Page 8 of 48

Re: Trump enters the stage

PostPosted: Sun Sep 23, 2018 2:13 pm
by barbarianhorde
Me Im so simple, I work with torture victims a lot and I seen the families of decapitated boys and circumsized girls. I had nightmares of torture ever since I grew on the Iraq Iran war but probably before because of my family. I cried in sublime happiness when the Donald won because I knew he would end it and he did.

I dont care about intellectualizing torture. I am too shaped by torture victims.

For you it seems a complicated thing. For me it is good against evil pure and simple. Everybody who gives Clinton or Waters power is sending innocents to their open graves.

Really, I don't have fun with this. I am only continuously perplexed that so many people who seem okay are perfectly willing to vote for torturers. It makes me think a big, big war is coming. The way we are now, a society that thinks it is incorrect to stop torture if it means a woman criminal can't torture some more, this has to die.

Re: Trump enters the stage

PostPosted: Sun Sep 23, 2018 2:15 pm
by barbarianhorde
Sometimes I think philosophy is a disease, if it allows people to talk about torture as it is abstract.

Re: Trump enters the stage

PostPosted: Sun Sep 23, 2018 2:50 pm
by barbarianhorde
I promise man Im not in this topic for fun. If I would tell you what I know you might never sleep again. I know it cost me years of sleep and often forced me to almost bang myself unconscious to the wall. Just a sensitive kid who could never get with the dudes that were burning a doves eyes out. Like I can not get why a warm blooded mammal can be unhappy at what Trump did. I don't want to know. I just want to celebrate the end of the torture and fight so that it won't come back. Please join us man, drop the intellectual act and stand up for whats right. How often does it happen, that we can fight against cruelty with politics? First time in my life for damn sure.

Re: Trump enters the stage

PostPosted: Sun Sep 23, 2018 2:55 pm
by Meno_
barbarianhorde wrote:Sometimes I think philosophy is a disease, if it allows people to talk about torture as it is abstract.

The abstract word , the pen, causes literally monumental effects, where by little is written of.those effects, by those who would like to erase the words that caused them, if they became exposed as having caused them.

Little is said about heroes who went unnoticed because they shed.their blood for intentionally ideas which falsely promoted them.

Re: Trump enters the stage

PostPosted: Sun Sep 23, 2018 3:01 pm
by barbarianhorde
I was in the region I risked my life many many MANY times to get to the truth.

then I came to it, and what do you think? People went around to each others houses to tell each other to stop talking to me.

Re: Trump enters the stage

PostPosted: Sun Sep 23, 2018 3:02 pm
by barbarianhorde
Why do you not want to talk about the torture that stopped?
Is it shame?

Re: Trump enters the stage

PostPosted: Sun Sep 23, 2018 3:03 pm
by barbarianhorde
If it is fear of a too vivid image of the unlucky's reality I accept that. But don't argue from that fear.

Re: Trump enters the stage

PostPosted: Sun Sep 23, 2018 3:07 pm
by Meno_
barbarianhorde wrote:If it is fear of a too vivid image of the unlucky's reality I accept that. But don't argue from that fear.

And why do You presume I'm not familiar not only with images of.torture but of not.having seen and experienced.them?

Re: Trump enters the stage

PostPosted: Sun Sep 23, 2018 3:11 pm
by barbarianhorde
I ask politely that you imagine how it is for someone like me, who works in dangerous areas and has no securities from society, when finally something good happens, and the whole so called civilized world comes off its ass to stop it.

Like, no one ever stood up against evil, against the great slaughters in my time. Until a USA president was elected who stands up against it, and now suddenly everyone stands up, to fight him!

The first time in my life they stand up they stand up to keep the torture going.

Please can you understand?

Re: Trump enters the stage

PostPosted: Sun Sep 23, 2018 3:13 pm
by barbarianhorde
Meno_ wrote:
barbarianhorde wrote:If it is fear of a too vivid image of the unlucky's reality I accept that. But don't argue from that fear.

And why do You presume I'm not familiar not only with images of.torture but of not.having seen and experienced.them?

I didn't use to but when you started attacking and undermining the only man who ever did anything against it, I began to wonder.

Re: Trump enters the stage

PostPosted: Sun Sep 23, 2018 3:19 pm
by barbarianhorde
If you have experienced it and I won't ask to verify because surely you have suffered much, then Im not so puzzled that you are afraid to touch some things and I won't pressurize you, so Ill just stop now hoping you trust my intentions. When people suffer too much, well that is what it is all about. We need to stop that on Earth.

Re: Trump enters the stage

PostPosted: Sun Sep 23, 2018 3:43 pm
by barbarianhorde
Maybe learning to be happy for us, who won in 2016, is a key for the left to connect back to mercy.

Right now it is just so weirdly mean. Finally we get a non-slick president who delivers promises, and well shit. It's not allowed. We clumsy losers weren't supposed to win.

Please just stop pushing for toppling Trump. Please just look at how many people he has made happy.
Or just look at how few people he killed halfway his first term. Obama personally launched drone strikes every Tuesday. He loved it. I was sick. Now Im sound.

Be happy for me and you will learn to understand me.

We aint perfect I know. But was that really the point?
We like to mock our leader. We like that freedom!

Its all love.

Re: Trump enters the stage

PostPosted: Sun Sep 23, 2018 4:08 pm
by barbarianhorde
Don't mind the title

Just try to see it from my side for two minutes while watching this.

Re: Trump enters the stage

PostPosted: Sun Sep 23, 2018 6:13 pm
by Meno_

I am reading You loud and clear. But my object here is not definitely pro, or con Trump. My approach is to try to define the underpinnings of what we are talking about, so that the confusion we all appear to be suffering in, be cleared up. When I claimed to appreciate torture, I meant it in a way that implies all forms of torture and that's pretty inclusive. I did not measure the degree of intent on Your part, be it explains more, as to personal involvement or, more a general description from Your point of view. However that does not matter from the angle of trying to figure that out.

For example, some consider tortuous just to witness the torture of others. And where torture can be delineated to the point that it becomes a.personal choice, vis: what consists of real torture : such as You describe : the beheading of children, or, of seeing. mangled bodies of near adults say 15-16 years old, is only matter of conjecture. Some, witnessing that. may die of a somatic collapse, or carry such memories to the ends of.their life: which is in itself a never ending burden.

