Are The Democrats Preparing Bolton For A Comey-Like Makeover?

The Ukraine scandal racketed up further with the testimony of Acting U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Bill Taylor who testified that President Donald Trump held up military aid until the Ukrainians agreed to investigate election interference and Hunter Biden’s business dealings. While Taylor was the headliner this week, another figure appears to be emerging as the matinee star: John Bolton. When the Ukraine story broke, I stated that the likely key for Congress would be Bolton who had only recently been fired. Taylor reaffirmed earlier reports that Bolton spotted the serious danger of the Ukraine call and worked to prevent it as a “disaster” in the making.

Of course, in order to use Bolton, he will have to go through a Comey-like makeover from one of the most reviled figures to a heroic figure in the scandal for Democrats. With Comey, Democrats had to pivot from calling for his sacking to heralding him as a savior. Such are the fortunes of politics in Washington.

Bolton has been referenced by sources have being livid over the withholding of Ukraine aid as well as the highly inappropriate conduct of Rudy Giuliani in dealings with the country.

Taylor also added from damaging elements, including saying that there were instructions for people not to take notes in critical meetings. That can be seen as awareness of the impropriety of the nexus drawn between aid and the investigations. Taylor has suggested that a quid pro quo was acknowledged by other officials.

In his opening remarks to House members, Taylor said that there were two channels — official and unofficial — in Ukraine. The later involved Giuliani who has greatly magnified damage to the White House through his reckless conduct.

Republicans insist that Taylor was forced to acknowledge conflicts in his testimony. However, the Democrats have decided to keep this testimony behind closed doors. This allows members to just leak what they want the public to see. It is a poor way to dealing with an impeachment investigation which is a matter of great national concern.

HERE IS TAYLOR’S FULL OPENING STATEMENT

306 thoughts on “Are The Democrats Preparing Bolton For A Comey-Like Makeover?”

  1. What Trump is alleged to have done is not a garden variety crime; it’s worse. It involved misusing $250 million in aid appropriated by Congress for his benefit—the kind of gross misconduct that easily clears the bar of high crimes and misdemeanors set by the Constitution when impeaching a president. Which means the best way to hold Trump accountable for that misconduct isn’t a criminal trial; it’s for Congress to impeach him.

    Pursuing criminal cases that won’t stand legal scrutiny, or arguing that Trump has violated a criminal statute, risks undermining that goal.

    1. From Black’s Law Dictionary:

      misappropriation
      n. (18c)
      1. The application of another’s property or money dishonestly to one’s own use. See EMBEZZLEMENT. Cf. APPROPRIATION (1); EXPROPRIATION (1).

      Prosecutor Edgeworthless, in your extremely biased world you undoubtedly would convict me of “misappropriation” for disciplining and teaching values to my teenagers … by (temporarily) withholding funds. The problem is the funds were not misappropriated by Trump but and the intended beneficiary received the funds without measurable harm, your accusation is misappropriation and misuse of a legal term to express your political outrage and has nothing to do with rational political discourse.

      1. jf, the funds were withheld for an extended period beyond their lawful appropriation by the Congress for the express purpose of the President’s desire to harm a perceived political opponent. The funds were federal property used for a purpose other than the interests of the US government or it’s people. Whether the timeliness of their release damaged the interests of US must be assumed affirmative, absent clear intent by the Congress otherwise. During this period Through Jan 2019, there have been approx 43,000 casualties and 13,000 killed in the Ukrainian -Russian conflict.

        “OBUKHIV, Ukraine — When President Trump froze hundreds of millions of dollars in security assistance to Ukraine in July, Oleksandr Markiv was in a trench defending his country’s eastern front line against Russia-backed separatist militias.
        Two months later, Markiv, 38, was dead, killed by shrapnel during a mortar attack on his battalion’s position in a notoriously dangerous defense point known as the Svitlodarsk Bulge.

        Markiv was one of 25 Ukrainian fatalities on the front line since July 18, the day Trump quietly put on hold a $391-million military aid package appropriated by Congress for Ukraine last year….”

        https://www.latimes.com/world-nation/story/2019-10-16/as-ukraine-waited-for-u-s-assistance-death-toll-on-eastern-front-line-grew

        1. A “perceived” political opponent? When? In what way? They are not yet in a political contest.

          Someone in Ukraine died during a similar time frame. Is this a legal standard? So, if anyone died when past president’s slowed down any funding or delivered pillows instead of bullets, are those presidents also responsible for deaths in Ukraine or other counties? Your analysis of this situation strikes me as silly political commentary pretending to be serious.

          If the demented DEMS impeach him, I won’t miss Trump, but I absolutely love the idea of being able to chase out of office the next DEM president using similar political tactics!!!

          Please go bother someone else in this thread. You bore me.

          1. The idea that Trump had no reason to seek damaging help on Biden is a laughable defense, and one we won’t see repeated, though one can hope.

            As I noted, timeliness absent other clear indicators to the contrary in the legislation on which the funds were approved must be assumed, and in this case, the use to which they were intended involved armed conflict with casualties and deaths which may or may not have been saved with a timely release of the funds..

            We can all hope that other presidents don’t choose to mimic Trump’s behavior – none have done anything like this to date that we are aware of – but if they do, we can all hope we are able to enjoy their removal.

        2. “jf, the funds were withheld for an extended period beyond their lawful appropriation by the Congress”

          Such wailing from an incompetent. Without going further in discussion the funds were released BEFORE the deadline and BEFORE Ukraine opened any investigation into the Bidens.

            1. You can spin all you want. The funds were not withheld past the deadline and no Ukrainian investigation on the Bidens started before that time. Those are facts . You can keep piling on things but nothing changes the facts.

              Further, this is another BS investigation as Presidents powers are quite appropriate when dealing with the situations at hand.

              1. HAHA. Just keep whistlin’, it’ll all be over soon enough.

                this is to “what is that ticking sound?” allen / allan

  2. Wow, the Russian Trump trolls are out in force this weekend… They are still trying to change the subject to Hillary Clinton’s emails. She has been out of office since 2013 and will never be in office again.

    We have the Acting Ambassador to Ukraine on the record stating the president misappropriated funds for his own political purposes. The president doesn’t get to add his own conditions for funds that Congress allocated. According to the Constitution, Congress decides how money is spent, not the president.

    John Bolton recognizes this scheme is dirty and referred to it as a “drug deal.”

    1. Prosecutor Edgeworth does not know what he’s talking about. No one testified that the president “misappropriated” funds. Ho hum, just more boring political bs. If you don’t have the facts, shrill and pound.

        1. Ukraine though not guaranteed any funds was given the funds long before this even became an issue. This is foreign policy where the President’s powers are great. He should be withholding money to nations that do not benefit the US and that can include corruption and interferring in American elections among other things.

          Is the Biden family guilty of graft or inappropriate actions? I leave that up to the Ukranian prosecutors and our DOJ. What Joe Biden did there and elsewhere is reprehensible but I don’t know that any criminal charge can be laid at Joe’s feet. Congress has been doing insider trading and all these things that regular Americans would go to jail for so we are faced with a leadership that has been corrupted.

        2. From Black’s Law Dictionary:

          misappropriation
          n. (18c)
          1. The application of another’s property or money dishonestly to one’s own use. See EMBEZZLEMENT. Cf. APPROPRIATION (1); EXPROPRIATION (1).

          Anon1, in your extremely biased world you undoubtedly would convict me of “misappropriation” for disciplining and teaching values to my teenagers … by (temporarily) withholding my assets from their immediate access. The problem with your dumbass comment is the funds did not belong to Ukraine for Trump to misappropriate and the intended beneficiary (this week’s corrupt Ukrainian politician) did in fact receive the funds without experiencing any measurable harm. Your dumb accusation is misappropriation and misuse of a legal term to express your political outrage and has nothing to do with rational political discourse.

