The experts’ guide to abnormalcy. I am happy to report that while the Comey firing was the most important abnormal act, it was the hilarious “tapp” Tweets that won the award for Most Abnormal.
After Trump and now Jeremy Corbyn’s big night, I don’t think Bill Kristol is going to feel safe emigrating to Singapore, which is a former British colony. He will probably wind up being my neighbor on the Chilean coast.
The English Speaking Peoples, forgers of modern Civilization, creators and defenders of ordered liberty, have lost their minds.
David Frum quickly demolishes Trump’s five lines of defense against Comey. My favorite part of the article explains why Trump can’t find a top Washington lawyer. One of the many who declined to represent Trump explained, “The guy won’t pay and he won’t listen.”
Chas, See my last post from last night in response to Cheryl. With their hacking into the emails and memos of Hillary and the DNC and the public release of the embarrassing stuff through Wikileaks, they performed Nixonian dirty tricks on a grand scale.
Jonah Goldberg seems to agree with the point I made several weeks ago. Hilariously, Trump managed to frame himself.
As I noted last night, these stories often got a lot of coverage when Trump wasn’t engaged with Miss Universe in a fight over fatness or complaining about the ethnicity of the judge in his trial for fraud.
To be fair, it is only the FBI, the CIA, the NSA and all Western intelligence agencies that believe Russia provided this info to Wikileaks. The Trump Cult insists that the data came from Seth Rich or The Tooth Fairy.
To help everyone understand: Consider how we would have felt if Iran had hacked into the Romney Campaign and the Republican National Committee and released (through Wikileaks) embarrassing emails and memos about Romney all during the 2012 campaign against Obama.
“Whether you think Trump is a Russian spy or that this entire thing was made up out of thin air by the Democrats, Comey’s testimony today has proven you right beyond a shadow of a doubt,” one pundit said, referencing several things the ex-director said during his dramatic interrogation before the Senate Intel Committee.
“We can finally wrap this up—you were right all along,” he explained, adding that any other news or evidence that comes out from this point forward will also, undoubtedly, serve to strengthen your already-entrenched opinion.
Experts also reported that if you need any further proof, just go to whichever websites you normally visit for your daily news, and they will assure you that Comey’s testimony is the nail in the coffin of anyone who disagrees with you about Donald Trump’s ties with Russia.
Or consider how we would have felt if it came out that the Reagan Cult was making illegal back-door deals with Iranians and contras…ooops.
Since allegations emerged that the Trump campaign colluded with Russian intelligence during the 2016 presidential election, many have likened the affair to Watergate, the most notorious political scandal in modern American history. And the parallels are clear. Both involve attempts to steal information from the Democratic National Committee, followed by purported cover-ups and efforts to stymie the investigation. Yet many raise the specter of Watergate today not only to measure the sordid nature of Trump’s alleged misdeeds, but also as a prediction: Nixon resigned under threat of impeachment, and Trump, the analogy seems to imply, may also be removed from office.
Yet even if investigators—or reporters—uncover evidence of wrongdoing, the president’s downfall is far from inevitable, and Iran-Contra should serve as a cautionary tale for those hoping Trump is pushed from office. The criminal probe took more than six years, outlasting a congressional investigation and a separate review by a presidential commission. When it was over, investigators had charged 14 U.S. officials with crimes (leading to 11 convictions or guilty pleas) and uncovered reams of evidence showing Reagan had illegally authorized deals to trade arms for hostages and ordered his staff to keep the Contras together, “body and soul,” despite a congressional ban against doing so. The probe never proved that the president knew that funds had been diverted from the Iranian weapons sales to the rebels. But it did find a raft of misconduct by senior administration officials, including a major cover-up.
And yet most of those top aides escaped without formal sanction, often due to restrictions on classified information or because the statute of limitations had run out by the time prosecutors could uncover the evidence. Several mid-level operatives who were convicted in court had their cases reversed on technicalities. Reagan and his vice president, George H.W. Bush, who knew much more about the affair than he initially admitted, suffered temporary drops in the polls. But Bush was elected president just two years after the scandal erupted, and Reagan went on to become a conservative luminary, revered for helping bring down what he called the Evil Empire, the Soviet Union.
Debra, I have never considered you to be a member of The Trump Cult. You are an Ideological Trumpkin. You actually believe the stuff he campaigned on. You hope he actually believes some of it too, and you hope he can curb his misbehavior so that some of those policies can be adopted.
