Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
Shocking exactly no-one, FOX News is not taking any action against Sean Hannity. Hannity attacked an FBI raid while neglecting to inform the public he had legal dealings with the target of the raid, and his own documents were among those collected. Its an obvious breach of journalistic standards, but I guess that's only an issue for people who expect their news coverage to be produced with ethics.
d-usa wrote: I don’t know if Trump has some sort of connection to Putin. Sometimes I wonder if he just really really likes strong and powerful men (or dictators) and really really wants them to like him.
I think the latter works to describe Trump's praise and friendly outreaches to Duterte, Xi and Erdogan. But Trump is also a cut and run guy, he is already trying to distance himself from Michael Cohen. Yet no matter how much flak Trump gets from playing nice with Putin, Trump doubles down every time.
And a big part of the Trump brand is the way won't double-talk his way out anything. He doesn't back off, he doubles down. When Trump was criticised for cozying up to Duterte, he didn't respond with carefully chosen political blather, he moved even closer to Duterte. Yet with Putin Trump is all over the shop, bragging about meeting him, then denying he ever met him, back and forth constantly, switching between giving favours and blocking sanctions, then giving big man speeches.
This isn't evidence, of course. But the idea not necessarily of blackmail but at the very least of some kind of undisclosed tie between the two men, maybe financial, seems to me to best suit the behaviour we've observed.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
whembly wrote: Since the there isn't much interest to pass anything meaningful this year due to the midterms, I can see the GOP going the deregulation route for campaign ammo... the trouble with this tactic is that it'll just as likely energize the Democrat's base too.
Pundits will talk about this being an electoral strategy, because the US punditry class is obsessed with dragging everything back to the horse race. But you need to step back and consider how many voters on either side are going to be enthused by an obscure legal tactic being used to increase deregulation.
Republicans aren't doing this to boost votes. They're doing it to serve their donors, and because they actually believe nation is better served by reducing the protections consumers get in their dealings with banks.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2018/04/18 01:52:22
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
d-usa wrote: It’s because everyone recognizes it, that your “I’m just asking questions”’post is getting there replies.
Well, I'm sorry you're all interpreting it that way.
Perhaps it's the way you say it. I have to admit to reading your posts the same way they did. If that's not what was intended...it wasn't clear.
However, it also bears repeating that Trump and Hannity both claimed Cohen wasn't their lawyer, which makes the whole attorney client privilege issue murky, there being no clients to exercise privilege. Not that I think such a high profile raid would be launched on that kind of technicality.
d-usa wrote: Remember when people said Obama was stupid for even suggesting to meet with people?
Ah come one don't hide behind people call it like it is, Republicans
I think the best part is, for almost everything Trump does he has a tweet criticizing Obama for doing the exact same thing (i.e. being willing to meet with N.K.)
DQ:90S++G++M----B--I+Pw40k07+D+++A+++/areWD-R+DM+
bittersashes wrote:One guy down at my gaming club swore he saw an objective flag take out a full unit of Bane Thralls.
It was sad to hear about Barbara Bush's passing. Kudos on a life well led, passing at passing 92 with a pile of grandkids and great grandkids seems about perfect to me.
Trump's office issued a nice statement, and tweeted it through Trump's account. Notice the date, though. It really captures the indignity of life in the Trump administration, you can't even die without these chuckleheads screwing it up somehow.
cuda1179 wrote: Has there been any word yet on what evidence they used to get the warrant for Trump's Lawyer?
This line is being played out over and over again by Trump defenders, that it is suspicious that the evidence used to authorise various things isn't publicly known. It's a con. The Mueller investigation, being extremely politically sensitive, was set up from the start to maintain high security, that means they don't make public any bit of evidence or lead uncovered. It would be outrageous if they were making everything public. This doesn't mean it is operating without review, evidence is presented for a judge to review and deem sufficient to authorise the raid, but the rest of us will have to wait and see.
FWIW there is speculation that Cohen has been under surveillance for some time, including a wire tap. But that could just be a rumour, I don't know.
I think that the search itself should be examined critically, as I really don't like that setting a standard.