    1. Yes they have. But how is Rudy Giuliani more qualified than John Bolton to negotiate with foreign leaders?

  3. Some clarification on the State review of Hillary’s emails. From the letter itself, the 30,000 emails reviewed were provided by Hillary Clinton herself. Those were the emails that her (uncleared) attorneys helped pour over, to separate her “personal” emails, not provided, from her “work emails.” The only other emails reviewed were around 6,861 the FBI provided. If I recall correctly, those were the ones found on convicted sex offender, Anthony Weiner’s, laptop. The emails that she deleted, erased with Bleach Bit, and contained on devices she smashed with a hammer were never found or reviewed. Of the emails she provided herself, it was rare, but still occurred, for classified information to be deliberately sent over private email.

    How interesting.

    She kept an illegal server in her bathroom, backed it up to the Cloud, it contained classified information, Obama used a secret email address to talk to her on on that email, then he lied about it, she took Blackberries into SCIFs, and she had staffers cut “classified” off of documents to fax them…but there was no systemic mishandling? Do they know what “systemic” and “deliberate” mean? Typically, lying about something implies known culpability.

    The report also said that Clinton’s actions made sensitive data vulnerable. One should also recall that tens of thousands of her deleted emails were never recovered, and she smashed devices with hammers, so they cannot be recovered. In addition, she did not used the closed State system, that has a marking “classified” that can be added to emails. So, obviously, she did not mark her own emails classified on her bootleg system.

    People get arrested for the sensitive nature of the background of their selfies, with no deliberate mishandling required.

    https://www.grassley.senate.gov/sites/default/files/documents/2019-10-17%20State%20Dept.%20to%20CEG%20-%20Classified%20Emails.pdf

    “The APD focus was to determine two things: (1) ifany ofthe emails under review represented a failure to proper]y safeguard classified information, and (2) if, in the instance of such a failure, any individual(s) could be determined to bear individual culpability.”

    “In establishing validity, APO must determine that the reported condition actually represents a “failuretosafeguardclassijiecf’information.”

    “If validity can be established, APD will then attempt to assess individual culpability.”

    “First, and perhaps most obvious, is the sheer scale ofthe effort. A typical spillage event involves a single email, not thousands ofhard-copy documents to be sifted through. The scale alone caused considerable delay to the effort.”

    A P D ‘ s administrative review of the HRC emails resulted in the adjudication o f 91 valid violations attributable to 38 individuals. Additionally, APD adjudicated 497 valid violations where no individual was found to bear culpability, resulting in a ”valid, but not culpable” determination.
    Total Valid Violations Adjudicated: 91 Total VnC: 497

    “It was APD’s determination thatthe use ofa private email system to conduct official business added an increased degree of risk of compromise as a private system lacks the network monitoring and intrusion detection capabilities of State Department networks.”

    “Correspondence with the Secretary is inherently sensitive, and is therefore open for broad interpretation as to classification, particularly with respect to Foreign Government Information. Instances of classified information being deliberately transmitted via unclassified email were the rare exception and resulted in adjudicated security violations. There was no persuasive evidence ofsystemic, deliberate mishandling ofclassified information.” So, while tens of thousands of emails were deleted and never recovered, they found “rare” instances where classified information was deliberately discussed. The other violations involved classified information she claimed she did not know where classified at the time.

    1. And?……She was investigated, twice, and found not to have committee any crime. Why can’t you Trumpsters take “no” for an answer? She is not running for any office, so why this obsession? A pivot away from the growing movement to remove Trump from office?

      1. 1) Hillary Clinton has created a precedent for handling classified information. Since our country stands for justice for all, then that means that everyone can behave this way.

        2) The investigation was on the 30,000 emails the Hillary provided herself, along with nearly 7,000 emails that were recovered from a sex offender’s laptop. The other 30,000 emails were never found.

        3) People have claimed that this exonerated Clinton. It did not, because those missing emails were never recovered, let alone reviewed.

        4) The letter summarizing the investigation does not review the aspect of the bootleg server being in her bathroom, the access she gave to people without clearance, lying about it, Obama lying about it, the fact that she deleted emails and smashed devices while under subpoena, and the fact that she controlled her own communications in order to get around the records act.

        The shock that people experience is that she got away with it, and is this how it will be from now on? Imagine what Trump could do to hide communications, using this as precedent. Would it bother you, then?

        1. Among others having used private email servers are Condeleeza Rice, Colin Powell, Ivanka Trump, and Jared Kushner.

          Not only does the law specify intent, but the SC confirmed that in 1941 and no one has been convicted absent that determination. Military personnel are under a different code.

    2. The law regarding misuse of classified information requires intent for it to be a crime. After 4 years of investigation, no intent has been proven. Therefore, Clinton didn’t commit a crime. It is obvious.

    3. Awesome. So, is this all that Pravda Faux News can come up with to controvert the day glo bozo’s impeachable behavior? Nice. What about “Whitewater”! or BENGHAZI!!!!! More hearings!!

      this is to “well, now I know what that ticking sound is, I’ll reckon” karen

  4. You can’t trust a falsely named party that lives and breathes only to destroy our country. Ask the DACAs. They should as of now been three years into a standard six year path to citizenship but thanks to the left wing socialist fascists protecting their abortion vote they are still being obstructed by the socialist left.

    I project that prior to the the 2020 vote we’lll see an executive order all of them who were vetted given a form of amnesty. Which would make the far left look even more unacceptable tharn they are already.

  5. Hmmm has the disaster happened yet? Sure has. The Democrats are all of a suddent sticking up for the Kurds when just four some years ago they turned their backs on the genocide and democide being conducted against them and several meaning four to seven other groups in favor of openly smuggling more ISIS types into our country by adding to the amount authorized extra immigrants but allowing that the number to be filled not by the groups being murdered but by the groups doing the killing. For the Kurds and others being supported by the Party of Slavery is like recreating history or the purges of Stalin and Hitler.

  6. The far left extremists will use anybody they think might add one more vote to their goal of creating USSA but have failed to figure out how that one more vote can be legitimized outside using phony polls.

  7. Interesting and embarrassing that JT, who has insisted against all the evidence that there was no proof of a QPQ in this Ukrainian sleaze, ignores the most important part of Taylor’s testimony, which was his confirmation of a QPQ.

      1. Paul, get specific. ‘Who’ admitted there’s no QPQ..?? I must have missed that headline. Post that story so we can see.

        What Taylor described was unmistakably a QPQ. And every source of mine presented it that way. But it wasn’t coming directly from Trump; that’s the caveat. That might be what your unnamed Republican established.

        1. Peter – Republican Congressmen who were in the room with Taylor have said that once the Republican’s started, it was all over for him. I believe credit goes to a Congressman Ratliff, but I just heard it. Remember, the Democrats are selectively leaking and Schiff is the “King of Leaks” in the House.

            1. Anon1 – It has popped up a couple of times, including, I think, on the speeches before the storming of the SCIF. The problem is the Republicans cannot give details because of Ethics Violations. If I find it again, I will clip it and send it on.

            2. Paul has a lot, but it takes a bit of intellect to put the ideas together. Let me summarize.

              The Democrats have no ethics so they leak a portion of the story that provides the picture they wish to be seen.

              The Republicans are being ethical and therefore not releasing the portions of the transcript that prove the Democrats are lying.

              What is so hard to understand Anon?

              1. Both parties leak. It’s a standard practice in Washington. The Republicans would have leaked if any of these witnesses said anything exculpatory.

                Their only choice left is to smear the witnesses.

                The federal court ruled this week the impeachment hearing is legal.

                1. PME, you obviously have a strong bias based in this statement of yours and a few earlier ones. I am not fond of either party, however what Schiff has been doing for the past 3 years is repulsive and dangerous to the nation. Of that there is no question. There is more of the same with how this non impeachment, impeachment hearing is being held. This impeachment process is and should not be pure politics. It’s dangerous, but many don’t care about such dangers.

