, cannot possibly violate the obstruction laws. While this position is disputed, a great many other commentators, including me, have scratched their heads about Mueller’s obstruction theory.

But if the predicate for the investigation was rooted in substantial part in counterintelligence authorities—that is, if the theory was not just that the president may have violated the criminal law but also that he acted in a fashion that may constitute a threat to national security—that particular legal puzzle goes away. After all, the FBI doesn’t need a possible criminal violation to open a national security investigation.

The problem does not entirely go away, because as the Times reports, the probe was partly predicated as a criminal matter as well. So the question of Mueller’s criminal theory is still there. But the weight on it is dramatically less.

This possibility, of course, raises a different legal puzzle, which is whether and under what circumstances the president can be a national security investigative subject of his own FBI given that it is ultimately he who defines national security threats for the executive branch. But that’s a question for another day.

Second, if it is correct that the FBI’s principle interest in obstruction was not as a discrete criminal fact pattern but as a national security threat, this significantly blurs the distinction between the obstruction and collusion aspects of the investigation. In this construction, obstruction was not a problem distinct from collusion, as has been generally imagined. Rather, in this construction, obstruction was the collusion, or least part of it. The obstruction of justice statutes become, in this understanding, merely one set of statutes investigators might think about using to deal with a national security risk—specifically, the risk of a person on the U.S. side coordinating with or supporting Russian activity by shutting down the investigation.

It was about Russia. It was always about Russia. Full stop.



"Cry Uncle"

Trump's new claim about Mexico paying for the wall is debunked by his own campaign website

An archived DonaldJTrump.com page from March 2016 titled “COMPELLING MEXICO TO PAY FOR THE WALL,” reads, “It’s an easy decision for Mexico: make a one-time payment of $5-10 billion to ensure that $24 billion continues to flow into their country year after year.”



This man wins the day in McAllen, Texas.

Go to Page: « Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next »