Re: Trump enters the stage

PostPosted: Mon Sep 24, 2018 7:17 am
by Meno_

Former Obama chief of staff Rahm Emanuel warns Trump may order military action in Venezuela for political gain
Former Obama and Clinton aide Rahm Emanuel is warning that Trump could order military action in increasingly unstable Venezuela for political gain.
"We have a phrase in this country: the October surprise," Emanuel, Obama's first White House chief of staff, says in an interview. "I think in this situation he is looking to do anything and will do anything."
The Trump administration has not ruled out action in the South American nation, which, under the rule of Nicolas Maduro, has descended into chaos.
John Harwood | @johnjharwood
Published 1:22 PM ET Wed, 19 Sept 2018 Updated 1:45 PM ET Wed, 19 Sept 2018
Venezuela's President Nicolas Maduro talks to the media after a meeting for signing an agreement on guarantees for the vote at the National Electoral Council (CNE) headquarters in Caracas, Venezuela March 2, 2018.
Marco Bello | Reuters
Venezuela's President Nicolas Maduro talks to the media after a meeting for signing an agreement on guarantees for the vote at the National Electoral Council (CNE) headquarters in Caracas, Venezuela March 2, 2018.
As Nicolas Maduro's Venezuela keeps descending into lawlessness and chaos, President Donald Trump has publicly entertained the possibility of military intervention. So far, he hasn't acted.

But now Trump faces mounting legal and political pressures approaching midterm elections that could make his problems worse. And Rahm Emanuel, the former top aide to President Barack Obama who is now Chicago's mayor, is publicly warning that the mercurial commander-in-chief may blow past the hesitation of national security advisors in search of a rally-around-the-flag political boost. He wants Congress to flash caution lights.

"We have a phrase in this country: the October surprise," Emanuel, Obama's first White House chief of staff, told me in an interview. "I think in this situation he is looking to do anything and will do anything.

"If you're going to take military action, lay out the case," added Emanuel, who previously advised President Bill Clinton and served in the House Democratic leadership. "The Senate should be asking serious questions now — not after the fact."

A White House spokesman, Hogan Gidley, declined to comment.

This is the cost of President Trump's 'America first' policy
Emanuel spoke following a New York Times report signaling U.S. interest in military action in response to the political and economic meltdown that has led more than 2 million Venezuelans to flee their country. The report said Trump administration representatives had participated in meetings with Venezuelan rebels about overthrowing Maduro, that nation's authoritarian leader.

The administration ultimately declined to cooperate with the rebels. But it still hasn't ruled out U.S. intervention.

As a senior advisor in the Clinton White House, Emanuel has been on the receiving end of the same kind of suspicion he now directs at Trump. In 1998, Republicans wondered aloud whether Clinton ordered air strikes against Afghanistan, Sudan and Iraq to divert attention from his affair with Monica Lewinsky and subsequent impeachment. Emanuel insisted the circumstances are not comparable because Clinton's orders were vetted and endorsed by his national security team.

In August 2017, Trump told reporters he had a "military option" for dealing with Venezuela. The Associated Press subsequently reported that then-National Security Advisor H.R. McMaster and other aides argued against it on both practical and diplomatic grounds, noting the star-crossed history of U.S. intervention in Latin America.

But Trump has made harsh attacks on Latino immigrants and warnings of more of them flooding across America's Southern border a core political message. One of his Senate Republican allies, Marco Rubio of Florida, has publicly embraced the idea of a coup.

Asked about potential U.S. involvement in Venezuela last month, White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders replied, "We're going to keep all options on the table."

Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel speaks at a press conference where he addressed issues related to the city's murder rate and the city's Sanctuary City policy on January 25, 2017 in Chicago, Illinois.
Scott Olson | Getty Images
Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel speaks at a press conference where he addressed issues related to the city's murder rate and the city's Sanctuary City policy on January 25, 2017 in Chicago, Illinois.
Foreign policy experts in both parties share Emanuel's skepticism. Military action would pose myriad challenges: ousting Maduro, restoring order under a new government, stanching the exodus of refugees, securing the flow of Venezuelan oil.

"There's a strong case for setting up humanitarian assistance aid across the borders, but not to intervene," said Kori Schake, a National Security Council aide to President George W. Bush.

"What could go wrong is not the appropriate question," added Jake Sullivan, an Obama State Department aide. "What could go right?"

But not all national security professionals dismiss the idea.

"I understand all the pitfalls of intervention, but I also understand the pitfalls of allowing this situation to unfold," said Richard Haass, president of the Council on Foreign Relations and another former Bush advisor. Given the extent of suffering in Venezuela, he said the White House and Congress should consider assisting, though not leading, an intervention.

Haass acknowledged that the president's inattention to policy and reputation for impulsivity brings "a bit of baggage" to the debate. But "just because it's Trump," he concluded, "it ought not to be ruled out."

Emanuel sees a lot of baggage. Trump has shrugged off advice of top aides on numerous national security issues, from Russia's attack on 2016 elections to relations with North Korea to the Iran nuclear deal. Bob Woodward's new book describes the Trump White House as suffering a "nervous breakdown."

That's why Emanuel, who recently announced he won't seek a third mayoral term next year, wants Congress to ensure any action Trump might take has a national security rather than political justification.

"He has crossed so many lines,"

The wag the dog scenario, again, rising from the ashes, just an implanted myth, to serve as a fix to nullify public suspicion by dems, or, a real possibility?

Re: Trump enters the stage

PostPosted: Mon Sep 24, 2018 11:47 am
by barbarianhorde
Pezer, Venezuelan, was literally BEGGING Trump to interfere.

But the concentration camp bosses you defend call it "political gain" like the cowards in England called Churchills actions against Hitler.

You do NOT read me loud and clear, if you dare to quote this NAZI THUG PROPAGANDA to me.

Why. Do. You. Lend. Yourself. To. These. TORTURERS


Re: Trump enters the stage

PostPosted: Mon Sep 24, 2018 12:08 pm
by barbarianhorde
Why do you defend the cruelest and most dishonest humans Meno! What witchy power does this evil have over you?

What could make you think that a message from an institute you know has dronestruck civilians for eight years should be fueled with your power?

Re: Trump enters the stage

PostPosted: Mon Sep 24, 2018 4:04 pm
by Meno_
Again, it's not my intention to demonstrate the rightness or wrongness of interference into Venezuela's business, since it is a well documented documented fact that the US has interferes with other dictators when things served U.S. interests

Batista, the Shaw of Iran, and many others were supported . The point is, that at one point Chavez was in the cross hairs as well, during a previous administration
If these are to be excluded from similar targets, then don't even bother to mention McCarthy, who tried to dissuade Eisenhower from the horrible post Malta Conference division of Europe.

No the point is, that why now? Why are the imperial designs raised at a time where too much is already on political plates everywhere? Why the urgency, at a time when patience would be better dictates by prudence?

This point may relate to Your point , certainly, nut it sea like a vehicle to advance and shift focus away from impending problems which would better serve Trump.

This issue again, may turn out well or bode otherwise, and the jury is out on it, it seems like an attempt to extend and sweet longitudinally a very literal a schism that has broken out in internal politics inside the U.S..