Trump cultists are blindly loyal to the man and will excuse and defend any misbehavior.
In one more ridiculous moment, it was the SNL comedy writers who understood the moment. In the parody, Holt stops the interview at the point of Trump’s confession.
Meanwhile, Bernie Sanders on Christianity and applying a religious test for government service (chilling, though probably many if not most of the people I work with and deal with daily would fully agree):
…. Russell Moore: “Senator Sanders’ comments are breathtakingly audacious and shockingly ignorant—both of the Constitution and of basic Christian doctrine. Even if one were to excuse Senator Sanders for not realizing that all Christians of every age have insisted that faith in Jesus Christ is the only pathway to salvation, it is inconceivable that Senator Sanders would cite religious beliefs as disqualifying an individual for public office in defiance of the United States Constitution. No religious test shall ever be required of those seeking public office. While no one expects Senator Sanders to be a theologian, we should expect far more from an elected official who has taken an oath to support and defend the Constitution.”
We should not be suprised when such anti-Christian bias is expressed by groups like the ACLU. That organization has spent decades undermining the liberties of religious Americans. But it’s unacceptable to have our own representatives in the Senate claim that Christians “violate the public trust” when we make the true claim that in rejecting Jesus “those of other faiths stand condemned.”
This display of anti-Christian bias for partisan political purposes has the potential to set a dangerous precedent and must not be allowed to stand. The remarks made by Sanders and Van Hollen should be repudiated by every American who values religious freedom and opposes religious tests for government office.
______________________________
Just a reminder, I AM the host and moderator. Your persistent name calling is only going to continue for a short time longer, as I’ve finally grown tired of it. Trumpeteers, Trumpkins, Trumpers is all fine, a few are even amusing. But calling fellow believers “cultists” crosses the line, and you know that. Others have spoken to you about this as well. I don’t want to put you on moderate. but it’s getting really old. Please, enough already.
To Chas’s question about what the Russians did. The Russians did nothing to the election. They hacked the Democratic campaign (and maybe tried to hack the Republican campaign too).
This is another example of our epidemic of conflating related but distinct concepts. “Election” and “campaign” are two different things, just as I pointed out the other day that “health care” and “health insurance” are two different things.
If we keep words straight we can have more intelligent conversation.
Ricky, you don’t have to be insulting to make constructive contributions here. I’d rather see those contributions than have you muzzled because you won’t be respectful toward the people here.
AJ’s 12:19 is a good example of the boundary setting we’ve been speaking of today and other days, on various threads. I don’t comment on this thread often, but I like the diversity of discussion. I would hope all of us here can try to exercise responsible and civil discourse when discussing news and politics, but establishing (and enforcing, when necessary) boundaries are important in keeping the peace.
I found an interesting observation among Hillary Clinton’s list of reasons she lost: “It’s very difficult historically to succeed a two-term president of your own party.” I’d never thought about that before but it is true. The only ones who’ve done precisely that since the Civil War are Hayes (1876 following Grant) and Bush (1988 following Reagan).
Even broadening it to include any time a party held the presidency for more than two terms, it hasn’t happened many times, and only once in the last 65 years:
1868-1884, Republicans Grant/Hayes/Garfield/Arthur, four terms
1896-1912, Republicans McKinley/Roosevelt/Taft, four terms
1920-1932, Republicans Harding/Coolidge/Hoover, three terms
1932-1952, Democrats FDR/Truman, five terms
1980-1992, Republicans Reagan/Bush, three terms
In the 70 years since 1948, Bush was the only one elected to the same party’s third consecutive term. Other than that the presidency has changed parties every one or two terms.
It used to be said that the country needed both parties for balanced leadership. Nowadays there’s too much yelling and name calling and general and persistent outrage for any true balance to reign, I’m afraid.
Kevin, I wouldn’t have been able to say how long it had been since the last example before Bush, but I did realize it’s pretty much “never done.” We also usually go ahead and give the guy two terms.
That’s one of the reasons the Trump win was so bad (in my opinion). Lots of excellent candidates, following a really bad but still two-term president, running against a really despicable candidate, and it’s “our turn.” It seemed we could have had a strong coservative winning, and instead we had someone we can’t really trust.
Kevin – I would say one reason is that neither party really can do what they say they can do, neither one is “the answer”. So we try one, then the other, then back to the other again, & so on.
