What Comey Will Be Asked on Thursday Matters

Apparently Comey will not accuse President Trump of trying to obstruct justice when he appears before the Senate in what will be the most media-hyped proceedings since Anita Hill was brought before the Clarence Thomas hearings in 1991 to dish the dirt and try to sabotage Thomas’ Supreme Court confirmation.

What will he say then? That he has "concerns." This from ABC. Ok. So Jim Comey has concerns about possible collusion between Trump campaign officials and Russia. What evidence does he know of then? You can't really say "has" seeing he's not at the FBI anymore; unless he slipped a few classified folders into his briefcase on the final day. What evidence is there please Director Comey? Or will he play footsie once again without revealing enough, while perhaps revealing too much?

In other words, will Former FBI Director James Comey continue to do what he has shown to be a personal skill: piss everybody off and be self-righteous while doing so? Or will he actually reveal some detail that hints at where the FBI investigation might be heading. Will the future of the FBI investigation really be all about process crimes committed during the investigation - say misleading investigators, whether intentionally or because you stumbled on the prosecutors/investigators trap doors?

We don't know. What we do know now is that the leaks regarding the president apparently asking the FBI Director to lay off from investigating Flynn, is supposedly a result of a Trump tweet. Specifically the one where he threatened Comey with possible recordings of their conversation. Or at least, that's the excuse anonymous leakers have given to their favorite press contacts to explain the why they did it, regarding their anonymous leaks. Are we to believe they wouldn't have leaked - following the steady drip feed that has been happening since before Christmas last year - had Trump not tweeted that specific tweet??

So, what will Comey say?

Perhaps a better question is what new questions will they ask Comey? Democrats on the committee will clearly be pressing the former FBI Director to give them anything that smells just a little bit of obstruction of justice. Any morsel will do to feed the hysterical media coverage and inspire further frothing fits of speculation on how much time is left in Trump's presidency. And all with a constant wink at the midterms still well over a year away. "We can do it, we can do it fellow Democrats" they will chant, "if only Comey helps us out just a bit, please."

Will any GOP Senators join in and lean towards obstruction of justice in their questioning? What happens in the committee's side of the room will perhaps be as or even more important than Comey's carefully parsed posing. It's something to keep an eye on definitely.

Posted by Keeley at June 7, 2017 6:32 PM
Comment #417106

I believe it would behove the Democrats to not get to funny with the questioning because most people already know what Comey put in his pre hearing brief. There was no obstruction. There was a loud pop today and it was the Democrats bubble bursting.

Posted by: Richard Kapitan at June 7, 2017 7:09 PM
Comment #417107

It does not matter one whit what they ask of him.

This case is going nowhere except file 13.

The president is going to be cleared by Mueller

And now we can move forward to get the things that we sent
people to WDC to get done for us.

The smoking gun is only an illusion. The smoke is only from the DMC that is so hot to get the president that the gun could not be fired for it to get hot and smoke.

All the talk that has come from the anti-trump people is so much, and I will be polite here, hyperbole.

People at this location have been so adamantly wrong in their talk and I will not call it analysis, because it is not analysis.

To have an understanding is to have something to understand or as another wise man said “It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into”

Look forward to having the left do their duty

Turning the Cubs-Marlins on in another hour and enjoy America’s pastime

Posted by: tom humes at June 7, 2017 7:26 PM
Comment #417108

We know what he is going to say already, so…


Posted by: Rhinehold at June 7, 2017 8:28 PM
Comment #417109

that is a seven page doc.

There will be questions that are not included on the doc

Posted by: tom humes at June 7, 2017 8:48 PM
Comment #417110

One interesting thing to notice that the past couple of days some of the spokepeople of the left have been walking back the reports of pressure and collusion, saying we didn’t know the context, were taking a 3rd person account of the memo, etc… Basically what I’ve been saying for months now.

And after you read Comey’s opening statement, you can see why. This is a guy who is ‘mad at Trump for firing him’ and this was what he came up with… I’m sorry left, you should have stuck with fighting Trump on policy, you are losing this battle just like you lost the election, because you won’t spend the time fighting him on policy and want to destroy him personally instead.

The left just won’t learn.

Posted by: Rhinehold at June 7, 2017 9:01 PM
Comment #417113

Such as Tom? The best that the left will have is ‘do you think that his actions and then firing you was obstruction of justice?” And Comey will most likely say ‘as I understand there have been no efforts to alter any investigation since my firing, so no I don’t believe so.’ Anything else?

You know he’s not going to comment on any ongoing investigations… So what else is there to cover?

Posted by: Rhinehold at June 7, 2017 9:39 PM
Comment #417118


Posted by: Roy Ellis at June 7, 2017 10:17 PM
Comment #417120

There is no obstruction of justice here. Really very simple.
The left can and will come up with their usual contortion of symantics.


Bring it on

Posted by: tom humes at June 7, 2017 11:46 PM
Comment #417122

Obstruction of justice can be a vague charge, but in this case it is clear cut. The obstruction came about when Trump fired the Director of the FBI at a time when the Director was conducting a criminal and counter-intelligence investigation into the Trump campaign. However, it is not up to Comey to bring that charge. That will be up to the Special Counsel, Mueller, and even then, the charge will be referred to the House for possible impeachment.

Director Comey teed this up for Mueller very nicely. Comey never recorded memos during the Obama administration. Apparently he never felt threatened or potentially compromised. Comey documented everything about Trump after their first meeting on January 6th. Comey warned Trump that the FBI was independent, but Trump continued to press Comey despite that first warning.

Whether the Obstruction charge warrants impeachment will be up to the Republicans. Their call. The Quinnipiac poll has Trump’s approval rating at 34%. The GOP has to make a determination- fish or cut bait. If they cut Trump lose they face the loss of his base. We are seeing a cult of personality, and there is literally no behavior too low for Trump’s sycophants, so losing them is a very real consideration. But if things keep going this badly, the GOP may make an assessment that Trump is simply too incompetent to be allowed to continue in office, and therefore, an Obstruction charge is a good enough excuse to cut him loose.

Posted by: phx8 at June 8, 2017 12:22 AM
Comment #417124

Phx8, There is no obstruction of justice. If you believe there is you are delusional. Stay out of the grocery store tabloids. The only ones who think there is obstruction is the left wing loons and you.

Posted by: Richard Kapitan at June 8, 2017 1:10 AM
Comment #417125

Phx8, did you read the prepared statement Comey will give tomorrow? It doesn’t seem like it. Did you notice the part where Trump says he wanted to know if any if his administration did anything wrong? He felt the investigation was dragging, it has been seven months with still no actual evidence of any wrong doing, so he has a point, and wanted the cloud cleared so he could govern. That is different than stopping an investigation because they are ‘getting close’ to something.

What crime has been committed? What crime are they investigating?

How did firing Comey obstruct justice, Comey wasn’t the one investigating…

If you read the prepared statement, it was the investigation that got Comey fired, it was not telling the public that Trump wasn’t being investigated. How, exactly, is that obstruction?