Of course, the literal interpretation is often outer directed, so as to avoid a trap, which may summon in a no exit situation, where people are aware of being baited and trapped.

Look at Brexit, a hotel California type set up, get in and it appears you can never leave-for those who can not afford membership , the exit cost is even higher.

This goes to the heart of this argument and borders on Trump's economic war as well.

Think about it, the basic question. amounts to the nominal formula dealing with American power renual, and the so called -Deep State' are very much like the great institution of power and wealth , who started to wonder , if a lesser wealthy entity could transform his lack in wealth into a power figure who could upstage even them.

There is a great fire building up even within his ranks, and that is before anyone, you, I, or anyone could really decide which poaition will be most effective.

I keep telling you I am not biased in the least, the synthetic approach drivable into the empirical- bites the bullet both ways. Its a catch, sure Brice home as double, a double edged sword, be coming really- a catch22.

Watch out. For Trump, exit is more dangerous or more, then engagement, and he knows it. Plus if you ain't got nothing you've got nothing to loose, bit debts.

Re: Trump enters the stage

PostPosted: Mon Sep 24, 2018 5:06 pm
by Meno_

Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein is reportedly out
This could put the future of Mueller’s Russia probe in question.
By Alex Ward on September 24, 2018 11:46 am

Former Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein. Win McNamee/Getty Images
Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein has reportedly resigned, throwing the future of special counsel Robert Mueller’s Russia investigation into question.

The news comes three days after the New York Times reported the deputy attorney general said he wanted to record conversations with President Donald Trump last year, and also discussed using the 25th Amendment to remove the president from office. Rosenstein denied the report, and one source told the Times that the deputy attorney general had merely been joking.

But it looks like Rosenstein decided to leave his post anyway, and the White House reportedly accepted his resignation.

If true, this news is significant, since Rosenstein was the man responsible for overseeing Mueller’s investigation into possible collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russian government during the 2016 US presidential election. That’s because Attorney General Jeff Sessions, Rosenstein’s boss, recused himself from the probe after it became clear he’d provided false and misleading testimony to Congress about his own contacts with Russia.

Rosenstein has therefore spent more than a year walking a delicate tightrope.

On one hand, he was committed to protecting the investigation from conservatives inside and outside Congress who believed it was biased against the president and had urged Trump to fire the special counsel. But Rosenstein couldn’t champion the investigation too much, or he’d draw Trump’s ire.

Rosenstein’s departure strikes at the heart of the Trump-Russia investigation because Mueller had to run major investigative decisions past the deputy attorney general. Rosenstein’s temporary replacement, Solicitor General Noel Francisco, could simply refuse to approve Mueller’s requests, effectively slowing the whole investigation to a crawl — or even fire Mueller outright if he felt there was a reason to do so.

Rosenstein had refused to do that. He instead allowed Mueller’s probe to proceed unimpeded, while Mueller indicted top members of Trump’s campaign, including former campaign chair Paul Manafort on tax, financial, and bank fraud charges. Manafort later pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy against the US and one count of conspiracy to obstruct justice and is now cooperating with the Mueller investigation.

The future of the Mueller probe, and possibly even Trump’s presidency, once depended on how well Rosenstein performed his delicate balancing act. Now, Mueller’s future rests in Francisco’s hands.

Rosenstein had to keep Trump and the Justice Department happy. That wasn’t easy.
Rosenstein’s performance during a congressional hearing last December showed how he was trying to navigate the difficult situation he was in.

Here’s what happened: On the night of December 12, mere hours before Rosenstein would testify at a House Judiciary Committee hearing, the Justice Department showed reporters some anti-Trump texts. The messages were from two FBI officials, Peter Strzok and Lisa Page, who had corresponded throughout the 2016 presidential election.

Strzok, a former top FBI counterintelligence official who was on Mueller’s investigative team, texted Page that Trump was an “idiot.” He also wanted Clinton to defeat Trump in the election — in another message, he wrote: "God Hillary should win 100,000,000 — 0.”

There was also a text that seemingly implied Strzok and Page were working on an “insurance policy” in case Trump won the election. But the Wall Street Journal reported on December 18 that Strzok’s text was really about the need to investigate possible Trump-Russia ties. Mueller removed Strzok from his staff last July, and the Strzok-Page exchanges remain subject to an internal investigation by the Justice Department. Still, some conservatives in and out of government think these texts show that the Mueller probe was working against the president.

It’s unclear if Rosenstein authorized the release of the texts, but some legal analysts thought the DOJ made the messages public the night before Rosenstein’s big hearing to curry favor with the anti-Mueller crowd on the House Judiciary Committee.

"It's appalling behavior by the department," Matthew Miller, a spokesperson for the Justice Department in the Obama administration, told Business Insider about the release of the texts at the time. "This is an ongoing investigation in which these employees have due-process rights, and the political leadership at DOJ has thrown them to the wolves so Rosenstein can get credit from House Republicans at his hearing."

Rosenstein defended the release of the texts during the hearing, saying, "We consulted with the inspector general to determine that he had no objection to releasing the material,” in response to a question about the texts by Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-MD). “If he had, we would not have released it,” Rosenstein said.

But he also defended Mueller in that same session. Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-NY), the committee’s ranking member, asked Rosenstein the most highly anticipated question of the session: “If you were ordered today to fire Mr. Mueller, what would you do?”

“If there were good cause, I would act. If there were no good cause, I would not,” Rosenstein replied. He then went on to defend Mueller personally, saying, “It would've been difficult to find anyone more qualified for this job.”

These exchanges show that Rosenstein was trying to stand up for the probe while still appeasing Trump and his allies. Benjamin Wittes, an expert on national security law at the Brookings Institution, wrote on the Lawfare blog that Rosenstein may pay a price for doing both.

“Rosenstein here has, at a minimum, contributed to [the political] circus — at the expense of his own employees,” he wrote after the hearing. “The DOJ and FBI workforces will not forget that. Nor should they.”

Those 24 hours encapsulated Rosenstein’s political two-step. One minute he defended the release of texts that served as ammunition for Mueller critics and Trump allies to lambast the investigation; the next, he shielded Mueller from criticism by those same anti-Mueller conservatives and Trump allies — and put his own job at risk.

Keeping both sides happy allowed Rosenstein to say he supported his staff while also backing Trump. The deputy attorney general played a deft game, and those who had previously worked with him felt he could pull it off.

“What you have in Rod is somebody that is battle-tested,” Julie Myers Wood, a prosecutor and former colleague of Rosenstein’s, told me in an interview last December, months before Rosenstein’s ouster. “I can’t think of anyone that is more prepared to handle this situation than him.”