                  For three years starting almost day one impeachment was the desired outcome by the left. That happened before Trump could do anything that was impeachable. There have been many claims as to why Trump should be impeached and all have failed. This is only the last of many such claims demonstrating the lack of seriousness by the Democrats.

                  The House decides impeachment so the idea of impeachment is legal (whether appropriate or not is a different story). However, to properly impeach the House needs to be informed. That means the opposition party needs to have witnesses as well and it means that the House needs to know all the testimony not just the selected testimony. That is not occurring though we are seeing selected testimony leaked by the Democrats and only generalized statements from the Republicans that indicate that Taylor’s opinion in specific did not hold up under questioning,

                  What the Dems really are doing is trying the case in the media which is 90% leftist. It’s opposition research and planning. So far no crime has been shown to have been comitted and certainly Trump in no way has violated any rules to the extent of either Clinton, Biden and a whole host of other Democrats. Like the Russia hoax this claim falls flat and though some may not like the implications behind what Trump may or may not have done, none of the present claims falls outside of his Presidential powers.

                  You seem to have adopted a two system justice system where Dems are always innocent and Republicans are always guity. The truth is that both parties are not appropriately serving the American public so we need new blood and term limits is a way of getting there. Trump, by the way, is new blood whether you like him or not.

        2. Peter has so many alternate personalities on here that it proves what everyone has been saying about him / her….batsheet crazy just like Podesta said

        3. Peter, I overheard a conversation you had on the phone that you were leaving your wife.

          I am now being depositioned. I say “I heard Peter say he was leaving his wife”. That is leaked to the press and printed in the Washington Post along with thoughts about how nasty the divorce would be.

          Unfortunately because you didn’t hear from the primary source, Peter, or the answer to questions that one would generally ask the news reports were all wrong. The question on the phone was ‘are you bringing your wife to the meeting? To which the answer was ‘I am leaving my wife (at home)’.

          Peter, you don’t care about the truth. All you want to hear are words that you can repeat whether true or not. Do you realize what type of person does that type of thing? That is why you are insulted and shunned by so many people.

    1. Normal people with reasoning skills would take that as a nudge to reflect on their own understanding of the facts. Not you Anon1. Despite 3 years of you being fed absolute BS and then regurgitating that nonsense, regardless of actual evidence to the contrary, you still are going to assert it’s JT that is embarrassing himself. That’s some truly willful ignorance.

      Horrowitz has completed his FISA warrant investigation and that is likely to be released in the first week of November. Durham has expanded his investigation after a meeting with Christopher Steele. Zelensky has indicated his people will be investigating the Biden QPQ and there is the Ukranian meddling in the 2016 election.

      The results of all of this will be another opportunity to nudge your own understanding of the facts. I’m not suggesting you’ll be able to rehabilitate your Anon1 character on this blog, but you may finally be forced to develop some kind of connection with the left half of your brain.

      1. Cindy Bragg – Gaetz said they were going to do it last week, but once Cummings died they held off in respect.

        1. Paul C….well, that was thoughtful……I tell ya, that Gaetz is quite a kid. He has no fear. That was evident the first time he was interviewed on tv.
          His father ia a County Judge, or something like that, in Florida…. I thought about him today and how the buttons on his shirt must be popping off with pride.

          1. That helps explains why the pretty boy leader of the rich white man’s riot thought he could threaten the family of a witness before Congress and then break security rules he and his fellow thugs knew – many of them members and thus welcome participants in the hearing they tried to disrupt. Maybe Daddy needed to take away the car keys more often.

            1. David Brock not provide you better ad hominems for today, or is your deranged leader still bitter about my exposing him?

              Give David my best
              🖕🏾

        2. They called in for pizza delivery after a few hours; did they let the pizza🍕 delivery guy into the Secret Chamber?

  8. The Ukraine scandal racketed up further with the testimony of Acting U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Bill Taylor who testified that President Donald Trump held up military aid until the Ukrainians agreed to investigate election interference and Hunter Biden’s business dealings.

    Wow, very impressive Acting U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Bill Taylor was able to get through the first 4 paragraphs of his ‘testimony’ before telling a lie.

    Italicized/bold text was excerpted from – Opening Statement of Ambassador William B. Taylor – October 22, 2019

    First, Ukraine is a strategic partner of the United States, important for the security of our country as well as Europe. ~ 5th paragraph, 2nd sentence

    Ukraine is not nor has ever been a strategic partner of the US. There are zero US national security interests at stake in Ukraine. US service men/women cannot defend the US 5,000 miles from home.

    Ukraine became a full fledged republic in the USSR in the late 1940’s after the nation was liberated from the Germans by Soviet forces in WW2.

    Ukraine peacefully left the USSR (as it broke apart) in 1991 although it maintained very close relations with Russia (it still does).

    The current instability in Ukraine is a direct result of the US fostered political junta (ie coup) that chased the democratically elected president from office (see: Victoria Nuland, US Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs).

    Ukraine serves a dual purpose for the US – a mechanism to continuously tweak Russia’s nose – which in turn allows US merchants of death to sell tens of billions of dollars of unneeded weapons, that help fatten their bottom lines thus increasing share/dividend payouts further enriching those involved (ie congress critters and other assorted miscreants of the US kleptocracy).

    US/NATO forces stationed on Russia’s door step in Ukraine serve no strategic purpose whatsoever.

    Rather US/NATO forces positioned on Russia’s border serve to escalate tensions unnecessarily.

    Although it is certain the statist-mandarins infesting DC would vehemently disagree as their rice bowls are filled by continuously promoting fear 24/7/365 in order to speciously justify squandering trillions of dollars in defense (ie war) spending per annum and encroaching on Russia’s traditional (hundreds of years) spheres of influence from the Baltic’s to the Black Sea.

    This has absolutely nothing to do with legitimate diplomacy and everything to do with nincompoops posing as serious people while attempting to squeeze every ounce of profit from their ill-begotten criminal ventures in Ukraine while placing the entire world at their mercy as they poke a nuclear armed ‘bear’ in its own backyard.

    Looks like we have graduated from swilling 8 ounce glasses of Kool-Aid to riding at the crest of a Surfin’ Berry Punch tsunami – Oh Yeah!

    In short every statist mandarin nincompoop running their pie hole about Russia, Russia, Russia in Ukraine is simply looking to protect their ill-begotten rice bowl.

  9. Who cares that dozens of Republicans rushed a SCIF. Who cares that some brought their secured phones.

    Hillary Clinton brought her Blackberry into SCIFs. She uploaded classified information to the Cloud. Thanks to her precedent, there can be no repercussions for the deliberate negligent handling of classified information.

    The law either applies equally to all, or to none. Everyone with access should be allowed to hide it in their bathroom, delete it, and smash the evidence with a hammer.

    1. The juvenile actions today of the GOP congressmen was deliberate. Hillary’s behavior was not and in fact a recent State Dept review of email handling by the entire department during that period found no deliberate intent to broach regulations or violate proper handling of emails.

      1. How interesting. She directed staffers to cut off “classified” from the top of faxes. Shows internet. She lied about the server, which shows intent. She lied about using a private email. Shows intent. She deleted emails while under subpoena. Shows intent. She smashed her laptop with a hammer while under Congressional subpoena. Shows intent. She wiped her server with Bleach Bit, which advertises that when you really need it to be unrecoverable, use them. Then she lied about that. Shows intent. There is something rotten in the state of our government.

        If Trump did any of this, you’d be clinically insane by now, on a dose of Lithium.

        However, because the FBI declared that no reasonable person would prosecute any of the above, there is now a precedent. The double standard has irked conservatives like me for years. Republicans are held to very exacting standard, while Democrats are held to none at all. The law just doesn’t seem to apply to Democrats with enough connections.

        The law must be equal to be just. Which means that Republicans can do everything that Hillary did, and there woudn’t be a dang thing Democrats could do about it. Because Precedent.