Posted by: Rhinehold at June 8, 2017 2:00 AM
Comment #417135

Jimmy Failla @jimmyfailla

“Comey testifies that Trump didn’t try to shut down Russia probe & Loretta Lynch tried to manipulate Hillary investigation. The left reacts:

” (((DeanObeidallah))) @Deanofcomedy

June 8, 2017 will be the day remembered as the beginning of the end of the presidency of Donald J. Trump.”“

I think the left is missing some important information…

Posted by: Rhinehold at June 8, 2017 10:57 AM
Comment #417136

I also note that several times Comey has made it clear that many of the stories in the papers reporting on classified leaks are not just a little wrong but wholly wrong.

IE, fake news, as many have been saying for the past seven months.

No evidence, it’s just gossip. Stop this now ‘journalists’.

Posted by: Rhinehold at June 8, 2017 12:07 PM
Comment #417137

Glad to see you accept Comey as a credible witness and take him at his word.

Oh wait. Are you still denying it was the Russians who influenced our election because you knew of no evidence? Because Comey sure went on at length about that.

Did you like the part where Comey stated there was no need for a Special Counsel for HRC because there was “no case”?

“I knew there was no case there, and calling for the appointment of a special counsel would be brutally unfair, because people would say ‘Aha, there’s something there’.”

How about the opening, when Comey said Trump would lie, and that was why he memorialized everything. “I was honestly concerned he might lie about the nature of our meeting so I thought it important to document.”

Trump asked AG Sessions and VP Pence to leave the room so that Trump could be alone with Comey, and ask him to go easy on Flynn. That is Obstruction, and asking the others to leave the room shows consciousness of guilt.

Now it is up to the Special Counsel, Mueller, to investigate and recommend whatever he concludes.

Posted by: phx8 at June 8, 2017 3:29 PM
Comment #417139

“Comey never recorded memos during the Obama administration.”

Or he lied phx8.

“Did you like the part where Comey stated there was no need for a Special Counsel for HRC because there was “no case”?”

That was not his decision to make phx8. He exceeded his authority. He laid out the “case” and then was too cowardly to recommend referral to DOJ.

I can find similarities between the Russian efforts to affect our elections in the same way we have tried to do the same in the elections of other countries. We were caught and so were they. I find no case to make that their efforts succeeded. I find no case to even suggest that President Trump conspired with the Russians.

I am very curious to know what actions were taken by President Obama to stop the Russians.

Posted by: Royal Flush at June 8, 2017 4:02 PM
Comment #417140

In November our Pals on the Left called James Comey a devil, a liar, and worse.

Today, our Pals on the Left have called him…Saint James.

They are so fickle…so easily led, so gullible.

Posted by: Royal Flush at June 8, 2017 4:12 PM
Comment #417141

It is funny that during the campaign, Obama never did anything except scolding Russia. Even after all the 2 plus hours of testimony we still have a big nothingburger.

Posted by: Richard Kapitan at June 8, 2017 4:12 PM
Comment #417143
Are you still denying it was the Russians who influenced our election because you knew of no evidence?

I’m glad to see you still don’t understand the concept of requiring evidence to make a statement of fact or what I have been trying to discuss on that topic…

I never said that Russia didn’t try to influence the election, everyone tries to influence every election, it’s part of free speech. The US has tried to influence decades of elections, including Putin’s election AND Obama did his best to influence the French election as well. As did many others. People complain about RT or Sputnik and apparently forget what the Voice of America was created for?

What I objected to was if it was the Russian GRU who ‘hacked’ the DNC and we still have no evidence provided to us that they did. Until there is evidence, there is no ability to provide a ‘statement of fact’ on this. The Intelligence Community has lied to us before on other things, in fact they get paid to lie, so until we see evidence, all that exists are beliefs and assertions.

In fact, Comey kind of outed himself on this a bit today when he was asked about seeing the proof since they weren’t allowed to review the servers and had to rely on CrowdStrike for their forensics, his reply was ‘my people tell me we got enough to make a conclusion’. He doesn’t even know, yet makes a pronouncement of fact based on other’s understanding. This is what makes it maddening, without seeing the evidence, I can’t tell if Russia did in fact hack the DNC or if it was an inside job and CrowdStrike, who has been caught misstating other Russian hacks since their report, was just wrong. Or further into conspiracy territory, it was the CIA trying to pull one over on the FBI for internal reasons… No facts means lots of people saying they know things that we have no way to check the veracity of.

Did you like the part where Comey stated there was no need for a Special Counsel for HRC because there was “no case”?

I remember actually defending Hillary on this one, with apprehension, because it is difficult to prove intent. Not that that stops the government from putting other people in jail for the same thing (just the other day a Navy sailor was tossed in the brig for leaving a classified doc on a printer, surely there was no ill intent there. Hell, I was issued a punishment while in the Navy for not stamping a page of notes with a ‘confidential’ tag on them because I had run past where I expected to on my notes and didn’t have the inker next to me, waited until after class…)

But I wonder, did you miss the part where Comey said Lynch wanted him to end his investigation after she talked to Bill Clinton? Or are you picking and choosing?

“I was honestly concerned he might lie about the nature of our meeting so I thought it important to document.”

Quite prudent, I don’t know anyone who thinks of Trump is incapable of lying, the guy was in Real Estate FFS… lol

Trump asked AG Sessions and VP Pence to leave the room so that Trump could be alone with Comey, and ask him to go easy on Flynn. That is Obstruction, and asking the others to leave the room shows consciousness of guilt.

No, sorry this is not obstruction. Saying ‘I hope you can let this go’ is not the same as ‘You need to let this go’ or ‘I order you to let this go’. And even then, if he doesn’t follow through, it isn’t obstruction. Inappropriate yes, obstruction no.

BTW, you seem to conflate a lot in this whole thing, like many do, so let me clue you in on a few things.

1) Trump only mentioned Flynn to Comey once, many months ago, and said he hoped that he could see his way to letting it go. Comey obviously didn’t and Trump did nothing.

2) Trump did repeatedly ask that Comey make it clear to the public that HE was not under investigation. That it created a ‘cloud’ over his administration. The last time this conversation took place was two weeks before Trump fired Comey.

3) When Trump said he fired Comey to ‘clear up the cloud’, he was obviously talking about the fact that Comey did not go public with what he had told Trump three times was the case, that he wasn’t under investigation. It had nothing to do with Flynn, who he only talked with Comey about once 5 months ago.

Firing someone because they weren’t making something public is not obstruction of justice. The details of the timelines and the wordings have been very clear to point to what was going on here. It’s a shame that not everyone is willing to look at the facts unbiasedly, but that’s how modern politics is these days.

Further, Comey admits that Trump WANTED to know if anyone in his group were doing anything they shouldn’t be, he had no intention of shutting down the investigation. Further, even Comey had to admit that firing him didn’t affect the investigation at all and the thought of firing him to obstruct the investigation was ludicrous to him.