On May 1, Rosenstein told a crowd that “the Department of Justice is not going to be extorted.” He continued: “We’re going to do what’s required by the rule of law, and any kind of threats that anybody makes are not going to affect the way we do our job.”

Rosenstein found himself in the middle of a major political controversy
Rosenstein was long considered an apolitical straight shooter by those who worked with him. “He has a directness about him — there’s no bullshit,” Philip Heymann, Rosenstein’s former professor at Harvard Law School and later his colleague, told me before Trump reportedly let Rosenstein go. “He says what he thinks, but he’s always fair.”

President George W. Bush appointed Rosenstein as the US attorney for Maryland in 2005. President Barack Obama kept him on, making Rosenstein only one of three US attorneys — out of a total of 93 — retained by the new administration. Rosenstein officially joined the Trump administration last April as deputy attorney general after receiving broad bipartisan support in his confirmation vote.

But Rosenstein found himself in the middle of a major political controversy just two weeks into his new job. On May 9, 2017, he co-authored a letter with Sessions making the case that Trump should fire then-FBI Director James Comey because of how Comey had handled the results of the agency’s Clinton investigation.

“Over the past year,” Rosenstein wrote, “the FBI’s reputation and credibility have suffered substantial damage, and it has affected the entire Department of Justice.”

He added: “I cannot defend the director’s handling of the conclusion of the investigation of Secretary Clinton’s emails, and I do not understand his refusal to accept the nearly universal judgment that he was mistaken.”

Trump fired Comey later that day, citing the Sessions-Rosenstein letter as his reason. Pro-Trump Republicans and conservative media applauded the decision to remove Comey, but Democrats were furious. And some of that fury extended to Rosenstein.

Sen. Mark Warner (D-VA) told NPR shortly after the Comey firing that he had “lost any confidence I might have had” in Rosenstein, whose “first official action was putting his name on that letter, basically making what appeared to be bogus reasons [for] firing the FBI director.”

Those who know Rosenstein say he recommended firing Comey not because he wanted to please Trump, but rather because he believed Comey hurt the FBI’s reputation. “He’s guided by justice, not by politics,” Steve Levin, a former colleague of Rosenstein’s in Maryland, told me in an interview before the firing.

A week later, Rosenstein named Mueller as the special counsel, authorizing him to look into possible Trump-Russia ties as well as “any matters that arose or may arise from the investigation.”

In retrospect, it seems quite clear that Rosenstein wasn’t in Trump’s pocket. But Trump himself wondered aloud where Rosenstein’s true loyalties lay, tweeting on June 16, “I am being investigated for firing the FBI Director by the man who told me to fire the FBI Director! Witch Hunt.”

The Trump-Russia probe could be in serious trouble
Rosenstein didn’t stop Mueller from pursuing the investigation the way he saw fit, and he made every indication that he intended to continue letting Mueller proceed with his investigation.

But Francisco could change all that, especially if Trump applies significant pressure. That said, if Francisco did fire Mueller, the investigation might not be completely undermined, as five Trump associates have pleaded guilty and prosecutors are likely to continue to follow leads from the beginning of the investigation in June 2016.

And the future is still very unclear. If Francisco doesn’t do Trump’s bidding, the president could simply fire him. That’s possibly more detrimental to the Mueller probe.

Asha Rangappa, a legal expert at Yale's Jackson Institute for Global Affairs, wrote in a post for the Just Security blog last December that a new deputy attorney general could effectively cripple the Mueller investigation by rejecting Mueller’s requests to investigate more people, obtain new evidence, or pursue charges against additional people, for instance.

In effect, Rosenstein’s reported ouster now has put the Mueller probe in its most precarious position to date — possibly allowing Trump to escape further investigation into him, his associates, and his family.

Re: Trump enters the stage

PostPosted: Tue Sep 25, 2018 9:15 am
by Meno_
Gaetz: If Rosenstein Doesn't Testify on Trump 'Wire' Report, I Will Introduce Impeachment Proceedings
share this email
Sep 24, 2018 // 9:42pm | As seen on The Story with Martha MacCallum
Florida Congressman Matt Gaetz said Monday that Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein should testify before Congress regarding the report he considered wearing a wire to record President Trump.

Gaetz, a Fort Walton Beach Republican, said that if Rosenstein does not appear, that he and House Freedom Caucus Chair Mark Meadows of North Carolina will prepare articles of impeachment against him.

Gaetz said that any lawmaker may put forward articles of impeachment, and that they -- by rule -- must be brought up for a vote within two business days.

Last year, Rep. Al Green (D-Texas) invoked that privilege to unsuccessfully bring impeachment articles against Trump. The articles died in a motion-to-table vote of 364-58.

"No matter what the president does [to Rosenstein], the Congress has an obligation to exercise our oversight role," Gaetz said on "The Story." "Rod Rosenstein needs to be in the witness chair."

Tucker: Dem 'Folk Hero' Hirono Invented 'Court of Credibility' Putting Burden of Proof on Men, The Accused

'Incredibly Difficult': Ashley Kavanaugh Reacts to Death Threats, Coverage of Husband's Allegations

Article continues below

A New York Times report last week said an incensed Rosenstein made the reference in a private 2017 meeting with officials -- one of whom was Andy McCabe, the acting FBI director at the time.

Some have said Rosenstein was "joking" when he allegedly spoke about wearing a wire or pressing cabinet members to invoke the 25th Amendment and remove President Donald Trump from office.

"[If] he was sarcastically joking, that is [still] an inappropriate thing to do when you have subordinates... in your presence," Gaetz said.

Gaetz said Rosenstein has additionally been "very evasive" when it comes to the demands of the Judiciary Committee on which the lawmaker sits.

"We ought to know what happened, under oath, so it's not just speculation," he said.

Trump spoke to Rosenstein by phone Monday, a source told Fox News. The president is set to meet with Rosenstein in Washington on Thursday.

Initial conflicting reports said Rosenstein had resigned his post or was expecting Trump to fire him earlier Monday.

Watch more above.

McConnell Blasts Dems for 'Shameful Smear Campaign' Against Kavanaugh

'Ignorant and Unfunny': Shapiro Blasts Sanders for Saying America 'Starves Little Children'

Latest from Fox News Channel
1 Gaetz: If Rosenstein Doesn't Testify on Trump 'Wire' Report, I Will Introduce Impeachment Proceedings

Re: Trump enters the stage

PostPosted: Tue Sep 25, 2018 9:20 am
by Meno_
Oops here is one that got in: scary but not real probable:

The National InterestOpen Menu
The B-2 Stealth Bomber Is Getting Ready for a Nuclear War

Share on FacebookF
Share on TwitterL
Share on LinkedInI
Subscribe to RSSR
September 24, 2018 Topic: Security Blog Brand: The Buzz Tags: B-2Northrop GrummanAir Forcenuclear warWorldMilitary
The Air Force’s B-2 Stealth bomber has test-dropped an upgraded, multi-function B61-12 nuclear bomb which improves accuracy, integrates various attack options into a single bomb and changes the strategic landscape with regard to nuclear weapons mission possibilities.

by Kris Osborn
The aircraft, which entered service in the 1980s, has flown missions over Iraq, Libya and Afghanistan. In fact, given its ability to fly as many as 6,000 nautical miles without need to refuel, the B-2 flew from Missouri all the way to an island off the coast of India called Diego Garcia – before launching bombing missions over Afghanistan.