To be more cynical, I could say neither party really cares that much about solving the nation’s problems, that they are both corrupt. (Although I do believe some are in it for more than the power & prestige – & money.)
Its quite clear to me there was at the very least an attempt to obstruct justice. When I tell a student I hope you make the right decisions when you re-enter the classroom, its not a matter of debate you better behave. When the mob says its a nice dry cleaners hope nothing happens to it — its a protection racket. But now we have conservatives debating the meaning of the word “hope”.
I’m a bit uncomfortable with the word “cultist” but when a supporter refuses to accept facts that don’t fit their own narrative, they do seem to fit the definition. When the Guardian journalist accused the now Montana congressman of assault and its confirmed by a FOX news team, some refused to believe the journalist yet today the congressman has pled guilty. Ignoring facts to fit narratives works for both sides of a political spectrum but when those in power ignore facts at the expense of their narrative we have a problem.
I only watched two mindsets of the Comey hearings — the first two minutes of McCain’s tortuous questioning. I’m surprised Comey knew how to respond. I’m not a big fan of term limits but McCain just mad an argument for them.
hwesseli, obstruction of justice had sure better rest on something stronger than “he must have had this meaning when he said those words.” I’m not saying it’s 100% clear there was no hint of a threat, but we just can’t base a justice system on “what he might have meant by those words.”
Wandering Views 
Without the Tweets, he would just be an ignorant and dishonest demagogue. It is the Tweets that make him completely ridiculous.
LikeLiked by 1 person
The experts’ guide to abnormalcy. I am happy to report that while the Comey firing was the most important abnormal act, it was the hilarious “tapp” Tweets that won the award for Most Abnormal.
LikeLike
After Trump and now Jeremy Corbyn’s big night, I don’t think Bill Kristol is going to feel safe emigrating to Singapore, which is a former British colony. He will probably wind up being my neighbor on the Chilean coast.
LikeLike
David Frum quickly demolishes Trump’s five lines of defense against Comey. My favorite part of the article explains why Trump can’t find a top Washington lawyer. One of the many who declined to represent Trump explained, “The guy won’t pay and he won’t listen.”
LikeLiked by 1 person
How most Americans are handling the Trump Presidency: “Don’t worry, Honey! I’m keeping an eye on it.”
LikeLiked by 1 person
It has been established that the Russians used hi tech to hack into our election system.
Will someone tell me what the Russians did!
LikeLike
Chas, See my last post from last night in response to Cheryl. With their hacking into the emails and memos of Hillary and the DNC and the public release of the embarrassing stuff through Wikileaks, they performed Nixonian dirty tricks on a grand scale.
Jonah Goldberg seems to agree with the point I made several weeks ago. Hilariously, Trump managed to frame himself.
LikeLike
Chas, Here is a list of some of the embarassing things that the Russians managed to release about Hillary through Wikileaks.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-37639370
As I noted last night, these stories often got a lot of coverage when Trump wasn’t engaged with Miss Universe in a fight over fatness or complaining about the ethnicity of the judge in his trial for fraud.
To be fair, it is only the FBI, the CIA, the NSA and all Western intelligence agencies that believe Russia provided this info to Wikileaks. The Trump Cult insists that the data came from Seth Rich or The Tooth Fairy.
LikeLike
To help everyone understand: Consider how we would have felt if Iran had hacked into the Romney Campaign and the Republican National Committee and released (through Wikileaks) embarrassing emails and memos about Romney all during the 2012 campaign against Obama.
LikeLike
I told a friend last night that Mr. P and I were watching House of Cards….or maybe it was the news. 😉
LikeLiked by 3 people
Based on Ricky’s post yesterday regarding the Great American Divorce, this is about as good of an analysis as any
http://babylonbee.com/news/breaking-comey-hearing-confirms-whatever-already-wanted-believe/
WASHINGTON, D.C.—Explosive testimony from ex-FBI Director James Comey confirmed Thursday exactly what you already wanted to believe before you heard a word of what he had to say, news channels and websites across the nation frantically reported.
“Whether you think Trump is a Russian spy or that this entire thing was made up out of thin air by the Democrats, Comey’s testimony today has proven you right beyond a shadow of a doubt,” one pundit said, referencing several things the ex-director said during his dramatic interrogation before the Senate Intel Committee.