I’m sorry phx8, but this does not look like obstruction at all. FURTHER, if Mueller had any thought that Trump had obstructed justice, he would have been a pretty big fool to let Comey testify as he did… He would be the star witness in that case and just made public statements during an ongoing investigation. If the investigation was ongoing. I think you are going to find that Mueller is not going to be finding Trump guilty of obstruction from this. There is no ‘there there’ as the left liked to say the past eight years…

Posted by: Rhinehold at June 8, 2017 4:19 PM
Comment #417148

Comey is portraying himself as a victim. Lol. Whiney, and butthurt is the only way I can describe his behavior.

Posted by: dbs at June 8, 2017 5:12 PM
Comment #417149

Right on dbs. He is a self-admitted “coward” as well.

Posted by: Royal Flush at June 8, 2017 5:14 PM
Comment #417152

Trump’s defense lawyer said Trump never demanded loyalty from Comey, and never asked him to go easy on Flynn; in other words, the Trump defense is ‘Comey lied.’ In both of those instances it is a he said/he said situation. However, Comey documented the conversations at the time, His memos carry legal standing. Comey also informed other staff of the conversations at that time.

This is where Trump’s damaged credibility comes into play. Trump has lied so often that no one is likely to give him the benefit of the doubt, especially when Comey is giving his version of events. The strategy for defense is obvious- deny the most damaging allegations and hope that is enough to prevent this from going any further. Obviously they are acutely aware of the danger of an Obstruction charge.

This is where Trump’s low approval ratings also matter. The latest Quinnipiac poll puts Trump at 34%. Not many legislators will be anxious to go to the mat for this guy.

Special Counsel Mueller will refer the case to the House for impeachment. He reviewed the memos and discussed this with Comey prior to the testimony. It is NOT up to Mueller to determine if Trump is guilty- only whether the charge should be taken up by the House.

Comey’s memos are NOT privileged communications. He is a private citizen and he is the one who created his own memos. The memos do not discuss classified information and the White House never asserted executive privilege, so Comey is free to use his own memos as he wishes.

Posted by: phx8 at June 8, 2017 5:52 PM
Comment #417153

“Special Counsel Mueller will refer the case to the House for impeachment.”

WTF phx8, you know this for a fact? Will you people ever learn to wait for facts?

Posted by: Royal Flush at June 8, 2017 6:06 PM
Comment #417154

Phx8… Another example of people only believing what they want to believe and ignoring what they want to ignore… Essentially, continuing to discuss with you is a waste of time.

Posted by: Rhinehold at June 8, 2017 6:07 PM
Comment #417155

I keep telling you phx8, quit reading those grocery store tabloids they are making you look foolish.

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at June 8, 2017 6:11 PM
Comment #417156

BTW one thing getting lost… Comey said there was zero evidence for this story. Meaning it is fake news. Something many of us have been trying to get people to realize for months.


Posted by: Rhinehold at June 8, 2017 6:17 PM
Comment #417157
During the hearing, Mr. Comey said there were inaccuracies in many articles about the F.B.I.’s Russia investigation, a problem he attributed in part to anonymous sources discussing classified information.
Posted by: Rhinehold at June 8, 2017 6:28 PM
Comment #417159


Posted by: Rhinehold at June 8, 2017 6:47 PM
Comment #417160

This is one of many key conversations that shows WHY Trump fired Comey, it wasn’t over Flynn…

FEINSTEIN: You described two phone calls that you received from President Trump, one on March 30 and one on April 11, where he, quote, “described the Russia investigation as a cloud that was impairing his ability,” end quote, as president, and asked you, quote, “to lift the cloud,” end quote.

What — how did you interpret that? And what did you believe he wanted you to do?

COMEY: I interpreted that as he was frustrated that the Russia investigation was taking up so much time and energy, I — I think he meant, of the executive branch, but in the — in the public square in general, and it was making it difficult for him to focus on other priorities of his. But what he asked me was actually narrower than that.

COMEY: So I think what he meant by the cloud, and again, I could be wrong, but what I think he meant by the cloud was the entire investigation is — is taking up oxygen and making it hard for me to focus on the things I want to focus on.

The ask was to get it out that I, the president, am not personally under investigation.

FEINSTEIN: After April 11th, did he ask you more, ever, about the Russia investigation? Did he ask you any questions?

COMEY: We never spoke again after April 11th.

Posted by: Rhinehold at June 8, 2017 7:26 PM
Comment #417161

The fact that the media can’t get this single salient and important point is telling you what the agenda is. They are wanting sensationalize the entire thing to sell ad-views, to make money, to feed the hunger of the left looking for any reason to rationalize their loss last year.

It’s abhorrent.

I disagree with much about Trump’s agenda and personally think the man is slime. But even slime deserves to be treated honorably by those who portend to be honorable and are offended by his dishonerablility.

Posted by: Rhinehold at June 8, 2017 7:29 PM
Comment #417162

Dershowitz: Comey confirms that I’m right - and all the Democratic commentators are wrong

“Comey confirmed that under our Constitution, the president has the authority to direct the FBI to stop investigating any individual. I paraphrase, because the transcript is not yet available: the president can, in theory, decide who to investigate, who to stop investigating, who to prosecute and who not to prosecute. The president is the head of the unified executive branch of government, and the Justice Department and the FBI work under him and he may order them to do what he wishes.

Now that even former Director Comey has acknowledged that the Constitution would permit the president to direct the Justice Department and the FBI in this matter, let us put the issue of obstruction of justice behind us once and for all and focus on the political, moral, and other non-criminal aspects of President Trump’s conduct.”


Posted by: Royal Flush at June 8, 2017 7:39 PM
Comment #417163

The NYT article from 2/14 been proven correct, and multiple outlets have confirmed it. Sessions, Kushner, Flynn, Page, and others have had multiple contacts with Russian intelligence. The only sense in which the NYT article might be inaccurate from Comey’s point of view is that the FBI has a much narrower definition of a person working for Russian intelligence, and therefore, contacts with the Russian Ambassador or a Russian banker with an intelligence background might not count.

Trump was not under personal investigation. His campaign was under investigation. Trump may be under investigation now. That is the problem with making assertions about an ongoing criminal investigation. In addition, questions about collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia have not been answered in public testimony.

Dershowitz makes a clever case for why Trump cannot be held accountable to US laws. While it is true a president can fire an FBI Director at any time, that does not mean the president is not accountable to the law. Or does it? If we accept Dershowitz’s theory (and some others), the ONLY way to hold a president accountable is through impeachment. As a purely practical matter, that does not seem like a good idea because it sets such a high bar.

There are a lot of questions here. Can a Special Counsel indict a president for Obstruction? Treason? Tax evasion? The question is not really addressed in the Constitution. I suspect Mueller will present the evidence to the House with a recommendation for impeachment, and then detail his reasons. As to whether anything actually happens in the House, that will be up to the GOP.

Posted by: phx8 at June 8, 2017 10:15 PM
Comment #417164

Wait a minute this is no longer about Russia?

Posted by: George in SC at June 8, 2017 10:39 PM
Comment #417168

Sorry phx8, but Comey was not wishy washy in his response to the question about the article. NY Times is trying to guess what Comey was talking about and came up with the ‘well, his definition of agent is different than ours’ nonsense.