While raiding a lawyer's office is something authorities will only do sparingly, it's not unheard of. The situations in which it can be done are clearly set out and well established in law. There is no new standard here.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2018/04/18 02:16:22
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
I would be inclined to say using the wrong year is just a typo, from the white house yes but typos do happen. Nothing to really note.
I would say that, but this is far, far from the only time stuff like this happens. It very quickly goes from honest mistake to incompetence on a level we expect high schoolers to be above.
I wouldn't be surprised if that statement was written last year. There are probably a lot of statements already prepared for if other prominent figures die.
And while it feels like it's bad form to ding them for this one, it is just one more in a long list.
Anyway, she certainly lived a good life. I hope my wife and I can live that long together.
"Through the darkness of future past, the magician longs to see.
One chants out between two worlds: Fire, walk with me." - Twin Peaks
"You listen to me. While I will admit to a certain cynicism, the fact is that I am a naysayer and hatchetman in the fight against violence. I pride myself in taking a punch and I'll gladly take another because I choose to live my life in the company of Gandhi and King. My concerns are global. I reject absolutely revenge, aggression, and retaliation. The foundation of such a method... is love. I love you Sheriff Truman." - Twin Peaks
By ZACHARY WARMBRODT 04/17/2018 10:16 AM EDT
Share on Facebook Share on Twitter
Republicans are preparing to open a new front in their push to roll back regulations across the government, using a maneuver that could enable them to strike down decisions by federal agencies that reach back decades.
As soon as Tuesday, GOP senators are expected to use the Congressional Review Act to topple safeguards issued by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau in 2013 that were intended to discourage discrimination in auto lending.
While Republicans in the Trump era have already taken advantage of the 1996 law to remove more than a dozen recently issued rules, this would be the first time that Congress will have used it to kill a regulatory policy that is several years old.
Now, actions going back to President Bill Clinton’s administration could be in play under the procedure GOP lawmakers are undertaking, forcing numerous agencies to reconsider how they roll out new regulations.
“It’s a hugely important precedent,” Sen. Pat Toomey (R-Pa.), the architect of the effort, said in an interview. “It’s potentially a big, big opening.”
While conservatives are applauding the effort as a way to rein in rogue bureaucrats and boost the economy, consumer advocates are warning that the consequences could be dire.
“This takes an already incredibly dangerous law and cranks it up to 11,” said James Goodwin, senior policy analyst at the Center for Progressive Reform.
Republicans are leveraging two key provisions of the Congressional Review Act.
They’re again taking advantage of fast-track authority that allows a simple majority of the Senate to pass a resolution rolling back a rule if the vote occurs within a window that’s open for no more than a few months. The provision enables senators to avoid a filibuster.
But the more novel use lies in the law’s requirement that federal agencies submit rules to Congress for their potential disapproval. Republicans have landed on a way to target a wide array of decisions — including regulatory guidance — that haven't typically been implemented as formal rules under the Administrative Procedure Act.
"You have this unimaginably large universe of stuff that is now eligible for repeal under the CRA," Goodwin said, citing a hypothetical Occupational Safety and Health Administration workplace safety poster as a potential example. "Agencies don't submit all this stuff because it would be an administrative nightmare."
In the case of the auto-lending policy, the CFPB released it as a guidance document rather than a formal rule governed by the notice-and-comment requirements of the APA. As such, it wasn’t technically submitted to lawmakers for the purposes of the Congressional Review Act. That means the clock for congressional review never started.
That changed last year. For advocates of deregulation, the stars had aligned thanks to the ascendance of a Republican president, Donald Trump, eager to roll back rules and the Republicans retaining control of Congress.
Toomey, the former president of the conservative Club for Growth, went on the hunt for ways the GOP could take advantage of its congressional majority to eliminate federal rules.
He found a way to wield the power that the Congressional Review Act gives a majority of the Senate to sidestep obstruction via filibuster when it comes to years-old regulatory actions.
To do so, he asked the Government Accountability Office to determine whether the CFPB auto-lending guidance qualified as a rule for the purposes of the Congressional Review Act. In December, GAO told him that it did in fact satisfy the legal definition of a rule, starting the clock for Republicans to undo it without having to seek any help from Democrats.
