Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6stringJoker:
Why would recipients of Federal Funds be planning building anything, let alone something on a flood plain? That doesn't even seem like an executive order with a purpose.

. . .

All that article was is another hit piece that was targeted to the demographic that already hates Trump and wants something else to bitch about. Mission accomplished, so it would seem.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6stringJoker:

There are no laws in Texas against building on a flood plain?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by THGRRI:
Besides, it looks like Trump is going to be impeached, go to jail...

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6stringJoker:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by THGRRI:
Besides, it looks like Trump is going to be impeached, go to jail...

---

]

I hope you're ready for that. Cause it's coming.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by G:

I look forward to this swamp being drained real soon.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by second:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by G:

I look forward to this swamp being drained real soon.

---

What happens next? Trump’s base won’t accept his departure as Nixon’s did, because Trump himself will be egging them on to see his eviction from the White House as the worst injustice ever perpetrated in America’s — in any country’s — history.

The German word for this is Dolchstoss. That was the myth, wildly popular in right-wing German circles after 1918, that they would have won the First World War if only they’d gotten the chance. Instead, the Kaiser’s proud army was “stabbed in the back” by cunning Jews, craven politicos, and other such dubiously cosmopolitan, non-Junker types.

America’s own pre-eminent Dolchstoss myth explains our defeat in Vietnam in similar terms. Ronald Reagan swore by it. When Sylvester Stallone’s Rambo asked, “Do we get to win this time?” before heading back to ’Nam for revenge, in one of the signature movies of the Reagan years, nobody needed to ask who had stood in the way of victory: hippie peaceniks, morale-undermining journalists, pinheaded rad-lib intellectuals, “Hanoi Jane” Fonda and her fellow Hollywood pinkos, and George McGovern, among others.

The Dolchstoss myth that’s sure to take hold if Trump is impeached or quits under pressure will be virulent. The tale his devotees will raise their children to swear by will describe the nefarious way that coastal elites, partisan Democrats, the liberal media, and a whole slew of other pseudo-Americans — from Muslims relishing our surprise introduction to sharia law to transgender weirdos, man-hating feminists, and America-hating Obama zombies, not to mention pusillanimous establishment Republicans — all conspired to deprive them of the greatest president ever: the only one they felt ever spoke for them. There will be talk of armed insurrection. Aspiring Dylann Roofs will look for an enemy headquarters to shoot up. It will be ugly.

Trump will love it. Since he has no concern for the country’s greater good, he’ll do everything he can to keep his base’s passions choleric. He already dotes on being their red-capped messiah, but their martyred Christ? He will be the greatest person ever to be anybody’s martyred Christ.

https://newrepublic.com/article/144522/alwaystrump-no-matter-president
-leaves-white-house-never-rid-trump-represents-america

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6stringJoker:

The only way you're going to avoid having a big fight on your hands is if you catch Trump red handed with a huge spotlight on it for everybody to see. Some random claims of Russian collaboration without any proof to back them up isn't going to cut it.

I'm still waiting for any proof of anything. I'm not saying that he didn't do anything, because I don't know. All I'm saying is that if he were being prosecuted right now and I was on the jury he wouldn't be getting a guilty verdict from me at this point.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by second:
Forget Russia. It was never anything but a ginned-up pretext anyway.

And it was only the first effort in a coup.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by THGRRI:
Tick Tock

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by G:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by THGRRI:
Tick Tock Trump lovers, tick tock.

---

It does seem soon, doesn't it? There are so many threads being pulled right now, so many arms being twisted, the main question seems to be "how many?"
I watched a bit of Sarah Huckabee Sanders press insult session yesterday. Not unlike her predecessor, she was full of denials, deflections, and outright "opinion/lies". I suppose you act like your boss and in this case, you end up with a nest of thugs and liars.

http://www.newsweek.com/did-sarah-huckabee-sanders-break-law-jemele-hi
ll-statement-former-government-664604

DID SARAH HUCKABEE SANDERS BREAK LAW WITH JEMELE HILL STATEMENT? FORMER GOVERNMENT ETHICS CHIEF WEIGHS IN

White House Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders was in dubious legal territory on Wednesday when she essentially called for ESPN host Jemele Hill to be fired, according to former Office of Government Ethics Director Walter Shaub.

Hill recently called President Donald Trump a "white supremacist" in a tweet, which Sanders described as a "fireable offense" during a press conference on Wednesday.