        1. WASHINGTON (Reuters) – A U.S. State Department investigation of Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email server while she was secretary of state has found no evidence of deliberate mishandling of classified information by department employees.

          The investigation, the results of which were released on Friday by Republican U.S. Senator Chuck Grassley’s office, centered on whether Clinton, who served as the top U.S. diplomat from 2009 to 2013, jeopardized classified information by using a private email server rather than a government one…..

          Clinton turned over roughly 33,000 emails from her private server in 2014, and the State Department probe found “no persuasive evidence of systemic, deliberate mishandling of classified information.”….

          Clinton turned over roughly 33,000 emails from her private server in 2014, and the State Department probe found “no persuasive evidence of systemic, deliberate mishandling of classified information.”…

          1. Anon1 – in other news the State Dept declared they could find their ass, however they had to use both hands.

          2. From the letter itself, the 30,000 emails reviewed were provided by Hillary Clinton herself. Those were the emails that her (uncleared) attorneys helped pour over, to separate her “personal” emails, not provided, from her “work emails.” The only other emails reviewed were around 6,861 the FBI provided. If I recall correctly, those were the ones found on convicted sex offender, Anthony Weiner’s, laptop. The emails that she deleted, erased with Bleach Bit, and contained on devices she smashed with a hammer were never found or reviewed. Of the emails she provided herself, it was rare, but still occurred, for classified information to be deliberately sent over private email.

            How interesting.

            She kept an illegal server in her bathroom, backed it up to the Cloud, it contained classified information, Obama used a secret email address to talk to her on on that email, then he lied about it, she took Blackberries into SCIFs, and she had staffers cut “classified” off of documents to fax them…but there was no systemic mishandling? Do they know what “systemic” and “deliberate” mean?

            The report also said that Clinton’s actions made sensitive data vulnerable. One should also recall that tens of thousands of her deleted emails were never recovered, and she smashed devices with hammers, so they cannot be recovered. In addition, she did not used the closed State system, that has a marking “classified” that can be added to emails. So, obviously, she did not mark her own emails classified on her bootleg system.

            People get arrested for the sensitive nature of the background of their selfies, with no deliberate mishandling required.

            https://www.grassley.senate.gov/sites/default/files/documents/2019-10-17%20State%20Dept.%20to%20CEG%20-%20Classified%20Emails.pdf

            “The APD focus was to determine two things: (1) ifany ofthe emails under review represented a failure to proper]y safeguard classified information, and (2) if, in the instance of such a failure, any individual(s) could be determined to bear individual culpability.”

            “In establishing validity, APO must determine that the reported condition actually represents a “failuretosafeguardclassijiecf’information.”

            “If validity can be established, APD will then attempt to assess individual culpability.”

            “First, and perhaps most obvious, is the sheer scale ofthe effort. A typical spillage event involves a single email, not thousands ofhard-copy documents to be sifted through. The scale alone caused considerable delay to the effort.”

            A P D ‘ s administrative review of the HRC emails resulted in the adjudication o f 91 valid violations attributable to 38 individuals. Additionally, APD adjudicated 497 valid violations where no individual was found to bear culpability, resulting in a ”valid, but not culpable” determination.
            Total Valid Violations Adjudicated: 91 Total VnC: 497

            “It was APD’s determination thatthe use ofa private email system to conduct official business added an increased degree of risk of compromise as a private system lacks the network monitoring and intrusion detection capabilities of State Department networks.”

            “Correspondence with the Secretary is inherently sensitive, and is therefore open for broad interpretation as to classification, particularly with respect to Foreign Government Information. Instances of classified information being deliberately transmitted via unclassified email were the rare exception and resulted in adjudicated security violations. There was no persuasive evidence ofsystemic, deliberate mishandling ofclassified information.” So, while tens of thousands of emails were deleted and never recovered, they found “rare” instances where classified information was deliberately discussed. The other violations involved classified information she claimed she did not know where classified at the time.

    2. Who cares? Patriotic Americans care very much about this juvenile stunt, approved in advance by the stuntmaster himself. It’s bad enough that we have a Russian asset in the White House, but now he has members of Congress violating the law by forcing their way into a secure chamber, interfering with Congressional investigations, which are empowered by the Constitution, and trying to force testimony to be public. There is NO law supporting these Republicans, who had to be removed by the Sergeant-at-Arms.

      We don’t care about Hillary Clinton. She has been cleared of criminal wrongdoing twice. We DO care about leveraging military aid appropriated by Congress for political reasons.

      And, much of what you claim to be facts are not true.

      1. your groundless insult of the President calling him a “Russian asset” is as false as all the other bogus slanders you people toss around against all those who don’t agree with you. Pathetic!

        As for Congressmen acting like men, I welcome it! Good for them! MY APPLAUSE!

      2. Natacha – but you argued previously that patriotism and nationalism are racist and xenophobic, and that acts of rebellion were to be applauded. Which is it?

        1. No, Karen, Honey, I’ve never equated patriotism and nationalism with racism and xenophobia. These big words are beyond your vocabulary because you really don’t know what they mean, any more than you know what anti-Semitism is.

          1. Natacha – for someone who overbills their clients are you trying to justify using them there five dollar words?

          2. OK. We’ll ignore all the previous. Next time you say “nationalist” in a derogatory manner, I will remind you of this post.

  10. The Democrat control of the media is fascinating.

    Joe Biden bragged, on record, about holding up US aid unless the prosecutor investigating corruption allegations in the company where his son Hunter was hired, without any experience, at $50K a month.

    Trump investigates the corruption allegations, and enlists Ukraine’s help.

    The media spins it as abuse of power, and Democrats start an impeachment investigation.

    Whoa. Don’t investigate Democrat corruption. You could get impeached! How dare they investigate allegations based on multiple on camera remarks! Meanwhile, Democrats use their authority, access to classified information, and taxpayer money to try to get opposition research on Trump for 2020.

    That’s what this is – an oppo research gathering mission. They have no hope of impeaching him. So they want dirt, and they’ll use government agencies to get it.

      1. Oh, Anon. Still can’t tell the truth from a hole in the ground.

        https://youtu.be/UXA–dj2-CY

        Ethics: Do not demand a prosecutor be fired who is investigating corruption in your son’s company. Recuse yourself from the matter. And then do not brag about it on TV. Then do not claim that you flew your son to Ukraine and China, but never once asked him what he planned to do there. No matter what excuses Biden tries to use to wiggle out of it, he was investing a company that hired his son, without any experience, for $50,000/month…for corruption.

        The fact that the prosecutor was fired indicates that corruption was, indeed, a problem in Ukraine.

        1. The prosecutor was not investigating the company Biden’s son was employed, or anything of significance, which is why it was stated US policy that he needed to be replaced before we committed US funds to the newly elected government with confidence. The IMF, the UK, and other western Governments and financial institutions held the same position.

          This has been extensively covered in the press and in postings to this blog, which why Karen’s posting must be viewed not as a mistake, but a lie.

            1. You don’t have it Paul. The “sky is green” statements of a Trump operative who ignores the evidence from Sen Johnson (R-Wisc), State dept memos, the President’s own admissions, and the ambassador who was part of the deliberations in order to prop up his leader is “nothing”, not something.

              1. “statements of a Trump operative ”

                Anon, take note how you can’t prove your case by quoting the words in context. That is because you are all about spin and abusive use of power.

          1. The prosecutor was not investigating the company Biden’s son was employed, o

            Because his father extorted the removal of the prosecutor who had been investigating his son.

              1. here we go with the newspaper reading stuff again.

                this is an insult not a comment. you might as well say “stop watching faux news” or “grow a brain” or whatever other nasty thing you want to say.