If they weren’t agents in the ‘fbi’ sense, then why do we care? It makes the whole article pointless and nonsensical.

Comey didn’t say they were ‘a little off’, he said it was wrong.

COTTON: On February 14th, the New York Times published a story, the headline of which was, “Trump Campaign Aides Had Repeated Contacts With Russian Intelligence.”

You were asked earlier if that was an inaccurate story, and you said, in the main. Would it be fair to characterize that story as almost entirely wrong?


Posted by: Rhinehold at June 9, 2017 2:22 AM
Comment #417178

It might be a stretch to differentiate between a Russian intelligence agent and, say, the Russian ambassador, or the head of VEB bank who went to the KGB school for training, or Russian oligarchs like Rybolovlev who work closely with Putin, or the other contacts made by the Trump campaign, but there is no other sensible explanation unless Comey simply lied. I don’t think he lied. But Comey is a professional in his field, and his idea of a Russian intelligence agent might be a lot more limited than what most of us would think. Reporting to Putin or passing information to the GRU or FSB may not make a person a Russian intelligence agent in the eyes of the FBI Director, but for most people there is no difference.

Posted by: phx8 at June 9, 2017 9:51 AM
Comment #417179

So are we getting to the “what the definition of is is” moment? I would suggest that even if Trump meets the criteria for impeachment the Congress give him a pass. Anyone that could prove Trumps ties to Russia is dead, Putin has seen to that. On this side of the Atlantic anyone that could prove anything is either guilty of something themselves or bought off and will remain quiet.

We need Trump to be president for no other reason than to get his agenda on the table. Either it works for those that voted for him or it doesn’t, the sooner the better IMHO. The country needs to put the mans policies to the test. Otherwise we will spend decades hearing about how tax cuts for the rich would have solved everything.Were Trump, ala Nixon, removed from office his followers will claim yet another Sandy Hook type conspiracy and …well….maybe even vote again.

Yes selfish reasons to want to ignore the Russian interference in the election. To want to ignore the relationship between Trump and Putin. But is lifting the cloud of suspicion a wise step? Trump needs to realize that he is in the spotlight and grow into the office soon, I think we all can agree, but Trump voters need to get their fill of this guy and without him in office he will become a martyr to those that think a few hundred more coal industry jobs will make the difference.

Besides if the video of Trump with Russian prostitutes isn’t part of this case who cares?

Posted by: j2t2 at June 9, 2017 11:17 AM
Comment #417180
his idea of a Russian intelligence agent might be a lot more limited than what most of us would think

You mean people with an agenda think… Turn the tables and compare your version of an ‘agent’ with nearly any businessman in the US. It’s not rational to go to those lengths and Comey has called out the Times for publishing a fake news story. NY Times can hem and haw about it, trying to explain it away, and people like you will believe whatever BS they toss out because there are partisan reasons to do so. But this isn’t the only story (as I pointed out) and not the only news organization to get things wrong by relying on ‘unnamed sources’. CNN had to retract a story they got about Comey’s testimony, Comey explained that there are many stories that are not true, but they aren’t in the business of going out and correcting them.

This is why journalism rules strictly limit the use of unnamed sources to the barest of minimums. Not every story you print for 6 months.


1. Identify sources whenever feasible. The public is entitled to as much information as possible on sources’ reliability.

The most important professional possession of journalists is credibility. If the news consumers don’t have faith that the stories they are reading or watching are accurate and fair, if they suspect information attributed to an anonymous source has been made up, then the journalists are as useful as a parka at the equator.

2. Always question sources’ motives before promising anonymity. Clarify conditions attached to any promise made in exchange for information. Keep promises.

The information-gathering business is a give-and-take practice with a lot of public officials. Some are willing to provide information only when it benefits them. When someone asks to provide information off the record, be sure the reason is not to boost her own position by undermining someone else’s, to even the score with a rival, to attack an opponent or to push a personal agenda. Media outlet practices vary, but journalists should not overlook the danger of legal problems and credibility damage from publishing anonymously sourced information that is not confirmed by public records or credible sources. Before journalists allow themselves to be used by an anonymous source they should be sure to question whether the news value warrants whatever the source hopes to accomplish.

BTW, the Times has a recent history of getting things wrong and never retracting or if they do it’s very small fine print somewhere.. Some examples:


And we can’t forget the Aleppo moment when the Times trying to bash Johnson got FOUR facts about Aleppo wrong and had to keep ‘fixing’ their story.

One day people are either going to wise up and demand that the NY Times return to some form of legitimate journalist practice or just move on from the paper as a source of news. Well, except the ones who use it for fuel for their echo chamber, those will be harder to move, like the people who read wnd or newsmax…

Posted by: Rhinehold at June 9, 2017 2:06 PM
Comment #417187

Dijon Mustard. At this point in the Barrack Obama presidency Faux News, digging deep to find dirt on Obama, was criticizing Obama for choosing Dijon Mustard on his sandwich. Quite the leap to Russian interference and the Trump administration from Dijon mustard. Seems to me now that the shoe is on the other foot it is time to look back and remember how if not for fake news or fake crisis’s how well we had it.

Trump has flapped his gums for over a year now, Held power for almost half a year yet how has he made the little guy, the Trump voters life any better? His crony capitalism and nepotism isn’t helping. His choice of administration has been embarrassing for someone that was going to drain the swamp.While we are all mired in his circus the HoR has voted to repeal Dodd Frank for their bankster friends. Is Trump’s only saving grace his ability to be the clown show that distracts the rest of us from the business at hand?

Posted by: j2t2 at June 9, 2017 9:53 PM
Comment #417197

You ask how has Trump “made the little guy, the Trump voter’s life any better?”

Truly, I can not think of a single thing he has done that would actually help the little guy. Not one. I can’t even come up with anything close.

“His crony capitalism and nepotism isn’t helping.”

It’s appalling. I just close my eyes and clench my teeth, and hope the corruption will not hurt too much. Right from the start I knew this administration would be a real doozy, and right from the proverbial Day One Trump stomped all over the emoluments clause. The GOP Congress used Day One to try to repeal ethics oversight.

I’m not even sure what “drain the swamp” means. How does privatization and deregulating the Banksters help anyone who is not among the richest of the rich? The Trump administration has done away with transparency wherever possible, such as hiding the logs of who visits the White House, and granting more waivers for lobbyists to work in government on their pet causes than Obama granted in eight years! The cabinet is full of Goldman Sachs guys and billionaires.

No doubt, Trump is something of a distraction with his gross incompetence and his carnival barking lies, one after the other. He barely bothers to use complete sentences anymore. I dunno. The guy is an idiot. Maybe he can’t help it.

In the Senate, behind closed doors, the Republicans are trying to come up with a way to take more than $800 billion in Medicaid money, which is used to provide health care coverage for the poor, and give that money to corporations and the richest of the rich in the form of tax cuts.

Posted by: phx8 at June 10, 2017 5:06 PM
Comment #417198

It appears that the greater phx8’s anguish over President Trump, the broader the smile on Conservative faces.