Subsequently, Shaub tweeted an "interesting law on the books."

: cited law :
This law essentially states certain government employees -- including the president, vice president and "any other executive branch employee" -- are prohibited from influencing the employment decisions or practices of a private entity (such as ESPN) "solely on the basis of partisan political affiliation."

Breaking this law can lead to a fine or imprisonment up to 15 years -- possibly both -- and could lead to disqualification from "holding any office of honor, trust, or profit under the United States."

But the specific language of the law he tweeted "doesn't criminalize today's remarks" because Sanders' comment wasn't "solely" related to partisan political affiliation, Shaub explained. "But it certainly highlights the inappropriateness of using federal authority to influence private employment decisions. Another important norm down the drain," he added.

In short, Sanders doesn't appear to have broken any laws with her statement, but it was quite bizarre for her to call for the dismissal of a Trump critic."

I look forward to this swamp being drained real soon.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 1kiki:
Oops: The New York Times Accidentally Exposed 'The Hillary Clinton-Russia Nexus'!

JOHN MERLINE
5/12/2017

Below is the incredible New York Times editorial* published on Thursday that lays out the case for how the Hillary Clinton campaign was colluding with the Russian government, and then tried to cover it up by blaming her election loss on Russian President Vladimir Putin.

The Hillary Clinton-Russia Nexus

The acting director of the FBI, Andrew McCabe, told Congress on Thursday that President Trump's firing of James Comey has not derailed the agency's investigation into possible collusion between Russia and the Hillary Clinton campaign. Which is good news. Despite Mrs. Clinton's assertion that the idea of collusion is "a total hoax," and despite many unknowns, the links continue to pile up. Here is a partial accounting of the connections we do know something about.

THE CLINTON FAMILY BUSINESS There may be no Clinton Foundation office in Moscow or St. Petersburg, but it is not for lack of trying. Bill Clinton received half a million dollars in 2010 for a speech he gave in Moscow, paid by a Russian firm, Renaissance Capital, that has ties to Russian intelligence. The Clinton Foundation took money from Russian officials and oligarchs, including Victor Kekselberg, a Putin confidant. The Foundation also received millions of dollars from Uranium One, which was sold to the Russian government in 2010, giving Russia control of 20% of the uranium deposits in the U.S. — the sale required approval from Hillary Clinton's State Department. What's more, at least some of these donations weren't disclosed. "Ian Telfer, the head of the Russian government's uranium company, Uranium One, made four foreign donations totaling $2.35 million to the Clinton Foundation. Those contributions were not publicly disclosed by the Clintons, despite an agreement Mrs. Clinton had struck with the Obama White House to publicly identify all such donors," the Times has reported.

JOHN PODESTA In March — that is, long after the election was over — it was revealed that Mrs. Clinton's campaign chairman had failed to disclose the receipt of 75,000 shares of stock from a Kremlin-financed company — Joule Unlimited — for which he served as director from 2010 to 2014, when he joined the Obama White House in 2014. Podesta apparently had a large chunk of the shares transferred to "Leonidio Holdings, a brand-new entity he incorporated only on Dec. 20, 2013, about 10 days before he entered the White House," according to a news account.

TONY PODESTA Mr. Podesta's brother, who has close personal and business relations with Mrs. Clinton, was "key lobbyist on behalf of Sberbank, according to Senate lobbying disclosure forms. His firm received more than $24 million in fees in 2016, much of it coming from foreign governments, according to the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics," a March news story reported. The bank was "seeking to end one of the Obama administration's economic sanctions against that country." The report goes on to note that "Podesta's efforts were a key part of under-the-radar lobbying during the 2016 U.S. presidential campaign led mainly by veteran Democratic strategists to remove sanctions against Sberbank and VTB Capital, Russia's second largest bank." Mr. Obama imposed the sanctions following the Russian seizure of the Crimean region of Ukraine in 2014.

JOHN BREAUX Forbes magazine reports that Mr. Breaux, a former Senator from Louisiana who cut radio ads for Mrs. Clinton's 2008 campaign, represents Gazprombank GPB, a subsidiary of Russia's third largest bank, on "banking laws and regulations, including applicable sanctions."

THE CLINTON CAMPAIGN In March, Mr. Putin's spokesman said that Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak met with members of Mrs. Clinton's campaign several times while she was running for president in 2016. Further, the campaign never disclosed the number or nature of these secret meetings.