“When regulators regulate by guidance rather than through the process they’re supposed to use, which is the Administrative Procedure Act and do a proper rulemaking, they shouldn’t be able to get away with that,” Toomey said. “If we can get a determination that the guidance rises to the significance of being a rule, then from that moment the clock starts on the CRA opportunity.”
Amit Narang, regulatory policy advocate at Public Citizen, said it “is really going to open up a Pandora’s box.” Public Citizen and 60 other advocacy groups covering the gamut of finance, the environment, labor and gay rights are calling on Congress to oppose the CFPB rollback, saying it would set a dangerous precedent.
They warned it would put at risk not only protections for workers, consumers, minorities and the environment, but also regulatory certainty for businesses.
"Expanding the power of the CRA to overturn guidance from decades ago will threaten protections hardworking families rely on, making it harder for middle class Americans to get ahead and responsible businesses to follow the law," Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio) said.
Critics have also questioned the need to undo the CFPB auto-lending guidance because the bureau is now led by a Trump appointee, acting Director Mick Mulvaney, who could eliminate it himself. Mulvaney told lawmakers last week he was reviewing the policy. The National Automobile Dealers Association and the American Financial Services Association are supporting the rollback of the anti-discrimination measure, arguing that the way the CFPB crafted the guidance was flawed.
Other lawmakers have begun to test the waters. In November, GAO in a response to a request from Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) confirmed that a 2016 plan from the Bureau of Land Management was a rule for the purposes of review under the CRA. A spokeswoman for Murkowski did not respond to a request for comment.
Paul Larkin, a senior legal research fellow at the Heritage Foundation, has been advocating for Congress to take advantage of this deregulatory pathway in the Congressional Review Act, saying it could force agencies to comply with formal rulemaking requirements and help the economy by cutting red tape.
TL;DR: If agencies submitted rules & regulations through the proper process as required by the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), including all of the notice requirements... Congress can only overturn them via new legislation and getting that 60th Senate vote.
If, however, agencies bypass the APA requirements...the GAO agrees that it can be overturn via simple Senate majority via the CRA.
Since the there isn't much interest to pass anything meaningful this year due to the midterms, I can see the GOP going the deregulation route for campaign ammo... the trouble with this tactic is that it'll just as likely energize the Democrat's base too.
Oy vey...
it's interesting watching the GOP being unable to actually accomplish anything despite holding every branch of government and have nothing more to bring to the table in an election year than parliamentary tricks to bring to bear against administrative regulation that your average person has no clue about, as they stare an increasingly bleak midterm in the face that seems on track to oust them from their position, all while the Democrats sit there furiously but impotently eating paste.
In other news...Trump wants to transfer a US citizen currently being held anonymously as an unnamed enemy combatant to a foreign power's custody within 72 hours. That's gonna raise...questions. Mostly Saudi related questions I would assume.
Also, Greitens now accused by the Republican state AG of illegally using charity donor lists for campaign fundraiding and has turned it over to the St.Louis attorneys office for prosecution. This looks more substantial and directly related to his Governorship (as opposed to personal life) than the previous claims against Greitens.
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
sebster wrote: While raiding a lawyer's office is something authorities will only do sparingly, it's not unheard of. The situations in which it can be done are clearly set out and well established in law. There is no new standard here.
You'll recall not that long ago, the FBI raided a congressman's office. "('[T]he laws of this country allow no place or employment as a sanctuary for crime.".
The idea that the President's personal attorney got raided by the FBI on flimsy evidence is literally pants on head, but it goes well with the "I'm not a Trump defender but (reflexively defends everything Trump does)" mindset that pairs nicely with that comic.
lord_blackfang wrote: Respect to the guy who subscribed just to post a massive ASCII dong in the chat and immediately get banned.
Flinty wrote: The benefit of slate is that its.actually a.rock with rock like properties. The downside is that it's a rock
In addition to Hannity getting no penalty from FOX News, last night his show recorded above average ratings, pushing it to take top spot as the highest rated cable news show.
So if anyone was wondering if the FOX News audience would react against Hannity ignoring basic journalistic ethics and concealing from his audience his connection to the subject of his reporting... ah who am I kidding, no-one was wondering that. Of course they flocked to watch Hannity spew some more gibberish. This is the same crowd that responded to the discovery of O'Reilly's sex offenses by watching in greater numbers. Tribalism above anything else.