Despite being obstructed by corrupt Federal judges, Democrats in congress, members of his own party, and much of the print and broadcast media; my President never looses his confidence or energy. He has succeeded in fulfilling some campaign promises and is working hard to expand our economy so that all Americans able and willing to work and learn can achieve their goals.

He is righting our ship-of-state from its terrible Liberal lean which endangered our Democratic Republic. He has applied common sense, business sense, and traditional American values to our common problems. The footprint of evil that was advancing is now static and will soon be in retreat here, and around the world.

God Bless America and God Bless Donald Trump.

Posted by: Royal Flush at June 10, 2017 6:23 PM
Comment #417199

So… You can’t actually name anything. Ok.

Oh wait. “Confidence and energy.” Except for the part where he had to cancel an event in Saudi Arabia due to exhaustion. Except for the part at the G7 meeting where he had to ride in a golf cart while the other six leaders walked.

And the reason he has accomplished virtually nothing is that everybody is obstructing him? Really? It is all someone else’s fault, is that it? How do you explain the fact that he has not nominated one District Attorney? All 100 quit or were fired in January. No one is stopping him from nominating DA’s. Out of 500 plus appointments and nominations that need to be made, he has not named anyone for over 400.

As for succeeding with campaign promises, I would be hard pressed to name any. Trump signed an EO allowing coal companies to pollute streams. He is on a record setting pace for signing EO’s, I will give you that, but most call for reviews or are statements of purpose, and do not actually do anything. He quietly signed legislation to allow companies to make profits by selling your browser history to anyone who wants it. No cameras for that signing ceremony! I said, No Cameras! Let’s see…

He intentionally omitted a passage on Article 5 stressing our commitment to NATO. The German leader said they may not be able to count on America anymore. The Canadian foreign minister offered for Canada to take over the mantle of leadership vacated by Trump. But hey, relations with Russia are just peachy!

I can not name a single thing that he has done to expand the economy. Truly. Not one. Neither can you.


Posted by: phx8 at June 10, 2017 7:14 PM
Comment #417201

Why would I bother listing the achievements Trump has accomplished again phx8?

I simply get the same denials from you. Waste of my time.

Posted by: Royal Flush at June 10, 2017 7:43 PM
Comment #417202

By the way phx8…your prediction of “fireworks” at the Comey hearing turned out, as I predicted, a smelly fart and insignificant sparkler. Comey is now in danger of being charged with a crime.

Posted by: Royal Flush at June 10, 2017 7:45 PM
Comment #417203

Uh huh. There are just soooo many achievements Trump has accomplished, it would consume enormous amounts of time just to list them! Yep. So many. So, so many.

The testimony was watched by 19 million people. The former Director of the primary law enforcement in the United
States stated under oath that the president was so likely to lie, it was necessary to document the conversations and inform others of what was being documented as it happened.

“I was honestly concerned that he might lie about the nature of our meeting, and so I thought it really important to document.”

So if there was no investigation into Obstruction of Justice by Trump before, there certainly is now. The investigation will be run by a previous Director of the FBI, a man who maintained good relations with Director Comey and met with him last week.

Fireworks? So, teeing up a Special Prosecutor for a charge of Obstruction of Justice charge wasn’t good enough?

In the meantime, there are two grand juries convened that we know of. There may be others. The investigation into collusion and another into money laundering are being conducted by the same Special Counsel, and he has just hired a couple of the best prosecutorial legal minds in the country.

I don’t think God will bless Donald Trump. I think Donald Trump is more likely to find himself dealing with an angry and vengeful God.

Posted by: phx8 at June 10, 2017 8:10 PM
Comment #417204

“Truly, I can not think of a single thing he has done that would actually help the little guy. Not one. I can’t even come up with anything close.”

He’s been president for 5 months, and gotten nothing but interference from the msm and democrats. But there is one thing he’s done for the little guy……appointed a supreme court justice that will follow the constitution, and not rule based on the latest politically correct bulls34t.

Posted by: dbs at June 11, 2017 9:58 AM
Comment #417205

Trump has got twice as many laws passed as Obama had at this time in his admin.

Posted by: Weary Willie at June 11, 2017 11:12 AM
Comment #417206

So, let’s see… Trump has seen “nothing but interference” from Democrats, but has passed twice as many laws as Obama at this time.

Will Gorsuch do anything for the little guy? I don’t know. No one knows. He is too new.

Trump actually has passed twice as many laws as Obama at this time. That is true.

“… the 28 bills aren’t very significant… For example, three bills appoint individuals to the Smithsonian Institution board, two name buildings, and one designates a location for a National Desert Storm and Desert Shield Memorial.

The most notable bills Trump has signed are a set of 13 that reverse Obama-era regulations on a range of issues including on internet privacy and gun control… these bills made it to Trump’s desk through a process made possible by the Congressional Review Act, which became law in 1996. The act gives Congress a narrow window to reverse regulations, so these 13 bills had to get through Congress within Trump’s first 100 days.”


Obama passed only 14, including the Lily Ledbetter Fair Pay Act and an $800 billion stimulus that saved the economy.

What about Trump? Well, he and the GOP undermined internet privacy- YOUR internet privacy- by allowing corporations to access and sell YOUR personal browsing information for THEIR profit. How does that help the little guy? Who benefits from that, pray tell? How does that help you, WW? How does that help you, dbs?

And the gun control legislation allows mentally ill people to buy guns without restriction. What could possibly go wrong? Is there anyone who thinks giving mentally ill people access to guns is a good idea?

Posted by: phx8 at June 11, 2017 12:09 PM
Comment #417208
Is there anyone who thinks giving mentally ill people access to guns is a good idea?

I do phx8. Myself and the repubs in Congress. I think everyone, felons, the mentally ill, young kids, those imprisoned, everyone should be able to defend themselves from “law abiding until they aren’t” and militarized police types.

I know this may be a bit extreme but with so many weapons in this country why should the less than perfect be forced to defend themselves from the “law abiding” with rocks or sticks? I would say we have the same chance that a mentally ill person can save someone from a law abiding until they aren’t type as much as a law abiding can save someone from a mentally ill type. I am judging based upon the number of law abiding types that have killed someone in recent years and the number of suicides that have occurred, I mean how many suicides have killed someone before they killed themselves? I would venture a guess the percentage is about the same percentage that were law abiding until they weren’t that killed someone else.

Another issue we need to realize is if we take constitutional rights away from the mentally ill how long before they lose their other rights, such as religious freedom and free speech rights. Slippery slope we walk when we take gun rights away from the mentally ill, felons, prisoners, and young kids.

Posted by: j2t2 at June 11, 2017 1:01 PM
Comment #417209

While we are on this subject I also think Trump should sign an executive order requiring tourists to carry a sidearm while visiting our country. After all we rank 84th in the world and only Israel and Turkey of the first world countries rank lower.


Posted by: j2t2 at June 11, 2017 1:27 PM
Comment #417212

Here is the list from WW’s linked article:

•Approved the pipelines.
•Opened up drilling.
•Helped coal companies.
•Backed out of TPP.
•Backed out of Paris deal.
•Shored up relationship with Mideast countries.
•Is getting NATO countries to pay their 2%.
•Slowed border crossings substantially.
•Incited the House to move to get rid of Dodd Frank.