Mrs. Clinton and her associates can cry themselves hoarse that there is neither smoke nor fire here, and that Putin was behind her election loss. But all in all, the known facts suggest an unusually extensive network of relationships with a major foreign power. Anyone who cares about the credibility of the American electoral process should want a thorough investigation.

* OK, this is not really what The New York Times wrote in its editorial (the actual editorial can be found here). But it does closely track what the Times' editorial accuses Trump of doing, and the Times' accusations about a Trump "nexus" with Russia are just about as flimsy.

Top Democrats, as indicated above, also have a long history of business and political ties with Russia, for the simple reason that there is money to be made by people who can peddle their political connections. And sometimes these Democrats don't disclose their Russia ties. If this is all the Times needs to accuse Trump and his associates of having "an unusually extensive network of relationships with a major foreign power," then Clinton is equally guilty. (The one difference is that Hillary actually has a record of being soft on Russia.)

Of course, Clinton isn't president, so who cares? Still, even if she had won the presidency, would The New York Times, or anyone else for that matter, have cared one whit about her "extensive" ties with Russia? Somehow, that seems unlikely.


© 2000-2017 Investor's Business Daily, Inc. All rights reserved

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 1kiki:
Oops: The New York Times Accidentally Exposed 'The Hillary Clinton-Russia Nexus'!

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Why is this not posted in a thread that has some relevance?

---

Quote:

---

The last few weeks hav been ominously quiet on Russia newz. I thot it wuz mainly kuz uv Trump providing distractionz, but maybe therez more to it.

Yeah, the story is that Trump asked McConnell why he didn't intervene in the Russia investigation. Apparently he wanted McConnell to dismantle the Judiciary and Intelligence Committees regarding the Russia probe.

Suspicious ties between President Donald Trump and the Russian government just keep appearing.

Four months into his campaign for president of the United States, Donald Trump signed a “letter of intent” to pursue a Trump Tower-style building development in Moscow, according to a statement from the then-Trump Organization Chief Counsel Michael Cohen.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 1kiki:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 1kiki:
Oops: The New York Times Accidentally Exposed 'The Hillary Clinton-Russia Nexus'!

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Why is this not posted in a thread that has some relevance?

---

People were posting about Trump's alleged Russian ties.

Quote:

---

The last few weeks hav been ominously quiet on Russia newz. I thot it wuz mainly kuz uv Trump providing distractionz, but maybe therez more to it.

Yeah, the story is that Trump asked McConnell why he didn't intervene in the Russia investigation. Apparently he wanted McConnell to dismantle the Judiciary and Intelligence Committees regarding the Russia probe.

Suspicious ties between President Donald Trump and the Russian government just keep appearing.

Four months into his campaign for president of the United States, Donald Trump signed a “letter of intent” to pursue a Trump Tower-style building development in Moscow, according to a statement from the then-Trump Organization Chief Counsel Michael Cohen.

---

I was hoping to point out that having business dealings, or even political dealings, with Russia doesn't seem to be illegal or immoral. If it was, then Hillary would have been prosecuted, or at least repeatedly criticized, a long time ago.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 1kiki:

I was hoping to point out that having business dealings, or even political dealings, with Russia doesn't seem to be illegal or immoral. If it was, then Hillary would have been prosecuted, or at least repeatedly criticized, a long time ago.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by second:
"Your word "seem" is providing all the protective cover because the Trump White House seems to provide no more about its dealings with Russia "

---

Quote:

---

Did you read "How Trump Broke the Office of Government Ethics"?
www.newyorker.com/news/ryan-lizza/how-trump-broke-the-office-of-govern
ment-ethics

"Whether the meeting itself broke any laws seems debatable"

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6stringJoker:
I am absolutely alright with Trumps statement to North Korea.

I don't think it's a madman thing to say.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 1kiki:

But US policy has always been to reserve the 'first strike' option for itself. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_first_use That understandably makes a lot of countries nervous and is helping drive the whole crazy-train forward.

IF you think the US might nuke you first, you could be driven to acquire a nuclear option of your own. Sure, you won't win a nuclear exchange, but you could make a US first strike painful enough to make the US think twice.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by second:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6stringJoker:
I am absolutely alright with Trumps statement to North Korea.