Rachel Maddow still beat Hannity in the 25-54 bracket, as she's done for a while now. Which says something pretty bad about the left as well. I mean, there's actually a few really good sources for left leaning news and opinion right now, but the audience is drawn to the insufferable smugness and over-performance of Maddow? Bleh.
NinthMusketeer wrote: I would be inclined to say using the wrong year is just a typo, from the white house yes but typos do happen. Nothing to really note.
It is just a typo, and a harmless one. I wouldn't comment at all, particularly given the statement itself was generous and well written, except this kind of thing of thing is constantly done by the Trump administration. When these kinds of mistakes become so common place, it starts to show it is no longer just some sloppy work, instead it starts to show a culture that doesn't respect the details of the work.
Ouze wrote: You'll recall not that long ago, the FBI raided a congressman's office. "('[T]he laws of this country allow no place or employment as a sanctuary for crime.".
The idea that the President's personal attorney got raided by the FBI on flimsy evidence is literally pants on head, but it goes well with the "I'm not a Trump defender but (reflexively defends everything Trump does)" mindset that pairs nicely with that comic.
Yep, being a lawyer doesn't make you immune to police investigation. Claims that this is some scary pushing of the boundaries is just more junk pushed by the Trump admin, repeated by his loyalists in the conservative media. All done with no expectation that the claims could stand up to any kind of challenge, but instead done just to surround the Mueller investigation with a general feeling of scandal. It's just constantly blowing smoke, to lead some people to assume that with so much smoke, there must be some sort of fire.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2018/04/18 03:35:35
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
Ouze wrote: Well, they wouldn't have investigated Benghazi 500 times if there wasn't something there!
Hey, four Americans died. Anyone who doesn't support everyone single one of those 500 Benghazi investigations is saying they don't care about the lives of those four Americans.
Hmmm, what's that? Four Americans also died in a bungled raid in Niger? Oh that's a shame. Moving on...
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/04/18 03:39:17
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
Ouze wrote: Well, they wouldn't have investigated Benghazi 500 times if there wasn't something there!
Hey, four Americans died. Anyone who doesn't support everyone single one of those 500 Benghazi investigations is saying they don't care about the lives of those four Americans.
Hmmm, what's that? Four Americans also died in a bungled raid in Niger? Oh that's a shame. Moving on...
Hmmm... was that bungled raid in Niger blamed on some video during a heated election year? Did anyone continually lie about what may have or have not happened? Yeah... moving on.
EDIT: where's that 'ghazi bat meme that Ouze made for me...
I think the fact all of the Benghazi investigations focused on HRC instead of the actual President at the time, Barack Obama, says all you need to know about why here were 6 of them stretched out so there was one ongoing until... why, right around when Trump won, actually.
lord_blackfang wrote: Respect to the guy who subscribed just to post a massive ASCII dong in the chat and immediately get banned.
Flinty wrote: The benefit of slate is that its.actually a.rock with rock like properties. The downside is that it's a rock
Hey, remember when Don Jr met with some Russians over adoptions? Except oh wait Don lied about that it was actually about Russia offering intel on Clinton. The meetings that were set up only by emails? Except oh wait that was also a lie there was also three phone calls. Anyway, we don't know what happened on those phone calls but Don Jr gave us the emails voluntarily. Except oh wait he didn't, actually he only released the emails after the NYT contacted him to inform they were publishing them the next day.
Yeah, that meeting, which we have no reason to ever doubt Don Jr's final descripton of at all. Well the primary Russian contact in that meeting was Natalya Veselnitskaya, a Russian lawyer. While it's pretty clear that meeting was all kinds of shady, one of the stumbling blocks was that Veselnitskaya wasn't as obvious as, say, an active Russian intelligence agent, she was a lawyer who was merely 'connected' to the Russian government. There was a layer of deniability there.
A funny thing happened in Switzerland, though. In December 2016 the chief investigator in to Russian financial crimes in Switzerland was drawn to a meeting in Moscow. When he went there he quickly realised he was being actively recruited to work as a mole within his investigation. The person who worked to recruit him - Veselnitskaya. Because that's her actual job - she's an active Russian intelligence officer.