                1. I want you Trumpsters to tell me why Trump is so afraid of Joe Biden that he would illegally withhold military aid to try to coerce the Ukrainians into publicly claiming that the Bidens were being investigated. This pivoting failed grandly. Biden is up in the polls because Americans see Trump’s fear. The Republican invasion into the committee deposition of Cooper also backfired. The stench of desperation is in the air.

                  1. You want an answer to a false premise question. Object to the form of the question.

                    The question contains an explicit assumption that Trump did something illegal. he did not.

                    Reform your question into a proper query and maybe you’ll get a response. Otherwise you can try your bogus questions out on grade schoolers who can’t comprehend English.

                2. Just trying to be helpful kurtz. Willful ignorance can be fixed by reading from our best new sources. Admittedly, the desperate need to hear only what maintains your belief in the cult, as demonstrated here by Paul, TIA, and Karen, makes a breakout difficult, but regaining your self respect, and that of others, well worth it.

                  1. when i read the leading Inner Party News rags of today, I only read the NYT because the WAPO is a bore by comparison, and has too much behind the paywall. now there’s a thousand other newspapers out there but they’re mostly rehashing newswire stuff. the original content is few and far between. but here, let me give you an eidtorial i liked today (see below)

                    My self respect is ok, but, i do feel guilty for typing too much here every day when I could be making more money if I just stuck to the knitting. that’s my WASPish work ethic talking I guess. but it’s so darned fun!

                    https://humanevents.com/2019/10/25/mexico-is-at-war-america-needs-a-wall/

                    “Hispanic Americans did not come to this great land to replicate the conditions of Latin America—particularly the violence and corruption that plague our former homelands. Recent intense violence in Mexico serves as an ominous reminder of the dangers that lurk nearby and the necessity of gaining operational control of our border. This upheaval also presents an opportunity for President Trump to remind the electorate why his election was so vital: for decades, American elites have willingly surrendered our national sovereignty and jeopardized the national and economic security of our country.

                    Two events last week encapsulated the systemic violence that has embroiled our southern neighbor in recent years. First, thirteen Mexican policeman were killed in a brutal roadside ambush in Michoacán when dozens of gunmen, using high-caliber weapons, attacked from “presumably armored” vehicles. The brazen gangsters even left posters on the charred police cars signed with the initials of their Jalisco cartel.

                    Then, last Thursday, an all-out street battle erupted in the upscale neighborhood of Culiacan, the capital of Sinaloa state. Government forces briefly captured two sons of Joaquin “El Chapo” Guzman, the drug kingpin now imprisoned in the United States. One son was quickly freed from custody by his own armed security, after which he launched a massive and coordinated assault to free his brother, Ovidio. The normally quiet neighborhood became a war zone, resembling scenes from Syria: burning cars, billowing black smoke, and heavily-armed combatants. Amid the crackle of gunfire, the cartel methodically blockaded roads, took military members hostage, freed inmates, and took control of the city. The Mexican authorities relented and released El Chapo’s son to prevent further conflagration.

                    Such a capitulation may well mark a turning point in the already-bloody battles of cartel violence that beset our southern neighbor. Mexico will likely set a grisly all-time record for homicides this year, with almost twice as many total murders as the United States, despite having 200 million fewer people.

                    The increasingly powerful cartels that inflict much of this misery not only control the flow of narcotics, but also of people. As former ICE Acting Director Tom Homan said recently on a panel discussion at the National Press Club: “Nothing happens on that northern [Mexican] border without the blessing and paying off of the drug cartels.” On the same panel, Sheriff Andy Louderback of Jackson County, Texas added that “the penetration of the cartels is profound” in the border regions.

                    For too long, American elites willingly ignored the dangers of de facto open borders and largely unfettered illegal migration. On the GOP side, big business welcomed a steady stream of cheap labor. Across the aisle, the Democrats embraced the potential of huge new voting constituencies via amnesties and the offspring of illegal immigrants.

                    But these awful recent events in Mexico should awaken Americans to the realities of these proximate dangers and spur action to vastly improve control over our borders. While a complete border wall would not solve every problem at the border, it would clearly be a massive boon to law enforcement. New prohibitive barriers already deter trespassers and smugglers in places like San Diego, CA. The chief patrol agent for that sector, Douglas Harrison described the utility of freshly-installed steel bollard fencing: “it’s an intimidating barrier. I’m an old Army guy, I was in the 101st Airborne and I would not try to cross that.”….”

          2. “This has been extensively covered in the press and in postings to this blog, which why Karen’s posting must be viewed not as a mistake, but a lie.”

            Anon, that you are ignorant and don’t know the difference between fact and spin is obvious so of course you wouldn’t know the truth even if it was lying in front of you. Schiff is demonstating an abuse of power. You are an abusive person so you think that abuse is just normal.

              1. Paul, he may have no employees. He might only be dealing with sub contractors and buyers. Alternatively he could have just one or two employees that do the simpler work and use subcontractors for the rest.

                In my own home I recently did a remodel of a large area that included a kitchen, bathroom, study and a few other things. My contractor who in previous years had a suberb reputation had changed due to what I perceive was a serious problem. I was bleeding money outside of the contract provisions so I had no choice but to finish the job myself (about 50%) or hire another contractor. For legal reasons I decided not to fire him and he decided not to quit so I took over the job and with his two guys and finished the job redoing some of the work already performed to correct things that were dangerous (such as loose wires not picked up by the building inspector.). I hired some new sub contractors and finished the job. That included cutting opening finished walls to check and correct electric and plumbing. I used the knowledge of the sub contractors to finish.

                This gave me an opportunity to talk to the guys he had dealt with including the subcontractors. They did not talk nicely about him and that is why the two workers refused to walk off the job when he told the to. After completion, with approval of the building inspector, I had nothing further to do with the contractor. However, he did certain things that were picked up after the job was finished and ended up being arrested. The end product turned out fantastic.

          3. Anon – do you ever get tired to calling me a liar and then getting proven wrong? I think that makes it clear who the liar is.

  11. NEW TODAY: President Trump secures permanent ceasefire in northeast Syria

    In a major address today, President Donald J. Trump said that Turkey has agreed to turn their recent ceasefire along the Syrian border into a permanent agreement. As a result, the U.S. Treasury has lifted all of its recently imposed sanctions on Turkey.

    President Trump: 8 years after failed regime change, it’s time to come home.

    The agreement achieved by the Trump Administration, including the original 5-day ceasefire negotiated last week, has helped save lives and allow the Kurds to safely leave affected areas. These actions will help secure a more peaceful and stable border between Turkey and Syria. Ultimately, however, responsibility rests with those countries.

    “How many Americans must die in the Middle East in the midst of these ancient sectarian and tribal conflicts?” President Trump asked. “After all of the precious blood and treasure America has poured into the deserts of the Middle East, I am committed to pursuing a different course—one that leads to victory for America.”

    The United States expects Turkey to honor its commitments in the efforts to counter ISIS. We have defeated the Islamic State caliphate, and now it’s time for others in the region to step up and ensure ISIS does not regain territory.

    “Should Turkey fail to honor its obligations—including the protection of religious and ethnic minorities—we reserve the right to re-impose crippling sanctions, including substantially increased tariffs on steel and all other products coming out of Turkey,” President Trump said.

    Tough diplomacy, backed by American economic power and strength, saves lives. It also avoids the worst instincts of the Washington foreign policy establishment. “We have avoided another costly military intervention that could’ve led to disastrous, far-reaching consequences. Many thousands of people could’ve been killed,” the President said.

    Bottom line: President Trump will not send tens of thousands of American troops into never-ending conflict in Syria. He is not going to continue the disastrous policies of the previous Administration in the Middle East. And, most important, he is not going to get America into another endless war that costs us countless lives and resources.

    🎬 President Trump: 30 days turned into 10 years of war.

    1. About all I can see that was necessary over the past 18 years was about 90 days in 2001 when we eradicated the Al Qaeda training camps, which really was the only group capable of and interested in activities outside the Middle East.