Maybe I just have a high bar, but for me, negating things does not really count as an accomplishment. Backing out of the Paris deal went against the recommendations of the Department of Energy, the scientific community, over 1100 major corporations including Exxon, the Secretary of State and former CEO of Exxon, and 190 countries. It cost the US its position as a world leader, it hurt our relationship with good allies and fellow democracies, and it put us at a disadvantage in developing the most promising technologies in the world. The vast majority of Americans thought that was a terrible idea. It drove Trump’s approval rating down even further, to 34%.

And that’s the good news?

Maybe I’m just picky, but usually I expect accomplishments to result in something positive happening.

I’m not clear on why more drilling is a good idea. Never mind Global Warming- the price of oil is low. It makes new pipelines financially unfeasible.

Trump had nothing to do with the House bill on Dodd Frank.
The House Republicans have been wanting to repeal it for a long time. Their Banksters donate big money, and the Banks don’t like the Consumer Financial Protection Board protecting millions of consumers by levying billions in fines for fraudulent practices. Because that’s how Republicans help the little guy, ya know.

Let’s ask the Qataris about Trump’s accomplishments in the Middle East; after all, one of the two main airbases for prosecuting the air war against ISIS is located in Qatar. Trump came down with the Saudi faction against Qatar. The possibility of losing one of our two largest air bases for the fight against ISIS doesn’t strike me as an accomplishment.

Posted by: phx8 at June 11, 2017 3:26 PM
Comment #417213

You’d save yourself some suffering from carpaltunnel if you just wrote; “Obama could do nothing wrong, and Trump can do nothing right.”

Posted by: Weary Willie at June 11, 2017 3:51 PM
Comment #417214

” Is there anyone who thinks giving mentally ill people access to guns is a good idea?”

What an odd, throwback to medieval times, statement that is phx8. Are you serious? Does the Second Amendment mention any citizens who are disqualified for inclusion.

Perhaps we should suggest that Liberals and Socialist be banned from the free exercise of Speech under the First Amendment as we know, for certain, that their speech is harmful to freedom and our Democratic Republic.

Posted by: Royal Flush at June 11, 2017 3:54 PM
Comment #417215

Seeing as how the 2nd mentions the need for a “well regulated” militia, it is kind of hard to see why a person who is hearing voices should bring their own gun to participate. “Well regulated” and ‘mentally ill’ seem mutually exclusive.

Posted by: phx8 at June 11, 2017 4:13 PM
Comment #417216

I did not expect phx8 to agree with our Constitutional rights as written. He can find an exception to its protections just about anywhere for anyone. His anti-individual rights positions are clear as are his pro-group rights. Neanderthals like Phx8 are abominable.

Obviously our Pal on the Left fears anyone who is mentally ill. I supposed he avoids them and would prefer they all be institutionalized.

Posted by: Royal Flush at June 11, 2017 4:25 PM
Comment #417217

One man’s mental illness is another man’s opinion.

Posted by: Weary Willie at June 11, 2017 5:02 PM
Comment #417218

Most of the rights in the Bill of Rights balance the individual’s interest with the public interest. The best known example is the question concerning the right of free speech, and whether a person can shout ‘fire’ in a crowded theater; however, there are cases for most of rights that make clear an individual’s rights are not absolute. No question- when in doubt, an individual’s rights should be given precedent over the public interest. But there are cases where that is simply a bad idea. Allowing the mentally ill or convicted murderers to purchase weapons, without at least conducting a background check, runs the far greater risk of violating another’s right to live.

As for mental illness in general, there was a time when most severely distressed people were institutionalized. That changed with Reagan. Now we see those people all the time. We saved a lot of money by throwing them into the street. Now they are homeless and begging.

Posted by: phx8 at June 11, 2017 5:07 PM
Comment #417219

I wonder what autistic people could come up with if they had absolutely no contact with “normal” people.

Posted by: Weary Willie at June 11, 2017 5:08 PM
Comment #417220

I consider these facts an achievement for every American. The S&P 500 is up more than 12 percent since Election Day, unemployment has reached a 16-year low and economic growth in the coming year is expected to reach 2.3 percent, more robust growth than the 1.6 percent it grew in 2016.

Phx8 measures achievement by who gets to use which toilet and how many taxpayer dollars flow into his favorite MMGW group.

Phx8 is so biased on good folks who are being treated for some kind of mental illness that I refuse to discuss this any further. For him, every mental illness is the same and they should be shunned, taken against their will, or medical advice, to an institution to spend the rest of their lives. He is cruel, uncaring, and unAmerican.

His kind of “normal” is not welcome in this country.

Posted by: Royal Flush at June 11, 2017 5:18 PM
Comment #417226

WW & RF,
I can’t tell if you two of you know that much, or that little, about mental illness. It runs a wide gamut. Since WB is for discussing politics, I will leave it alone.

The stock market, unemployment rate, and GDP are all continuing the same trends that have been in place under Obama. That is a good thing. But I am never sure what to make of it when Trump supporters tout the economy. The numbers are similar today to what they were under Obama. The trends are the same. And yet, under Obama, the statistics were supposedly fake. Now they are genuine? Nothing changed with the economy. The same people are compiling the statistics.

Conservatives are telling a monstrous lie about the economy. Were they lying back then, when Obama was president? Or are they lying now?

Posted by: phx8 at June 11, 2017 5:44 PM
Comment #417227

What a dolt. Obama spent $10 Trillion in eight years and couldn’t even get the economy to two percent growth.

What do we have to show for the $10 Trillion spent under Obama?

Do we have magnificent infrastructure? Hell no

Do we have less poverty? Hell no

Do we have better educated children? Hell no

Do we have full employment? Nearly

Do we have the best military preparedness ever? Hell no

Do we have richer Democrat and Republican Fatcats and unions? Yes

Posted by: Royal Flush at June 11, 2017 5:51 PM
Comment #417228
What an odd, throwback to medieval times, statement that is phx8. Are you serious? Does the Second Amendment mention any citizens who are disqualified for inclusion.

Or felons, prisoners, tourists, immigrants, little kids, right Royal?

Speaking of throwback to the middle ages Royal Can’t the same thing be said for conservatives position on voting rights? I mean Conservative state legislatures have made voter suppression laws in defiance of the Constitution for years now. The Constitution grants Women and those of color the right to vote and doesn’t mention any ID or other poll tax BS your team has come up with over the years to suppress the vote.

Perhaps we should suggest that Liberals and Socialist be banned from the free exercise of Speech under the First Amendment as we know, for certain, that their speech is harmful to freedom and our Democratic Republic.

Do you also favor a tattoo on these liberals and socialist Royal? The Constitution doesn’t mention anything about yelling fire in a theater right. Nor does the Constitution prohibit sexual preference when it comes to marriage or Muslims practicing Sharia law if their religious beliefs dictate it. The Constitution is the final say as written…right?