The Air Force’s B-2 Stealth bomber has test-dropped an upgraded, multi-function B61-12 nuclear bomb which improves accuracy, integrates various attack options into a single bomb and changes the strategic landscape with regard to nuclear weapons mission possibilities.

(This first appeared last month.)

Earlier this summer, the Air Force dropped a B61-12 nuclear weapon from a B-2 at Nellis AFB, marking a new developmental flight test phase for the upgraded bomb, Air Force spokeswoman Capt. Hope Cronin told Warrior Maven.

“The updated weapon will include improved safety, security and reliability,” Cronin said.

The B61-12 adds substantial new levels of precision targeting and consolidates several different kinds of attack options into a single weapon. Instead of needing separate variants of the weapon for different functions, the B61-12 by itself allows for earth-penetrating attacks, low-yield strikes, high-yield attacks, above surface detonation and bunker-buster options.


RIP B-2 Bomber: How America's Most Deadly Bomber Will Eventually Lose Its Stealth

In 1999, a U.S. B-2 Bomber 'Attacked' China. Here's What Happened.
A B-2 Spirit soars after a refueling mission over the Pacific Ocean on Tuesday, May 30, 2006. The B-2, from the 509th Bomb Wing at Whiteman Air Force Base, Mo., is part of a continuous bomber presence in the Asia-Pacific region.
Why 100 Northrop Grumman B-21 Raider Stealth Bombers Might Not Be Enough
The latest version of the B61 thermonuclear gravity bomb, which has origins as far back as the 1960s, is engineered as a low-to-medium yield strategic and tactical nuclear weapon, according to, which also states the weapon has a “two-stage” radiation implosion design.

“The main advantage of the B61-12 is that it packs all the gravity bomb capabilities against all the targeting scenarios into one bomb. That spans from very low-yield tactical “clean” use with low fallout to more dirty attacks against underground targets,” Hans Kristensen, Director of the Nuclear Information Project, Federation of American Scientists, told Warrior Maven.

Air Force officials describe this, in part, by referring to the upgraded B61-12 as having an “All Up Round.”

“The flight test accomplished dedicated B61-12 developmental test requirements and “All Up Round” system level integration testing on the B-2,” Cronin said.

The B61 Mod 12 is engineered with a special “Tail Subassembly” to give the bomb increased accuracy, giving a new level of precision targeting using Inertial Navigation Systems, Kristensen said.

“Right now the B-2 carries only B61-7 (10-360 kt), B61-11(400 kt, earth-penetrator), and B83-1 (high-yield bunker-buster). The B61-12 covers all of those missions, with less radioactive fallout, plus very low-yield attacks,” he added.

The evidence that the B61-12 can penetrate below the surface has significant implications for the types of targets that can be held at risk with the bomb.

By bringing an “earth-penetrating” component, the B61-12 vastly increases the target scope or envelope of attack. It can enable more narrowly targeted or pinpointed strikes at high-value targets underground - without causing anywhere near the same level of devastation above ground or across a wider area.
Recommended: Imagine a U.S. Air Force That Never Built the B-52 Bomber

Recommended: Russia's Next Big Military Sale - To Mexico?

Recommended: Would China Really Invade Taiwan?

“A nuclear weapon that detonates after penetrating the earth more efficiently transmits its explosive energy to the ground, thus is more effective at destroying deeply buried targets for a given nuclear yield. A detonation above ground, in contrast, results in a larger fraction of the explosive energy bouncing off the surface,” Kristensen explained.

Massive B-2 Upgrade:

The testing and integration of the B61-12 is one piece of a massive, fleet-wide B-2 upgrade designed to sustain the bomber into coming years, until large numbers of the emerging B-21 Raider are available. A range of technical modifications are also intended to prepare the 1980s-era bomber for very sophisticated, high-end modern threats.

The B-2 is getting improved digital weapons integration, new computer processing power reported to be 1,000-times faster than existing systems and next-generation sensors designed to help the aircraft avoid enemy air defenses.

One of the effort’s key modifications is designed to improve what’s called the bomber’s Defensive Management System, a technology designed to help the B-2 recognize and elude enemy air defenses, using various antennas, receivers and display processors.

The Defensive Management System is to detect signals or “signatures” emitting from ground-based anti-aircraft weapons, Air Force officials have said. Current improvements to the technology are described by Air Force developers as “the most extensive modification effort that the B-2 has attempted.”

The modernized system, called a B-2 “DMS-M” unit, consists of a replacement of legacy DMS subsystems so that the aircraft can be effective against the newest and most lethal enemy air defenses. The upgraded system integrates a suite of antennas, receivers, and displays that provide real-time intelligence information to aircrew, service officials said.

Upgrades consist of improved antennas with advanced digital electronic support measures, or ESMs along with software components designed to integrate new technologies with existing B-2 avionics, according to an Operational Test & Evaluation report from the Office of the Secretary of Defense.



Re: Trump enters the stage-China

PostPosted: Tue Sep 25, 2018 11:55 am
by Meno_
China lashed against U.S. trade war against it, Chinese president declaring that Chinese policy is dictated now from the perspective of saving the world from the U.S..

How keen is Trump and commendable, here, where China has for years literally stole intellectual property and taken huge profits by using unfair trade practices against the U.S., while it was still affordable.

Now things have changed, and the fiscal conservatism makes sense.

However , things have become clouded politically. Human nature what it is, once free meals have no come acceptable policy, a mitigation of such, is non acceptable for the tecepuents of such liberality.

Now this: to show how the opposite opinion shows:

An audience of world leaders at the United Nations laughed on Tuesday when President Trump boasted of his achievements during his time in office.

"In less than two years, my administration has accomplished more than almost any administration in the history of our country," Trump said, opening his address to the U.N. General Assembly.

Audience members then began chuckling and the laughs grew louder when Trump said "so true."

Trump smiled and paused, then responded: "I didn't expect that reaction but that's OK."

Re: Trump enters the stage

PostPosted: Tue Sep 25, 2018 3:38 pm
by barbarianhorde
"ABC late-night talk show host Jimmy Kimmel took the stage on Tuesday and jokingly suggested that his “compromise” to the battle of Brett Kavanaugh’s Supreme Court nomination is to chop off the judge’s “pesky penis,” should he be confirmed."