      The Taliban were never enamored with Al Qaeda. They tolerated them more than anything else. And I think they realize that we will flatten any village should such camps pop up again. That should have been the mission, and a quick impressive victory should have been declared.

      The mission creep that happened there and everything else since that 90 day operation back in 2001 has cost lives and treasure and didn’t do the United States any good.

      Can you imagine what the Founding Fathers would have thought about 18 years of wars? They must be rolling over in their graves. Getting the beltway crowd to come down to Earth and operate as sensible human beings is going to require constant harassment.

      1. SteveJ, you are of course correct. Have you thought about the Anon1 character on the blog who was puffing his chest out opting for war. He’s one crazy dude.

      2. here is the fact that a lot of people never grasped about afghanistan
        the largest ethnic group (about 40%) of the country are Pashtun tribe.

        Pashtuns were (are) the backbone of the Taliban.

        The Taliban was — and remain– very popular among the Pashtun.

        Ergo, our “mission” which creeped from “dismantling al queda” into “removing the taliban” was utterly impossible without the old fashioned method of ….. the g world. You know the one I mean.

        Hence, the US has been in a 20 year impossible mission posture in that country.

        Unless of course, that wasn’t really the mission in the first place. I’m not sure what it really was but I have some ideas.

    2. My Dad was in the Middle East, when his host started discussing the origin of an ongoing blood feud. He got very worked up, obviously sincerely upset. My father was listening sympathetically, until there was the mention of riding horses. Wait a minute. How long ago did this happen? Generations.

      Bad blood is never satisfied in the desert.

  12. Trump showed extremely poor judgment in hiring Bolton in the first place. I’m confident that most neoconservatives voted for Clinton, and I’m confident I can count Bolton among them.

    He was never going to support ending any wars and wants to add a few new ones.

    1. Closed hearings are standard for certain subjects and the GOP practiced that when they ran the Houser. They don’t now. They can pound sand.

      The information will be made public when it is necessary.

    2. Kurtz, they crashed the meeting cuz that man yesterday said too much. And I guess that made the president mad. There comes a time where ya gotta shut things up. We do that down here with troublemakers.

      1. really? if it was in the SCIF and they weren’t, then how did they know if he said to much or not, as you style it?

        this assertion makes no sense. but have fun as the dog and pony show the Dem leadership is putting on for you loses steam

        See this is a simple plan, I get it now. Stretch out the whole “impeachment process” so as to allow opportunity to disrupt, engage in harassing discovery, potentially flip allies, generate more fake news headlines, all the usual mischief, and let it go once it runs out of steam, pack it in and say it’s too late.

        Because of course it would have been voted down in Senate anyhow.

        So they’ll not bring the articles of impeachment, even though Pelosi lied to you clowns again, and supposedly switched herself, but, that maybe was just an act, huh? I guess we’ll find out. And here i was taking her seriously for a while that she intended to do it. Now I just think she was faking it.

        1. Kurtz, you’re an attorney. You surely understand that part of the secrecy of grand juries is keeping the testimony of witnesses secret enough to not taint that of others, except maybe to the extent you want them to.

          As someone who follows politics, you also know that secret testimony is SOP before certain types of committees, and you should also know that many of those in the Rich White Men’s Riot were members of the committee and therefore knew what had been said in the SCIF. They also as members of the majority in past Congresses held secret committee hearings for subjects as they saw fit.

  13. Take a look at what the Democratic Party has done to the public education system in CA.

    1. Sex ed classes for elementary through high school students, with materials put together with Planned Parenthood and Cardea, and organization run by transgenders to promote transgenderism in schools.
    2. The classes are not the traditional biology classes. Rather, they are instructional. They cover explicit topics, and how-tos, which I will not go into in any detail here. Basically, instruction on how to perform hard core porn techniques.
    3. School districts are trained on how to cut parents out, including prohibiting opt-outs.
    4. Children of any age are allowed to leave school during the day to obtain an abortion. The school may not notify the parents in any way. No parental consent or notification required. The student will be marked “excused absent” and the notification to parent of the absence will be turned off.
    5. Tens of thousands of California taxpayer money went into training school districts on how to cut parents out.
    6. Gender is taught as an optional and morpheus identity. Children are taught that they can be any gender they want, at any time.
    11. The illustrations accompanying the materials are inappropriate.

    I am so tired of this. I am so TIRED of this. The hard Left ruins everything it touches. They are worse than the Soviet Union ruining dogs. Parents need to organize, and pull their children out of school when this nonsense is taught. Get homeschooling groups together to stay current in instruction. Schools will lose funding from all the absences until they stop disenfranchising parents. I already taught my kid how to read, and teach him real math. I’m basically homeschooling him in tandem with his public school education. I don’t want him to miss out on the experience of going to school, but I also need him to get a good education. Our public school system can’t even teach half of its students how to read at grade level, but they’re going to teach them how to do porn maneuvers?

    This is the trend we see with Leftism. Tyranny. Forcing opinions on others. Loss of individual freedoms. The child belongs to the state more than the parent.

    If you want more of this, then vote Democrat in 2020 and in your local and state elections. This is the trend nationwide. Or get some common sense and vote this extremism out.

    “No Opt-Out” – considering the topic, NSFW

    1. Karen: you can’t “promote” transgenderism. One is either a transgender or not, and for those who are not, they don’t have the right to abuse or discriminate against those who are. Therefore, teaching children to accept others whom they perceive to be different is not “promoting” transgenderism. What is the alternative–harassment and abuse? Schools should promote harassment and abuse? Where did you get the idea that California schools are forcing young children to learn hard-core pornographic techniques under the guise of sex education, that no biology is being taught, and that parents can’t opt-out or complain? This sounds like pure hyperbole to me. As to abortions, states have the right to make laws, and if California provides that a female old enough to conceive does not need her parents’ permission to obtain an abortion, and that schools can’t be forced to notify parents, then that is the law. There might well be good reasons why a young female doesn’t want her parents involved. Maybe her brother or father raped her. Maybe her mother tricked her out. If she doesn’t have a solid relationship with her parents and doesn’t want them to emotionally or physically abuse her or try to prevent her from deciding what’s best for her, then it is none of the business of the State of California or you. This also sounds fishy to me, because how many young females would announce to school administrators that they are leaving class to get an abortion? More of the hard-right hype to get people like you worked up.

      Lastly, you accuse the “hard Left” (which literally means nothing because most Americans oppose Trump) of being responsible for all of this alleged destruction of values, and if parents don’t want this, they should vote Republican because the Democrats will force these things on everyone in the US. Where did you get that idea?

      Karen, you’d be a lot happier in some place like Arkansas, Mississippi, Georgia or South Carolina. California really isn’t for you. Have you thought about moving?

      1. How to Promote Gender Confusion to Elementary School Kids:

        The Genderbread Man. Teaches that one can choose their gender at any given time of day. Confuses biological gender with performative identity. Gives the impression that you will get positive attention if you switch genders.

        This is given to children as young as kindergarten, who don’t understand concepts.

        https://www.genderbread.org/

        If you think the alternative to teaching little kids that biological gender doesn’t exist is harassment and abuse, then that is your problem. My kid would not harass a boy who pretended he was a dog, a pony, or a girl.

        Where do I get the idea that Democrats force this on everyone in the US? Because it is a growing nationwide problem that parents are up in arms against around the country.

        The sex education course was put together by Planned Parentood and Cardea. It discusses explicit techniques, some of which would, frankly, cause tearing and internal damage. To kids. They teach this to kids.

        Why would you want children taught how to perform hard core porn techniques, complete with illustrations? If your reason for girls getting abortions at school was that their parents either raped them or tricked them out, then A) those parents would know there was a pregnancy risk and B) the school should report abuse to the police, not help destroy evidence.

        1. Gender dysphoria is a mental illness in which the sufferer feels they are trapped in the body of the wrong sex. It is similar to body dismorphia.