Posted by: j2t2 at June 11, 2017 6:00 PM
Comment #417229

Dolt. The Supreme Court has ruled favorably on my statements regarding the second amendment and unfavorably, or not at all, on your arguments about other issues.

Posted by: Royal Flush at June 11, 2017 6:07 PM
Comment #417230

” Nor does the Constitution prohibit sexual preference when it comes to marriage or Muslims practicing Sharia law if their religious beliefs dictate it.”

Does allowing sharia law to be forced on another against their will violate their god given natural right, to life liberty, and the pursuit of happiness ? What the actual f@#k ? Are you brain dead ? You apparently have no understanding of sharia law. Here’s a clue, it’s not voluntary.

Posted by: dbs at June 11, 2017 7:08 PM
Comment #417231

“Seeing as how the 2nd mentions the need for a “well regulated” militia, it is kind of hard to see why a person who is hearing voices should bring their own gun to participate. “Well regulated” and ‘mentally ill’ seem mutually exclusive.”

Except that “well regulated” does not refer to government supervision. And that pesky comma between the 2 statements lets them stand alone. The second being ” the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”. “Shall not”. https://definitions.uslegal.com/s/shall/

Posted by: dbs at June 11, 2017 7:28 PM
Comment #417232
What a dolt.

WTF Royal you sputter stupidity but you don’t answer the question and then have the temerity to call someone else a dolt? What has changed? Are you lying now or were you lying then?

So this list of supposed Trump accomplishments seems to be stretching things a bit, especially when it comes to “helping the little guys that voted for him”.

How many new coal jobs have been created due to Trump helping the coal companies dump pollutants into the water supply? How many new jobs were added due to the “shoring up” of the middle east?

How much of this NATO 2% has actually happened? Have we decreased our budget accordingly and created any jobs for the little guy?

How many Trump voter jobs were created by getting out of the TPP and Paris Climate Accord?

What exactly has he done for the little guys that voted for him, and I don’t mean the Russians nor the corporations.

What we tend to forget is Trump and his party has majorities in both houses of Congress. Clear sailing for their promises to the American people but all they have done is help the banksters that created the last crash!

Posted by: j2t2 at June 11, 2017 8:31 PM
Comment #417233
Does allowing sharia law to be forced on another against their will violate their god given natural right, to life liberty, and the pursuit of happiness ?

dbs, you obviously don’t know what sharia law is or how it is practiced. Most Muslims consider sharia law a personal code of conduct, not something that will be forced on to anyone else. And that couldn’t happen in the United States. But there is every right for them to personally practice their sharia laws and, if they choose, enter into agreements where both parties in the agreement are held to that standard if both agree to. Even setting up court systems to adjudicate those agreements.

Just as some Christians try to inject their religious views into the law system (there is even a political party dedicated to this, calling themselves ironically enough the Constitution Party) and are rebuffed, so would/will Muslims who try the same thing. Quit buying into the propagandic paranoia intended to get you to vote a certain way. See past those obvious attempts…

Posted by: Rhinehold at June 11, 2017 9:15 PM
Comment #417234
Dolt. The Supreme Court has ruled favorably on my statements regarding the second amendment and unfavorably, or not at all, on your arguments about other issues.

I suppose it is because you are so important in your own mind the SCOTUS rules on most of your comments Dolt. I know the SCOTUS has ruled on the voter suppression laws you guys have enacted over the years so what exactly are you talking about dolt?

Dbs hopefully you attended the protests that took place this weekend to keep those dastardly Muslims from taking over the entire country and instituted Sharia law? I know it was close to being a real issue here in this country. Good thing Trump has a handle on it, keeping us safe and all. But he** what do I know? Tell us your personal story dbs, tell us how you came so close to being a victim of Sharia law. Tell us your story of your town or city being forced into accepting Sharia law.

Posted by: j2t2 at June 11, 2017 10:15 PM
Comment #417239

Weary Willie, thanks for helping me make my point. A doctor was arrested for doing something against the law. Unless you were trying to make some other point? In which case you failed…

Posted by: Rhinehold at June 12, 2017 7:28 AM
Comment #417240

j2t2 asked for examples of Sharia have affected people in the U.S.

From the article:

The CDC states that the massive increase in the monstrous practice of female genital mutilation/cutting (FGM/C) is “wholly a result of rapid growth in the number of immigrants from FGM/C-practicing countries living in the United States.”

Muslim organizations claiming that FGM is not approved of may be covering up what some Muslims actually feel; the Assembly of Muslim Jurists in America, which according to The Post “renders official religious rulings for Muslims living in the U.S.,” says clitoris cutting is good for women.
Senior AMJA official Dr. Hatem Elhagaly said the Muslim prophet Muhammad was quoted approving the practice in a hadith; “A very small portion of the clitoris may be removed in the procedure.” he wrote in a recent fatwa. Shockingly, Elhagaly was an American Academy of Pediatrics fellow and Mayo Clinic pediatrician until 2012

This isn’t about one doctor. It’s about a mutilation sanctioned by Islamic culture and practiced in secret here in the U.S.

Posted by: Weary Willie at June 12, 2017 7:49 AM
Comment #417241
j2t2 asked for examples of Sharia have affected people in the U.S.

Well what I actually asked for was “Tell us your personal story dbs, tell us how you came so close to being a victim of Sharia law. Tell us your story of your town or city being forced into accepting Sharia law.”, Weary. Ya see I was assuming dbs isn’t Muslim.

Your examples are of Muslims practicing a ritual already outlawed in this country, a poor example of poor dbs being forced into obeying Sharia law. So what else ya got, my friend?

Posted by: j2t2 at June 12, 2017 8:42 AM
Comment #417242

I’m agree with j2t2 here, this isn’t an indication of anything other than the US isn’t going to allow violations to our constitution to take place, even if they are tied to a religious belief.

There are countries that practice slavery, for example, and it is practiced in secret here in the US and prosecuted if discovered. That doesn’t make it a practice that the US is willing to allow. Your argument is specious at best.

About the only thing that comes close is that the US allows male genital mutilation to take place, but there is at least a pretense (though falling out of favor) of a medical reason behind it.

Posted by: Rhinehold at June 12, 2017 10:23 AM
Comment #417244

Saw the strangest thing on cable news this morning. At first I thought it was satire. Was this a comedy entitled “The Lickspittles?” Or “Fawning Sycophants getting Obsequious With It?” Surely somebody was trolling, maybe SNL. But no. It was real. It was a televised presidential cabinet meeting around a big table. One by one, each cabinet member said a sentence about their department, and then praised Trump. That was bizarre. I’ve never seen so many people toadying.

Strange times indeed.

Posted by: phx8 at June 12, 2017 4:15 PM
Comment #417245

Here are some quotes from that weird cabinet meeting:

First, Trump started things rolling with a gratuitous lie:
“I think we’ve been about as active as you can possibly be and at a just about record-setting pace.”

Next came Pence: “This is the greatest privilege of my life is to serve as vice president to a president who’s keeping his word to the American people.”

Then Sessions: “It’s an honor to be able to serve you in that regard and to send the exact right message, and the response is fabulous around the country.”