We still have no idea what happened in that meeting. But we do know that Don Jr, Kushner and Manafort sat down with an active Russian operative, concealed the meeting afterwards, and then were caught telling multiple lies about the meeting.
whembly wrote: Hmmm... was that bungled raid in Niger blamed on some video during a heated election year? Did anyone continually lie about what may have or have not happened? Yeah... moving on.
Yeah, Benghazi was all about the very genuine concern that someone in government might have misled the public about something. Also, there was a long string of lies told in the aftermath of the failed operation in Niger, none of which have led to a single investigation, never mind the never ending circus of investigations we saw for Benghazi.
I mean, you want to sit there saying that Benghazi was about concern over a public official making a misleading statement, while Trump is in office, with more than a 1,000 lies on record and no investigation of a single one... I mean sure you can say that if you want, but don't expect me to do anything but laugh at the claim.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/04/18 05:46:08
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
NinthMusketeer wrote: I would be inclined to say using the wrong year is just a typo, from the white house yes but typos do happen. Nothing to really note.
It is just a typo, and a harmless one. I wouldn't comment at all, particularly given the statement itself was generous and well written, except this kind of thing of thing is constantly done by the Trump administration. When these kinds of mistakes become so common place, it starts to show it is no longer just some sloppy work, instead it starts to show a culture that doesn't respect the details of the work.
I think you might have missed the second half of that post:
NinthMusketeer wrote: I would be inclined to say using the wrong year is just a typo, from the white house yes but typos do happen. Nothing to really note.
I would say that, but this is far, far from the only time stuff like this happens. It very quickly goes from honest mistake to incompetence on a level we expect high schoolers to be above.
Sean Hannity also happened to employ Jay Sekulow for legal work. Sekulow is Trump's other lawyer, the only lawyer currently working for Trump in a personal capacity. Hannity also had Sekulow on his show, where he defended Trump and Hannity never mentioned he had a relationship with Sekulow.
So the breaches of journalistic ethics mount up. But beyond that, there's another connection as Hannity also hired Victoria Toensing, who Trump hired along with her husband Joe DiGenova (they withdrew for a conflict of interest not related to Hannity). Outside of the breaches of the journalistic ethics, unless there's only about 6 lawyers in the whole of the continental United States, this is a hell of a coincidence. Or maybe its how Trump and Hannity became so close? "You hired Cohen? I hired Cohen too! And you almost hired Toensing? And we both hired Sekulow! That's so funny, let's be best of friends!"
I didn't miss it, I knew what you were saying. I was trying to expand on it, saying it wasn't just carelessness, that indifference to these small details shows this administration is likely just as sloppy with the big details.
I should have quoted the second part of your post, not the first part, it would have made it more clear I understood your point. My bad.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2018/04/18 08:08:03
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
I mean, you want to sit there saying that Benghazi was about concern over a public official making a misleading statement, while Trump is in office, with more than a 1,000 lies on record and no investigation of a single one... I mean sure you can say that if you want, but don't expect me to do anything but laugh at the claim.
2,000 lies on record, actually, though, with Benghazi, at least one of those Americans somewhat deserved it. Helping in a how-to seminar in how to make someone commit suicide via internet harassment was not in good taste.
Fate is in heaven, armor is on the chest, accomplishment is in the feet. - Nagao Kagetora
Use Incognito mode and you can view anything on the Wapo site (or clear cookies).
On another note...
House GOP demands investigations into James Comey, Hillary Clinton, Andrew McCabe, Sally Yates, Loretta Lynch, Peter Strzok, Lisa Page, Dana Boente, the Hamburgler and Big Bird
What is interesting to me is that none of these people currently hold political office, and the only one in any current position of authority (Botente) was put there by Trump's administration.
IRON WITHIN, IRON WITHOUT.
New Heavy Gear Log! Also...Grey Knights! The correct pronunciation is Imperial Guard and Stormtroopers, "Astra Militarum" and "Tempestus Scions" are something you'll find at Hogwarts.
Vaktathi wrote: Use Incognito mode and you can view anything on the Wapo site (or clear cookies).
On another note...