          There are people who, no matter how thin they get, look in the mirror and see an obese person.

          There are people who think they are supposed to have a handicap.

          There are people who actually believe they are dogs, or dragons, or mermaids, trapped in a human body.

          Anyone suffering from a mental illness deserves compassion, kindness, and support. The goal is to heal the mind, not promote the spread of mental illness. If a policy produces an increase in gender anxiety, and medical castration, of children, science would generally consider that a negative outcome.

      2. I can see why you would support transgender curricula in elementary school, as you identify as both a nurse and a lawyer.

        1. You haven’t provided anything factual to support your wild claims, as usual. I want to know what California law REQUIRES the teaching of hard-core “how-to” pornographic sexual techniques under the guise of sex education to elementary level students, which is what you claim is going on. I think you made this up or that you are believing lies someone else made up.

          You also made up the claim that Democrats are “forcing” children to believe there is no such thing as gender: “because it is a growing nationwide problem that parents are up in arms against around the country.” That’s proof of nothing more than your discipleship to whatever blather you heard from some hard-right source that blames Democrats for everything. No one can “force” anyone to believe anything, but you seem to take issue with schools teaching children to be accepting of everyone, including people whose gender identity does not match their body.

          Now you’re even claiming that California schools actually perform abortions: “If your reason for girls getting abortions at school was that their parents either raped them or tricked them out…”. I want you to list every California school district or individual school that actually provides abortions in school. I think you’re making this up, too. You earlier were complaining that CA schools weren’t allowed to tell parents if their daughter left school to get an abortion, and I pointed out that it is unlikely that a girl would announce to school administrators that she was leaving to get an abortion.

          Where did you get the idea that gender dysmorphia is a mental illness? Mental health professionals acknowledge that this is a real phenomenon, and the law even protects people seeking to have their birth certificate changed to match their gender identity.

          1. this business of castrating boys who think they are girls is scandalous foolishness from the medical profession. they used to call it gender identity disorder and the current dsm renames it gender dysphoria not gender dysmorphia. anyways. so get the new name right if you’re going to begin wagging your finger here about that one too.

            I won’t go as far to say that every person who has trans inclinations is suffering from an illness, but definitely a lot of them are. And, perhaps slicing up the genitals that they were born with and dosing them up with hormones, is OK for some of them, I doubt it’s good for all. Rather I suspect that this dubious “treatment” is actually quite a bad idea and a bad outcome for some. Most of all it seems like an incredibly bad idea for anyone who is a minor although apparently, parents may “consent” to this form of surgical and biological mutilation, according to the current bogus “Standards of care.” Unbelievably so to those of us not caught up in the progressive ideological matrix.

            Feel free to educate yourself on this. This forum is hardly the place for the conversation although you invite it.

          2. Anonymous sockpuppet for Natacha:

            I wrote: “4. Children of any age are allowed to leave school during the day to obtain an abortion. The school may not notify the parents in any way. No parental consent or notification required. The student will be marked “excused absent” and the notification to parent of the absence will be turned off.”

            I made the point quite clearly that children were permitted to leave school during the day to get an abortion, and the school would cover for them, even lying to their parents. I never claimed California schools were an abortion provider. You know this is not my position, regardless of any subsequent typo. How ridiculous. Straw man. “I think you’re making this up, too.” No. You are making this up.

            “Where did you get the idea that gender dysmorphia is a mental illness?” From the DSM-5. (https://www.theravive.com/therapedia/gender-dysphoria-dsm–5-302.85-(f64.9))

            Deny it all you want. It’s a nationwide problem, covered by many news outlets. Parents are disgusted.

            That’s what the Left gets you.

            1. I will add that psychiatry is another field rapidly getting politicized. The Left has created a strong push to normalize gender identity disorders or gender dysphoria. The WHO no longer classifies it as a mental disorder. Unfortunately, sufferers usually exhibit concurrent additional mental disorders, as well.

              It is very sad, when politics infests science. Again, a symptom of Leftism, where dissent is not to be tolerated.

              1. Gender dysphoria is only listed because the harassment and abuse those with this condition experience from people like you causes them stress and anxiety. The condition itself is not a mental illness. THAT is the key difference between a true mental illness, such as schizophrenia and this condition, which is not, in and of itself, pathological. However, being hounded and called names, being accused of being a pervert, being fired or not hired and being harassed can cause anxiety and depression, which are conditions brought about by uneducated people like you who have no empathy and who cannot accept people who are different that they don’t understand.

                What “concurrent additional mental disorders” are you referring to? You’ve proven that you know little to nothing about science or psychiatry. Law and psychiatry both accept this condition as valid and worthy of recognition, and those finding themselves in this situation can even get their birth certificates and names changed to comport with their self-image. Science doesn’t really care whether you believe in it. There is no “dissent” when it comes to science or medicine, nor is recognition that a condition is not pathological based on politics. The law protects people with gender dysphoria. There is also no “Left”, as has been explained to you. That’s a convenient wastebasket word for people who oppose Trump, which is most Americans.

                1. Natch., you may wish to study the term LYSENKOISM from wiki

                  Lysenkoism (Russian: Лысе́нковщина, tr. Lysenkovshchina) was a political campaign conducted by Trofim Lysenko, his followers and Soviet authorities against genetics and science-based agriculture. Lysenko served as the director of the Soviet Union’s Lenin All-Union Academy of Agricultural Sciences. Lysenkoism began in the late 1920s and formally ended in 1964.

                  In modern usage, the term lysenkoism has become distinct from normal pseudoscience. Where pseudoscience pretends to be science, lysenkoism aims at attacking the legitimacy of science itself, usually for political reasons. It is the rejection of the universality of scientific truth, and the deliberate defamation of the scientific method to the level of politics.[citation needed]

                  The pseudo-scientific ideas of Lysenkoism assumed the heritability of acquired characteristics (Lamarckism).[1] Lysenko’s theory rejected Mendelian inheritance and the concept of the “gene”; it departed from Darwinian evolutionary theory by rejecting natural selection.[2] Proponents falsely claimed to have discovered, among many other things, that rye could transform into wheat and wheat into barley, that weeds could spontaneously transmute into food grains, and that “natural cooperation” was observed in nature as opposed to “natural selection”.[2] Lysenkoism promised extraordinary advances in breeding and in agriculture that never came about.

                  Joseph Stalin supported the campaign. More than 3,000 mainstream biologists were fired or even sent to prison,[3] and numerous scientists were executed as part of a campaign instigated by Lysenko to suppress his scientific opponents.[4][5][6][7] The president of the Agriculture Academy, Nikolai Vavilov, was sent to prison and died there, while scientific research in the field of genetics was effectively destroyed until the death of Stalin in 1953.[2] Research and teaching in the fields of neurophysiology, cell biology, and many other biological disciplines was also negatively affected or banned.[8]

                  TODAYS GENDER IDEOLOGY APPLIED FALSELY TO “MEDICINE” LEADING TO UNNECESSARY BODILY MUTILATIONS IS LYSENKOISM OF THE WORST KIND

                2. “PEOPLE LIKE YOU’ she blames for causing the poor trans folks anguish.

                  this is nonsense, but she’s just repeating what somebody told her!

                  in the following abstract, you can see where she gets this nutty idea

                  I’ll summarize it. even though trans people have major problems, compared to the rest of the population, before treatment, in general, cutting their genitals up and giving them hormones actually helps them!

                  https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9015577

                  “Previous studies suggest that many transsexuals evidence an Axis I diagnosis according to the DSM-IV classification (e.g., psychoses, major affective disorder). The current study examined retrospectively the comorbidity between gender dysphoria and major psychopathology, evaluating the charts of 435 gender dysphoric individuals (318 male and 117 female). All had undergone an extensive evaluation, addressing such areas as hormonal/surgical treatment, and histories of substance abuse, mental illness, genital mutilation, and suicide attempts. In addition, a subgroup of 137 individuals completed the MMPI. Findings revealed over two thirds were undergoing hormone reassignment, suggesting a commitment to the real-life cross-gender process. One quarter had had problems with substance abuse prior to entering treatment, but less than 10% evidenced problems associated with mental illness, genital mutilation, or suicide attempts. Those completing the MMPI (93 female and 44 male) demonstrated profiles that were notably free of psychopathology (e.g., Axis I or Axis II criteria). The one scale where significant differences were observed was the Mf scale, and this held true only for the male-to-female group. Psychological profiles as measured by the MMPI were more “normal” in the desired sex than the anatomic sex. [BRACE YOURSELVES FOR BIZARRE CONCLUSION] Results support the view that transsexualism is usually an isolated diagnosis and not part of any general psychopathological disorder.”