Elaine Chao: “I want to thank you for getting this country moving again, and working again.”

Tom Price: “Mr. President, what an incredible honor it is to lead the Department of Health and Human Services at this time under your leadership.”

Reince Priebus: “On behalf of the entire senior staff around you, Mr. President, we thank you for the opportunity and the blessing that you’ve given us to serve your agenda and the American people.”

Reading this does not do justice to the sheer strangeness of the spectacle. It was really odd. It was like watching a cabinet meeting in North Korea praising Great Leader.

This really happened.

Posted by: phx8 at June 12, 2017 5:24 PM
Comment #417246

I thought it was odd, the controversy over FGM and the acceptance of circumcision. My ears get dirty, but I don’t have them removed at birth. I’ve also heard of cosmetic surgery (Labiaplasty) where a woman’s genitalia was altered.

I had no choice in the matter in my case. My son’s doctor asked if I wanted the procedure performed on my son and I passed. I asked my son on his eighteenth birthday if he wanted the procedure and he looked at me like I was nuts!

It may be illegal and the doctor’s case in the media has made it obvious, but I don’t think either of you can deny it’s possible the procedure is performed on a much wider scale than what you believe. Just as circumcision is accepted in this culture, so is FGM in theirs. I’ll bet dimes to donuts it is performed, with consent, as often as circumcision is.

j2t2, if you believe we should allow Muslims their religious liberties as they see them then you should also condone and allow FGM.

…while shadowing a friend who serves on the Detroit Metro SWAT Police on a drive in Dearborn, MI. He described pulling up to one of the alleged Muslim-controlled areas:
The street signs suddenly went from English to Arabic. There wasn’t a single English word on any shop or any street sign. And in fact, these little yellow signs were posted all along the edges. Jeremy said to me, ‘this is it. We don’t go past this line.’ And I said to Jeremy, ‘what do you mean? You guys are Detroit Metro. You’re the SWAT team. You can go anywhere you want. What if you get a call over there?’ He said ‘this is it, it’s hazardous for our team if we go past this line.’
Posted by: Weary Willie at June 12, 2017 6:21 PM
Comment #417249

Weary, you keep putting words into my mouth.
You see Weary just because they have certain beliefs doesn’t mean I have to like all or any of them. That is illogical.

As far as the shadowing claim I would suggest getting the FBI involved as escorts after Detroit Metro SWAT get their big boy pants on to go into the Dearborn area. They didn’t seem to have a problem with it recently.


Posted by: j2t2 at June 12, 2017 11:23 PM
Comment #417258

So, it’s ‘weird’ that at President Trump’s first full cabinet meeting, for the members to be honored, enthusiastic and optimistic? Have you never sat in on an initial project meeting?

What’s actually weird, is being so desperate that you have to resort to trying to control the narrative and hoping to make something as silly as this an issue.

Of course, seeing how you all are now dwelling on a shirt and a purse, and acting like childish groupies over a name, I can’t say that I am surprised.

Posted by: kctim at June 13, 2017 1:01 PM
Comment #417264

I have sat in on all kinds of meetings, and I have never, ever witnessed a spectacle like that one. It is not just me that noticed, either. The story made a splash. That meeting has been described as (and I quote): Soviet. Servile. Sycophantic. Exquisitely Awkward. North Korean.

And more.

That is NOT normal. That is not how corporate business meetings or cabinet meetings are conducted, with each person tossing out a line about their department and then praising the leader.

It started with Trump declaring that he had done more than any president other than FDR, but that he was prevented from doing anything by the obstructionist Democrats. Did you catch that lie?

Every organization, every school room has its kiss ups. But for an entire cabinet to do that on camera, and for the leader to then bask in adulation? No. No. That is not normal.

Posted by: phx8 at June 13, 2017 2:48 PM
Comment #417265

It’s funny how you all use the same description. Even funnier how you all almost always use the same words.

I have sat on initial project meetings and in almost every single one, we introduced ourselves, offered thanks for being selected to carry out the task, and expressed enthusiasm and optimism for achieving the desired results.
Were they a little stiff? Sure, it was their first meeting. But also probably because they were trying to be extra careful around a very biased and very hostile left-wing media.
I guarantee that every single one of Obama’s picks thanked him, and that Biden thought it was a privilege to serve as vice president.

And no, the story did not make a “splash.” As with every other issue, the talking-points came out, the media aired them constantly, the far-left extremists start repeating them on social media, and dems claim that the majority of Americans support them. It’s the same dishonest tactic we have seen a million times before with gun control, marriage, bathrooms, health care, racism, sexism etc…

It is a fact that “obstructionist Democrats” have prevented the President from doing any meaningful legislation.

Posted by: kctim at June 13, 2017 3:57 PM
Comment #417266

“…Trump helping the coal companies dump pollutants into the water supply?”

Does j2t2 or anyone have a photo or fact to share? Dolt on steroids comment.

I don’t find cabinet members introducing themselves to the public on television strange at all. Most of them are unknown to the public.

Praising President Trump by those who work for him is hardly strange either. Has phx8 ever been to a political convention and heard those speeches and introductions?

Even most fools know that an open cabinet meeting is political propaganda for public consumption.

Posted by: Royal Flush at June 13, 2017 5:20 PM
Comment #417268

Yes, many people use the same words and the same descriptions. You know why? We are all seeing the same thing. And that bizarre performance was NOT normal, not in a month of Sundays.

“It is a fact that “obstructionist Democrats” have prevented the President from doing any meaningful legislation.”

Oh. Then why did Trump claim ““Never has there been a president, with few exceptions – case of FDR, he had a major depression to handle – who has passed more legislation and who has done more things than what we’ve done.”

You can’t have it both ways. Apparently you are opting for the obstructionist line, and dismissing the accomplishment line as a lie. Ok. I get that.


The cabinet meeting was not a political convention. Personally, I think an open cabinet meeting could be a fascinating exercise, which is why I watched that weird spectacle in the first place. As one reporter said: “Honestly this is like a scene from the Third World.”

Posted by: phx8 at June 13, 2017 6:29 PM
Comment #417269

Thanks for the nrdc link phx8. Proof? Hardly.

So phx8, you, and “one reporter” agree on the cabinet meeting?

Posted by: Royal Flush at June 13, 2017 6:37 PM
Comment #417297

You all are seeing the same thing only because you all share the same mindset and need to see it that way. That is a given. But people parrot the same words and same descriptions only because that is what they have been fed over and over.

“You can’t have it both ways. Apparently you are opting for the obstructionist line, and dismissing the accomplishment line as a lie.”

I am “opting” for the obstructionist line because it is a fact. I didn’t comment on the accomplishment line because it means nothing.
And yes, it is quite possible for people to believe that Trump has been getting some things done and being obstructed from getting other things done. For example: He got us out of the Paris scam, and was obstructed by activist judges on immigration.

You guys really need to find an actual issue to go after President Trump on. This kind of nonsense is making you all look silly.

Posted by: kctim at June 14, 2017 8:41 AM
Comment #417395


Posted by: dbs at June 16, 2017 8:13 AM
Post a comment