“We can finally wrap this up—you were right all along,” he explained, adding that any other news or evidence that comes out from this point forward will also, undoubtedly, serve to strengthen your already-entrenched opinion.
Experts also reported that if you need any further proof, just go to whichever websites you normally visit for your daily news, and they will assure you that Comey’s testimony is the nail in the coffin of anyone who disagrees with you about Donald Trump’s ties with Russia.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Or consider how we would have felt if it came out that the Reagan Cult was making illegal back-door deals with Iranians and contras…ooops.
I guess all’s well that ends well. :–)
LikeLiked by 1 person
Let’s also not forget that Bill Clinton was impeached.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Ricky: All fine and dandy, but where is the “certain obstruction of justice”?
LikeLike
Oh, the naivety of youth…
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/06/09/reality-winner-accused-leaker-wanted-to-burn-white-house-down.html
LikeLike
Debra, I have never considered you to be a member of The Trump Cult. You are an Ideological Trumpkin. You actually believe the stuff he campaigned on. You hope he actually believes some of it too, and you hope he can curb his misbehavior so that some of those policies can be adopted.
Trump cultists are blindly loyal to the man and will excuse and defend any misbehavior.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Tychicus, For the third time, watch the Lester Holt interview.
LikeLike
Oh look, the never-Trumpers still can’t accept reality. 🙄
Why am I not surprised?
Perhaps they can all share a piece of that big, fat, nothing burger they insisted would be Trump’s downfall.
They failed, but I’m sure they’ll keep trying. If nothing else, they’re persistent. Persistently wrong.
LikeLike
Right on cue, we get to see the classic Trump Cultist.
LikeLike
In one more ridiculous moment, it was the SNL comedy writers who understood the moment. In the parody, Holt stops the interview at the point of Trump’s confession.
http://www.nbc.com/saturday-night-live/video/lester-holt-cold-open/3517004?snl=1
However, as they said, with Trump and his Cult, nothing matters.
LikeLike
Meanwhile, Bernie Sanders on Christianity and applying a religious test for government service (chilling, though probably many if not most of the people I work with and deal with daily would fully agree):
https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/two-u.s.-senators-apply-an-anti-christian-religious-test-for-government-officials
_____________________________
…. Russell Moore: “Senator Sanders’ comments are breathtakingly audacious and shockingly ignorant—both of the Constitution and of basic Christian doctrine. Even if one were to excuse Senator Sanders for not realizing that all Christians of every age have insisted that faith in Jesus Christ is the only pathway to salvation, it is inconceivable that Senator Sanders would cite religious beliefs as disqualifying an individual for public office in defiance of the United States Constitution. No religious test shall ever be required of those seeking public office. While no one expects Senator Sanders to be a theologian, we should expect far more from an elected official who has taken an oath to support and defend the Constitution.”
We should not be suprised when such anti-Christian bias is expressed by groups like the ACLU. That organization has spent decades undermining the liberties of religious Americans. But it’s unacceptable to have our own representatives in the Senate claim that Christians “violate the public trust” when we make the true claim that in rejecting Jesus “those of other faiths stand condemned.”
This display of anti-Christian bias for partisan political purposes has the potential to set a dangerous precedent and must not be allowed to stand. The remarks made by Sanders and Van Hollen should be repudiated by every American who values religious freedom and opposes religious tests for government office.
______________________________
LikeLiked by 2 people
Here ya go Ricky
http://dfw.cbslocal.com/2017/06/06/real-estate-website-urges-conservatives-to-buy-texas-homes/
LikeLiked by 3 people
Ricky,
Just a reminder, I AM the host and moderator. Your persistent name calling is only going to continue for a short time longer, as I’ve finally grown tired of it. Trumpeteers, Trumpkins, Trumpers is all fine, a few are even amusing. But calling fellow believers “cultists” crosses the line, and you know that. Others have spoken to you about this as well. I don’t want to put you on moderate. but it’s getting really old. Please, enough already.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Adios, King Trumpkin!
LikeLike
That’s your call Ricky. I would prefer you to stay, just clean it up a little. But it is your decision to make.
LikeLike
Come on you guys. I’ll stop throwing the cult word around too. :–/
LikeLiked by 1 person
To Chas’s question about what the Russians did. The Russians did nothing to the election. They hacked the Democratic campaign (and maybe tried to hack the Republican campaign too).
This is another example of our epidemic of conflating related but distinct concepts. “Election” and “campaign” are two different things, just as I pointed out the other day that “health care” and “health insurance” are two different things.