House GOP demands investigations into James Comey, Hillary Clinton, Andrew McCabe, Sally Yates, Loretta Lynch, Peter Strzok, Lisa Page, Dana Boente, the Hamburgler and Big Bird
What is interesting to me is that none of these people currently hold political office, and the only one in any current position of authority (Botente) was put there by Trump's administration.
I've been waiting for this investigation. Finally, the Hamburgler will be brought to justice!
Actually, thanks for the link, it contains the actual letter calling for the investigations.
The GOP wants to prosecute McCabe for "lack of candor"? Did I read that correctly? Spinning the truth is unprofessional (even if members of congress make a career from it), but not illegal. He was right to be fired for it, but lacking perjury, I don't see this going anywhere. Waste of taxpayer dollars, for a smokescreen that won't hide anything.
feeder wrote: Frazz's mind is like a wiener dog in a rabbit warren. Dark, twisting tunnels, and full of the certainty that just around the next bend will be the quarry he seeks.
Ouze wrote: I think the fact all of the Benghazi investigations focused on HRC instead of the actual President at the time, Barack Obama, says all you need to know about why here were 6 of them stretched out so there was one ongoing until... why, right around when Trump won, actually.
This is a good point.
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
I think the fact that there was multiple investigations into HRC that uncovered no evidence of her wrongdoing is simply more proof of the liberal deep state. I know she's guilty of many heinous crimes, but that pesky deep state is covering for their lizard queen.
We were once so close to heaven, St. Peter came out and gave us medals; declaring us "The nicest of the damned".
“Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'”
Exactly. Don't gotta think about things when the deep state is behind everything.
We were once so close to heaven, St. Peter came out and gave us medals; declaring us "The nicest of the damned".
“Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'”
Vaktathi wrote: Use Incognito mode and you can view anything on the Wapo site (or clear cookies).
On another note...
House GOP demands investigations into James Comey, Hillary Clinton, Andrew McCabe, Sally Yates, Loretta Lynch, Peter Strzok, Lisa Page, Dana Boente, the Hamburgler and Big Bird
What is interesting to me is that none of these people currently hold political office, and the only one in any current position of authority (Botente) was put there by Trump's administration.
I've been waiting for this investigation. Finally, the Hamburgler will be brought to justice!
Actually, thanks for the link, it contains the actual letter calling for the investigations.
The GOP wants to prosecute McCabe for "lack of candor"? Did I read that correctly? Spinning the truth is unprofessional (even if members of congress make a career from it), but not illegal. He was right to be fired for it, but lacking perjury, I don't see this going anywhere. Waste of taxpayer dollars, for a smokescreen that won't hide anything.
Meh, they're just House reps, so this is just the usual attempt at attention whoring. Is one of them hoping to get their name known so they can run for Senate or something?
"Through the darkness of future past, the magician longs to see.
One chants out between two worlds: Fire, walk with me." - Twin Peaks
"You listen to me. While I will admit to a certain cynicism, the fact is that I am a naysayer and hatchetman in the fight against violence. I pride myself in taking a punch and I'll gladly take another because I choose to live my life in the company of Gandhi and King. My concerns are global. I reject absolutely revenge, aggression, and retaliation. The foundation of such a method... is love. I love you Sheriff Truman." - Twin Peaks
Vaktathi wrote: Use Incognito mode and you can view anything on the Wapo site (or clear cookies).
On another note...
House GOP demands investigations into James Comey, Hillary Clinton, Andrew McCabe, Sally Yates, Loretta Lynch, Peter Strzok, Lisa Page, Dana Boente, the Hamburgler and Big Bird
What is interesting to me is that none of these people currently hold political office, and the only one in any current position of authority (Botente) was put there by Trump's administration.
I've been waiting for this investigation. Finally, the Hamburgler will be brought to justice!
Actually, thanks for the link, it contains the actual letter calling for the investigations.
The GOP wants to prosecute McCabe for "lack of candor"? Did I read that correctly? Spinning the truth is unprofessional (even if members of congress make a career from it), but not illegal. He was right to be fired for it, but lacking perjury, I don't see this going anywhere. Waste of taxpayer dollars, for a smokescreen that won't hide anything.
No... McCabe was under oath when the FBI's own IG interviewed and flat out lied. That *is* perjury. Really no different than what got Flynn.
3100+