Why these monsters so popular :( :( :(

all these two years man, it has gone from hang and burn trump to attacking people in restaurants to calling for castration.
So many people think this is is okay. Probably war where 99 percent of us die is the only way for nature to take care of herself with the liberal disease running so rampant.

God I would NEVER stick my penis in a liberal.

Re: Trump enters the stage

PostPosted: Wed Sep 26, 2018 1:40 am
by Meno_
Now this:;
Democracy Dies in Darkness


‘People actually laughed at a president’: At U.N. speech, Trump suffers the fate he always feared
The Debrief: An occasional series offering a reporter’s insights
By David Nakamura

September 25, 2018 at 5:14 PM

President Trump elicited laughter at the start of his address to world leaders Sept. 25 at the U.N. General Assembly in New York. (Reuters)
UNITED NATIONS —President Trump has long argued that the United States has been taken advantage of by other nations — a “laughing stock to the entire World,” he said on Twitter in 2014 — and his political rise was based on the premise that he had the strength and resolve to change that.

But at the U.N. General Assembly on Tuesday, Trump got a comeuppance on the world’s biggest stage. Delivering a speech that aimed to establish U.S. “sovereignty” over the whims and needs of other nations, the president’s triumphant moment was marred in the first minute when he was met by laughter — at his expense.

The embarrassing exchange came when Trump boasted that his administration had accomplished more over two years than “almost any administration” in American history, eliciting audible guffaws in the cavernous chamber hall.

The president appeared startled. “Didn’t expect that reaction,” he said, “but that’s okay.”

Members of the audience chuckled again — perhaps this time in sympathy.

President Trump prepares to address the 73rd session of the United Nations General Assembly on September 25, 2018 in New York City. (Photo by John Moore/Getty Images)
Trump continued his address, which lasted an additional 34 minutes, but the moment marked a pointed rejoinder from the international community to a president who has delighted in poking traditional U.S. allies and partners in the eye on trade, security alliances and general diplomatic bonhomie.

“He has always been obsessed that people are laughing at the president. From the mid-’80s, he’s said: ‘The world is laughing at us. They think we’re fools,’ ” said Thomas Wright, a Europe analyst at the Brookings Institution. “It’s never been true, but he’s said it about every president. It’s the first time I’m aware of that people actually laughed at a president. I think it is going to drive him absolutely crazy. It will play to every insecurity he has.”

For Trump, the moment wasn’t just embarrassing. It also punctured one of the core fabulist assertions of a president who has, according to Washington Post fact-checkers, made more than 5,000 false or misleading statements since taking office.

As the midterm elections approach, Trump has begun boasting of a long list of accomplishments for his administration, at one point reciting them at a recent campaign rally from two pieces of paper that he pulled from his suit jacket.

In doing so, the president typically has claimed sweeping success and placed himself favorably in historical comparison to the nation’s greatest leaders. At a rally in Springfield, Mo., last week, Trump was wrapping up an hour-long address to supporters with some flowery teleprompter prose about the courage of America’s founders when he strayed from the script to assert that his election in 2016 was “the greatest movement in the history of our country.”

At the United Nations, Trump’s claim to have done more in less than two years than most of the 44 previous administrations defied any bounds of reality — or hubris. The difference was that he was not talking to a room full of excited, red-hat-wearing “MAGA” supporters who cheer him on.

“On one hand, you feel, ‘Oh, God, how awful that the American president is being laughed at on the world stage,’ ” said Julie Smith, who served as deputy national security adviser to Vice President Joe Biden.

Germany's delegation at the U.N. General Assembly appeared to laugh during President Trump's speech when he suggested that Germany is becoming “totally dependent” upon Russian energy. (Reuters)
“But on the other hand, you kind of feel good that Trump was finally escaping the bubble of political rallies that continually gives him the impression that everyone agrees with the false claims he is making,” said Smith, who watched Trump’s speech from Berlin, where she is spending a year as a fellow at the Bosch Academy. “There was a moment I thought to myself, ‘This is good that the president is being exposed to how the rest of the world sees him.’ ”

Though the world leaders’ laughter at the United Nations was spontaneous, there might have been a bit of extra feeling behind it among some of the delegates in the room. TV cameras caught German diplomats chuckling — perhaps a form of release after relations between Trump and Chancellor Angela Merkel got off to a bad start and have continued to devolve.

Last year, Germans attending a conference at the Economic Council of the Christian Democratic Union in Berlin laughed and applauded after Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross’s microphone was cut off in mid-sentence after he spoke past his allotted time via video feed. Merkel then rebutted parts of his remarks in her own speech.

On social media, Trump’s critics quickly mocked him on Tuesday.

“American Presidents used to set the global agenda at the UNGA. Now Trump gets laughed at,” tweeted Ben Rhodes, who as a top national security aide to President Barack Obama helped craft U.N. speeches.

“The world just laughed @realDonaldTrump,” comedian Wanda Sykes tweeted. Referring to the famed theater in Harlem in which the audience boos and heckles bad performers offstage, she added, “Stay tuned, they might go full ‘Showtime at the Apollo’ on him.”

By the afternoon, Trump was projecting an air of nonchalance, telling reporters that his boast in the speech “was meant to get some laughter.” But most observers weren’t buying it from a president who seldom laughs at himself and whose default expression is an unsparing glare.

“It’s got to hurt,” said Wright, the Brookings Institution analyst. “It was on camera and it was spontaneous. It was on one of the biggest stages in the world.”

David Nakamura covers the White House. He has previously covered sports, education and city government and reported from Afghanistan, Pakistan and Japan.

© 1996-2018 The Washington Post

A former spy explains why Manafort is crucial to Mueller’s Russia investigation
Manafort’s guilty plea goes to the heart of Russia’s 2016 election interference plot.
By Alex Finley and Center for Public Integrity on September 26, 2018 6:00 am

Six years before Paul Manafort became Donald Trump’s campaign chairman, he advised another divisive politician: Ukraine’s Viktor Yanukovych. Javier Zarracina/Vox; Mark Wilson, Sasha Mordovets/Getty Images
Viktor Yanukovych, a Ukrainian politician, ran a divisive and ultimately successful presidential campaign in 2010.

Over the course of several months, he portrayed his political opponent, Yulia Tymoshenko, as corrupt and threatened to jail her. He warned that the election might be rigged and called on supporters to march in protest if he lost. He yelled about the corruption of the political elite and attacked his Western allies, calling instead for closer ties with Russia, with whom he had cultivated deep — and hidden — business ties.

Any of this sound familiar?

During his 2016 presidential campaign, Donald Trump had the same strategic adviser as Yanukovych did six years earlier: Paul Manafort.