If we keep words straight we can have more intelligent conversation.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Ricky, you don’t have to be insulting to make constructive contributions here. I’d rather see those contributions than have you muzzled because you won’t be respectful toward the people here.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Seems to me that the Russians, if they did that, revealed that Hillary should be in jail.
A grin here, for a change.
🙂
I was trying to explain the stuff on TV for Elvera. I accidentally came up with the best description of the shenanigans.
“It doesn’t amount to a thing. Lots going on but nothing is happening.”:
LikeLiked by 3 people
AJ’s 12:19 is a good example of the boundary setting we’ve been speaking of today and other days, on various threads. I don’t comment on this thread often, but I like the diversity of discussion. I would hope all of us here can try to exercise responsible and civil discourse when discussing news and politics, but establishing (and enforcing, when necessary) boundaries are important in keeping the peace.
Thank you, AJ.
LikeLiked by 4 people
I found an interesting observation among Hillary Clinton’s list of reasons she lost: “It’s very difficult historically to succeed a two-term president of your own party.” I’d never thought about that before but it is true. The only ones who’ve done precisely that since the Civil War are Hayes (1876 following Grant) and Bush (1988 following Reagan).
Even broadening it to include any time a party held the presidency for more than two terms, it hasn’t happened many times, and only once in the last 65 years:
1868-1884, Republicans Grant/Hayes/Garfield/Arthur, four terms
1896-1912, Republicans McKinley/Roosevelt/Taft, four terms
1920-1932, Republicans Harding/Coolidge/Hoover, three terms
1932-1952, Democrats FDR/Truman, five terms
1980-1992, Republicans Reagan/Bush, three terms
In the 70 years since 1948, Bush was the only one elected to the same party’s third consecutive term. Other than that the presidency has changed parties every one or two terms.
What conclusions do you draw from that?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Americans like change and don’t trust one party too long
LikeLiked by 1 person
It’s true (about parties and the White House).
It used to be said that the country needed both parties for balanced leadership. Nowadays there’s too much yelling and name calling and general and persistent outrage for any true balance to reign, I’m afraid.
LikeLike
Kevin, I wouldn’t have been able to say how long it had been since the last example before Bush, but I did realize it’s pretty much “never done.” We also usually go ahead and give the guy two terms.
That’s one of the reasons the Trump win was so bad (in my opinion). Lots of excellent candidates, following a really bad but still two-term president, running against a really despicable candidate, and it’s “our turn.” It seemed we could have had a strong coservative winning, and instead we had someone we can’t really trust.
LikeLiked by 2 people
This is excellent: on why conservatives don’t listen to liberals on climate change: https://www.lifesitenews.com/blogs/why-liberals-care-about-climate-change-but-not-abortion
LikeLiked by 2 people
Kevin – I would say one reason is that neither party really can do what they say they can do, neither one is “the answer”. So we try one, then the other, then back to the other again, & so on.
To be more cynical, I could say neither party really cares that much about solving the nation’s problems, that they are both corrupt. (Although I do believe some are in it for more than the power & prestige – & money.)
LikeLike
Its quite clear to me there was at the very least an attempt to obstruct justice. When I tell a student I hope you make the right decisions when you re-enter the classroom, its not a matter of debate you better behave. When the mob says its a nice dry cleaners hope nothing happens to it — its a protection racket. But now we have conservatives debating the meaning of the word “hope”.
I’m a bit uncomfortable with the word “cultist” but when a supporter refuses to accept facts that don’t fit their own narrative, they do seem to fit the definition. When the Guardian journalist accused the now Montana congressman of assault and its confirmed by a FOX news team, some refused to believe the journalist yet today the congressman has pled guilty. Ignoring facts to fit narratives works for both sides of a political spectrum but when those in power ignore facts at the expense of their narrative we have a problem.
I only watched two mindsets of the Comey hearings — the first two minutes of McCain’s tortuous questioning. I’m surprised Comey knew how to respond. I’m not a big fan of term limits but McCain just mad an argument for them.
LikeLike
hwesseli, obstruction of justice had sure better rest on something stronger than “he must have had this meaning when he said those words.” I’m not saying it’s 100% clear there was no hint of a threat, but we just can’t base a justice system on “what he might have meant by those words.”
LikeLike
Not only that, but Flynn had already been released the day before.
LikeLike