I don't think it's a madman thing to say.

---

So long as it stays as only talk, but if Trump actually does something that drops radioactive fallout on South Korea, the Congressional Republicans might see Mike Pence as a viable next President.

And for 1kiki: accidentally damaging SOUTH Korea is not illegal, does not break US law which you keep repeating as if impeachment is not a totally political act without any necessity for Trump to violate a law. But maybe, just maybe, some Congressional Republicans will be displeased with Trump for nuking S Korea. All Congressional Democrats are already displeased enough to impeach Trump before there is proof of Trump committing a crime.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 1kiki:

Quote:

---

"... the president of the United States threatened to wipe a country of 25 million people off the map.

“Now North Korea's reckless pursuit of nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles threatens the entire world with unthinkable loss of human life,” Trump said. He later added: “The United States has great strength and patience, but if it is forced to defend itself or its allies, we will have no choice but to totally destroy North Korea. Rocket Man is on a suicide mission for himself.”"

---

I've read elsewhere (I'd have to dig it up) that the other half of this equation that *I* think needs to be there is something that the US won't commit to - and that's the promise that the US will not strike first.

But US policy has always been to reserve the 'first strike' option for itself. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_first_use That understandably makes a lot of countries nervous and is helping drive the whole crazy-train forward.

IF you think the US might nuke you first, you could be driven to acquire a nuclear option of your own. Sure, you won't win a nuclear exchange, but you could make a US first strike painful enough to make the US think twice.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 1kiki:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by second:
"Your word "seem" is providing all the protective cover because the Trump White House seems to provide no more about its dealings with Russia "

---

begging the question, dishonest argumentation

Quote:

---

Did you read "How Trump Broke the Office of Government Ethics"?
www.newyorker.com/news/ryan-lizza/how-trump-broke-the-office-of-govern
ment-ethics

"Whether the meeting itself broke any laws seems debatable"

---

Your source doesn't support your desire to believe Trump broke the law..

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by THGRRI:
Special counsel investigators start questioning White House staffers

Investigators have begun questioning White House staffers as part of the special counsel’s Russia probe

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/special-counsel-investigators-s
tart-questioning-white-house-staffers/ar-AAsDdWQ?li=BBnb7Kz&ocid=BHEA000

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 1kiki:
"... the president of the United States threatened to wipe a country of 25 million people off the map.

“Now North Korea's reckless pursuit of nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles threatens the entire world with unthinkable loss of human life,” Trump said. He later added: “The United States has great strength and patience, but if it is forced to defend itself or its allies, we will have no choice but to totally destroy North Korea. Rocket Man is on a suicide mission for himself.”"

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 1kiki:

Quote:

---

"... the president of the United States threatened to wipe a country of 25 million people off the map.

“Now North Korea's reckless pursuit of nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles threatens the entire world with unthinkable loss of human life,” Trump said. He later added: “The United States has great strength and patience, but if it is forced to defend itself or its allies, we will have no choice but to totally destroy North Korea. Rocket Man is on a suicide mission for himself.”"

---

I've read elsewhere (I'd have to dig it up) that the other half of this equation that *I* think needs to be there is something that the US won't commit to - and that's the promise that the US will not strike first.

But US policy has always been to reserve the 'first strike' option for itself. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_first_use That understandably makes a lot of countries nervous and is helping drive the whole crazy-train forward.

IF you think the US might nuke you first, you could be driven to acquire a nuclear option of your own. Sure, you won't win a nuclear exchange, but you could make a US first strike painful enough to make the US think twice.

---

Doesn't that rationalization require a foundation of paranoia?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by second:
It ain’t over until the portly golfer sings.

https://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2017/09/30/shifts-get-real-understan
ding-the-gops-policy-quagmire/

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by THGRRI:
Special counsel investigators start questioning White House staffers

Investigators have begun questioning White House staffers as part of the special counsel’s Russia probe

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/special-counsel-investigators-s
tart-questioning-white-house-staffers/ar-AAsDdWQ?li=BBnb7Kz&ocid=BHEA000

---

More msn Fake News Factory output? They must all be guilty, otherwise the Inquisitioners would never question them.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SHINYGOODGUY:
Yes, keep believing that Fake News narrative...pretty soon, Mueller will "Fake" indict people, then "Fake" trial leading to "Fake" jail.....yes, keep believing.


SGG

---

Well said.