Coincidentally or not, Manafort proceeded to implement a nearly identical political playbook to launch Trump into the most powerful office in the world.

On September 14, Manafort pleaded guilty to two counts of conspiracy — counts that include money laundering, failing to register as a foreign agent, and witness tampering — and agreed to cooperate with special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation into whether the Trump campaign colluded with Russia during the presidential election.

The plea agreement came after Manafort was found guilty on charges of tax fraud, bank fraud, and hiding foreign bank accounts in a separate trial last month. The charges Manafort pleaded guilty to concern his influence-peddling on behalf of Yanukovych and his pro-Russian political party, the Party of Regions, in Washington and elsewhere — all of which occurred years before Manafort joined the Trump campaign.

The day the plea agreement was announced, White House press secretary Sarah Sanders issued a statement emphasizing that fact — that Manafort’s crimes happened long before he ever worked for the campaign — saying that the plea deal “had absolutely nothing to do with the president or his victorious 2016 presidential campaign. It is totally unrelated.”

But while she’s right that the crimes Manafort pleaded guilty to predate his work with the Trump campaign, his decision to plead guilty brings us closer to resolving questions surrounding possible cooperation between the Trump campaign and Russian interests.

For Mueller, Manafort is a way to gain detailed insight into the campaign’s most controversial inner machinations, including the June 2016 Trump Tower meeting billed in advance by Russians as a way to collect damaging information on Hillary Clinton, and the decision to weaken the Republican Party’s support for Ukraine (which Russia had invaded) in its official platform.

Manafort may also provide new details about who knew what and when about WikiLeaks’ dissemination of Hillary Clinton’s stolen emails at a key moment during the election.

As a former spy, I know that Manafort was a vulnerable target
Manafort’s guilty plea makes it clear that his actions on behalf of Ukraine’s pro-Russian leader were in lockstep with the larger interests of Russian President Vladimir Putin, who sought to undermine democracy not only in Eastern Europe but in America as well.

So why did this convergence of interests occur? My experience as an intelligence officer tells me that Manafort’s unmitigated greed and his business practices — including money laundering and his frequent use of offshore accounts — highlight vulnerabilities that Russian intelligence officers could have exploited to their advantage, including while he was working for Trump.

At the CIA, where I worked in the Directorate of Operations, we assessed a potential asset’s vulnerabilities using the acronym MICE: money, ideology, coercion, and ego. Any good intelligence officer finds a way to use those vulnerabilities to leverage the asset to work on her or his behalf.

Manafort, it was clear, had multiple vulnerabilities. He liked money, and he hid a lot of it. Prosecutors at his first trial highlighted Manafort’s extravagant lifestyle, trotting out exhibits showing he spent a million dollars on clothing at a single store, bought a $21,000 watch, spent a million dollars on Oriental rugs, used millions to buy and renovate real estate, and shelled out $15,000 on an ostrich leather jacket.

Yanukovych, the Ukrainian president, lived an opulent lifestyle as well — particularly for a lifelong public servant.

After he was forced out of office in February 2014, Ukrainians stormed his residence and discovered luxury cars, an 18-hole golf course, a presidential sauna, and a private exotic zoo, which included several ostriches (no word yet on how Yanukovych, or his ostriches, felt about Manafort’s jacket). Elsewhere, investigators for the new government found a ledger outlining $12 million in unofficial payments to Manafort.

So we know that Manafort had extensive ties to important people, some of whom were in their own compromising situations. Any intelligence officer would recognize the opportunity. Manafort was, quite simply, a ripe target to be exploited.

But what does lobbying for Ukraine have to do with Russia?
Yanukovych and his political party, who were both Manafort’s clients, had a political agenda aligned with Russia and influenced by a flow of Russian money.

The most glaring example of this occurred in November 2013, when Yanukovych decided not to sign an agreement with the European Union — despite popular support in Ukraine for it — and to push, instead, for closer ties with Russia.

The move set off a series of protests in Ukraine that nearly led to a civil war and ended with Yanukovych’s ouster in February 2014. He fled the country and remains in exile, notably, in Russia.

What’s notable as well is that Manafort and his partners pushed that same pro-Russia political agenda with US policymakers and the American press.

Manafort tried to clean up Yanukovych’s image in the West, convincing policymakers that his jailing of Tymoshenko was not politically motivated, for example, and that Yanukovych was the best leader to forge Ukraine’s relationship with Europe — exactly as Putin wanted.

Manafort also did other things to promote Putin’s agenda. According to the Associated Press, Manafort signed a contract in 2006 with Russian oligarch and Putin friend Oleg Deripaska. Deripaska agreed to pay Manafort $10 million a year to develop and execute an influence plan that Manafort promised would “greatly benefit the Putin Government.”

The Wall Street Journal has reported that Manafort carried out similar pro-Russian influence operations in Georgia and Montenegro, two other countries Putin has been keen to keep on a tight leash due to their geographic proximity and historic ties to Russia.

This type of lobbying shares many similarities with espionage.

Both focus on gathering information, and influencing and manipulating people to do one’s bidding. The only real difference is deniability: Intelligence agencies like to hide the fact that they are behind the influence.

Lobbyists often don’t — but Manafort did.

In fact, Manafort’s correspondence, included as evidence in court filings, is littered with spy lingo depicting his efforts at deniability. In a June 2012 email to his associates Rick Gates and Konstantin Kilimnik outlining plans to put together a high-level group of former European leaders to push Ukraine’s agenda, for example, Manafort notes “some informal and covert interaction is possible.”

He also pushed news stories denigrating Yanukovych’s political opponent in the American press. Those, too, needed to be “push[ed]” “[w]ith no fingerprints,” according to court filings.

As the charging documents state, Manafort hid that he and the government of Ukraine were behind efforts “to influence both American leaders and the American public.” He viewed “secrecy for himself and for the actions of his lobbyists as integral to the effectiveness of the lobbying offensive.”

Manafort and his partners even used other companies and individuals as cutouts, allowing them to influence policymakers “without any visible relationship with the Government of Ukraine,” according to the statement of offenses.

This all brings us to the question of collusion
Why did Manafort, a man who loved money, agree to work for Trump for free?

Was someone else paying him secretly? Were the loans he received from Deripaska or others connected to pro-Russian interests, whether business executives or organizations, really meant to be paid back? Or was Manafort in debt to these people, and thus vulnerable to coercion?

Manafort’s lawyers have denied he colluded with the Russian government. But his relationship with Deripaska, the Russian oligarch, included financial debt — which Deripaska wound up pursuing in the courts, and Manafort has denied.

This raises the question of what exactly Manafort owed to people close to Putin.

Of particular note is an email exchange — published by the Washington Post and the Atlantic — in which Manafort offered to brief Deripaska on developments in the Trump campaign.

This was an intriguing offer considering Deripaska’s relationship with Putin, and the fact that Manafort had received millions of dollars from Deripaska to do something. (They have each said the funds were for consulting or business deals that fell apart.)

Mueller may soon learn the answers to some of these questions, and perhaps the American public will learn the answer to the most important question of all: When Manafort worked on the Trump campaign, whose interests was he serving?

And here is an article which shows how badly murked the underbelly of the what is happening in the investigation


Mueller cooperator fears retribution from Russia
By JOSH GERSTEIN 09/27/2018 12:05 AM EDT
Robert Mueller
n a bid for leniency, defense attorney Jeremy Lessem argued that Richard Pinedo has experienced harassment and death threats over his walk-on role in special counsel Robert Mueller's probe. | Mark Wilson/Getty Images

Facebook Twitter Google + Email Print
A California man who admitted to unwittingly facilitating Russian interference in the 2016 election and later cooperated with special counsel Robert Mueller's investigation into the subject now fears for his safety, the man's attorney said in a court filing Wednesday,

Richard Pinedo, 28, is set to be sentenced next month for selling bank account numbers to Russian internet trolls who used the numbers to buy web ads aimed at advancing President Donald Trump's campaign and fomenting strife among Americans during the contentious election.

Story Continued Below

In a bid for leniency, defense attorney Jeremy Lessem argued that Pinedo has experienced harassment and death threats over his walk-on role in the Mueller probe. Lessem also suggested that Pinedo has curtailed his activities because fears he could be the victim of attack by Russia, Russian sympathizers, or their opponents.

"The mere act of providing publicly incriminating evidence against Russian nationals accused of undermining an American presidential election is not an undertaking one embarks on lightly, no matter what potential benefits may result," Lessem wrote in a sentencing filing Wednesday. "Indeed, in a time when those critical of Russia are being murdered, and those who defend Russia in the United States are threatened with violence, Mr. Pinedo’s cooperation with the investigation was an act that directly undermined his, and his family’s, safety."

The defense submission says Pinedo, who lives in rural Santa Paula, California, had never been out of the state before being contacted by investigators. But Lessem said Pinedo now won't consider traveling abroad.

"Due to safety concerns related to this case, Mr. Pinedo wouldn’t even consider traveling outside the country, and often suffers severe anxiety simply driving through his own neighborhood," the defense attorney said.

Lessem is asking that Pinedo get no prison time for the felony identity theft offense he admitted to in February. Prosecutors say sentencing guidelines call for him to receive from 12 months to 18 months, although part of that time could be served in home confinement. Mueller's team is not recommending any specific sentence.

Pinedo's conduct "recklessly enabled other criminal activity that may have otherwise been prevented," prosecutors wrote. However, they gave him credit for owning up to his actions and they say he "saved the government significant time and resources in the investigation."

U.S. District Court Judge Dabney Friedrich, a Trump appointee, is scheduled to sentence Pinedo in Washington on Oct. 10. He faces a maximum of 15 years in prison, but is likely to get a much shorter sentence in accord with federal sentencing guidelines.

Pinedo is set to become the third person sentenced in the Mueller probe.

In April, Dutch attorney Alex Van Der Zwaan was sentenced to 30 days in federal prison after admitting he lied to investigators about his activities while working for law firm Skadden Arps on matters related to Ukraine. He served his sentence and was deported in June.

Story Continued Below

Earlier this month, former Trump campaign foreign policy adviser George Papadopoulos received a 14-day sentence after conceding he lied to the FBI about his interactions with pro-Russian figures during the 2016 campaign.

Papadopoulos is free pending an order to surrender.


Democrats prepare to force vote on Mueller protection bill
By KYLE CHENEY 09/27/2018 12:19 PM EDT
Jim McGovern
Rep. Jim McGovern (D-MA) with the backing of Democrats on the House Judiciary Committee, intends to introduce a proposal that would force Republicans to decide whether to consider the Mueller-protection proposal or sideline it. | Alex Edelman/AFP/Getty Images

Facebook Twitter Google + Email Print
House Democrats are preparing to force a vote Thursday on a plan to protect special counsel Robert Mueller's probe from interference or unilateral removal by President Donald Trump.

Massachusetts Rep. Jim McGovern, with the backing of Democrats on the House Judiciary Committee, intend to introduce the proposal as an amendment ahead of expected consideration of three tax-related bills. The proposal would force Republicans to decide whether to consider the Mueller-protection proposal or sideline it.

Story Continued Below

For Democrats, the effort is a chance to force Republicans on the record on an issue that has generated some bipartisan support in the House and Senate. It's a matter Democrats have described with increasing urgency as Trump has ratcheted up his attacks on Mueller and the investigation of his campaign's contacts with Russia.

Republicans, though, have shown little urgency to support the measure, even as most have expressed support for Mueller being allowed to complete his work. They've argued that they don't believe Trump will try to remove Mueller, despite his rhetoric describing the investigation as illegitimate and a "witch hunt"

The measure, which has the backing of six House Republicans in addition to more than 120 House Democrats, would prohibit a special counsel from being removed without "good cause," such as a violation of Justice Department policy. The proposal would also prohibit removal by anyone other than the attorney general or the most highly ranked Justice Department official who oversees the special counsel.

In addition, the measure must provide written notice of any removal decision, including a detailed explanation, and provide the special counsel an opportunity to appeal to a three-judge panel. The court would also decide whether the special counsel would remain active while any appeal is pending -- and would guarantee that all documents, resources and materials are preserved.

Two Republican senators, Lindsey Graham of South Carolina and Thom Tillis of North Carolina, backed an identical measure in the Senate.

McGovern intends to introduce an amendment to a House rule to govern debate on three tax bills. The amendment would require Republicans to add the special counsel legislation to the list of bills to be considered.

Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.), top Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, has long sought the committee's consideration of the legislation but has been stymied along partisan lines.

And yet, Trump's popularity among Republicans remain high.

This political schism, one commentator noted, is unprecedented in the recent history of the United States. In substance, its beginning to resemble the rationalism of the Civil War.

Re: Trump enters the stage

PostPosted: Sat Sep 29, 2018 6:36 am
by Meno_
Deontological certainty:

Have still not read the visible and the invisible, despite setting it on my early spring reading list.

Trumpism is set to fail for the following reasons:

Nationalis , as much as aspiring to retain borders, fail on many levels, particularly on metaphysical, metapsychologocal and quantum-real levels. The basic force of entropy, the fall, cannot sustain the increasingly heavy forces pressing on internal and external forces on the architecture of decaying presumptions which try to reconstruct equally odious memories of ideograms.

The question is, will the final reckoning be a slow or a sudden climax.