                  HERE IS WHERE I HAVE A BELLY LAUGH AT SUCH CONCLUSIONS. DO THEY REALLY EXPECT THINKING PEOPLE TO BELIEVE SUCH THINGS?

                  like did it occur to anybody that maybe just getting in to see a bunch of doctors and shrinks just helps these troubled folks in general, and might have helped them in general, without all the slicing, dicing, and hormones? errrrrrrrrrrr ummmmmm uhhhhhh

                  1. The politicization of science.

                    Transgenders have a 20X higher rate of suicide after surgery.

                    The Castratti were considered one of the darker sides to the history of opera. Eunuchs were some of the most tragic forms of slaves. Tragic that castration is back in vogue for children, when they are far too young to understand what the adults they trust are doing to them.

                    This is going to be a black eye on us when our descendants look back upon this time period. They will probably pull down some statues over it.

                3. Natacha said, “Gender dysphoria is only listed because the harassment and abuse those with this condition experience from people like you causes them stress and anxiety.”

                  She is lying yet again. Anytime someone claims to know what you think and feel is a red flag.

                  A transvestite taught me how to tango. Her tranny friend walked better on grass in stilettos than I did. I’ve been to the Crowning of the Queen, Halloween in Hollywood, and many others.

                  Why would I hate or harass someone struggling with any mental illness or any other challenge? That makes as little sense as assuming someone would be cruel to sufferers of anxiety, panic attacks, phobias, OCD, or manic episodes. Many people in America battle one challenge or another.

                  “Science doesn’t really care whether you believe in it. There is no “dissent” when it comes to science or medicine.” Don’t identify as a scientist or medical professional, then, because you would never pass.

                  You don’t think people with gender dysphoria suffer anxiety or distress because their outside does not match how they feel it should, regardless of if anyone knows about it?

                  “There is also no “Left”, as has been explained to you.” Are you just making up completely random statements at this point? Never read a peer reviewed article on the topic?

              1. underlying all the explanations of this stuff is are two “inconvenient truths” that all the liberal gender ideology seeks to distort:

                a. there are two identifiable and real sexes, male and female. regardless of the variability of their characteristics, the general types are valid, real, objective categories

                b. men and women are not the same. like it or not, that which is not the same, is not equal. I’ll spell this out in math. 2 = 2. 2 does not equal 2.3.
                hence, where there are objectively verifiable factual differences between the sexes, like size, muscle mass, ability to carry unborn humans, etc. men and women are actually thus not “equal’…..this difference has no normative content in itself, certainly not in nature, which requires BOTH to propagate a species, but, it’s attributed that by partisans, and hence this biological really bothers the champions of the vague shibboleth “equality” they exert constant pressure to deny facts and reality to conform to their specific notions of what’s ideal

                1. Kurtz, we are still learning what biologically determined differences exist between the sexes, but given that uncertainty and the fact that outliers exist outside the norms, as a general principle we should strive to keep the doors to opportunity wide open for our sons and daughters.

                  1. Science is already rather clear on marked differences between male and female brains. So much so, in fact, that you can usually tell on sight if a brain is male or female. This is in addition to known aptitude and statistical differences, which is why it is harmful to try to force all children to engage in gender atypical behavior. That refers to the movement of denying dolls to girls, and buying them Legos, and denying Legos and war game to boys, and buying them dolls. The existence of individuals with abilities and interests outside the norm are the reason why people should be judged and nurtured as individuals.

                    Allowing male athletes to compete in female sports, breaking records, and taking scholarships, is slamming that door of opportunity firmly shut in the faces of girls.

                    There is more to my sex than simply deciding you are a woman. Makeup and dresses and surgery does not create a woman. Is that all the Left thinks there is to being woman?

                    A man can perform in a feminine way, and a woman may perform in a masculine way. There is a time honored tradition of Tom boys among girls. There is nothing wrong with that. But you are not changing your sex when you behave like the opposite one.

                    Kabuki and Renaissance plays required all male cast. One would refer to a male playing a female part as “she”, but he’s really male. When RuPaul dresses drag, that is a female persona, whom I refer to as “she”, but RuPaul is a man. RuPaul has expressed no desire to control whatever pronoun anyone uses, as long as they are nice.

                    The government shall not infringe on anyone’s right to free speech. Required, lengthy lists of pronouns are forced speech. That is the way Canada has gone. The Left would see us follow, beginning with introducing gender dysphoria to impressionable young children.

                    1. Karen’s statement is like saying the Right favors biological fathers equal say in abortion or programs to blunt women’s ambition.

                      I am a leftist and not alone in opposing biological males from competing in women’s sports or changing our pronouns. The overwhelming majority of all Americans agree with that. There are extreme right wing viewpoints and extreme left wing viewpoints and painting “most” with “some” is propaganda, not serious debate.

                    2. I support programs to blunt women’s ambitions because I oppose forcing girls to play with Legos if they don’t want to?

                      Why do you keep lying about me? My degree is in the sciences and I worked in that field for years before having a kid. Science has more men than women. Nothing prevented me getting my degree or my job. No evil white men stifled me in meetings or stymied me at the lab bench. It is literally impossible that I would stand in the way of women, as that would block myself.

                      What I actually said was that one should judge and nurture the individual’s talents. Why lie? You keep trying to force my statements to match your narrative, but they won’t fit, so you resort to total fabrication. Which means that while supposedly supporting women’s ambitions, you constantly lie and misrepresent the woman speaking to you.

                    3. Karen, I did not accuse you of any of those positions, nor did I assume you held them. I was countering your fantasy all encompassing “Left” with a fantasy all encompassing “Right” to show iit was meaningless. Fortunately, and only true since the age of feminism began in the 60’s, the overwhelming majority of Americans agree that women should have equal rights and expect that for their daughters. Good! A very small number of radicals favor changing pronouns and ruining the advances in women’s sports largely gained through Title 9 by insisting gender is just an attitude, and they do not represent The Left as you labelled them, or the left is less than 10% of the population.

                      Does something approaching half our population – call it The Left if you want – think we should accommodate and respect, rather than mock and stigmatize the very small number of humans who struggle with their sexual identity, often unhappily and not by choice. Probably, yes. They don’t therefore wish to change the language. Does this same very rough number also favor continued removal of traditional roadblocks to achievement due to sex, Yes. That doesn’t mean they want Bruce Jenner in the Women’s Olympics. They may want a 12 year old girl, perhaps advanced physically by earlier on set of puberty than her friends who are boys, or just with a strong leg, kicking field goals in the boy’s football league? Again probably, though the ramifications for girls’ sports are negative.

                      How about adding the word “some” in front of the word “Left”, and try recognizing that much of the US population agrees on the big things – feminism, against racism, freedom of religion and speech, free enterprise, and national defense. We fight around the margins of these shared principles, and the differences are real nonetheless. But our differences are exploded and exploited by those with something to gain by that including some politicians, 24/7 cable “news”, and talk radio.

  14. TRUMP CALLED ZELENSKIY ON EASTER SUNDAY

    HINTS WERE DROPPED THEN ABOUT QUID PRO QUO

    More than two months before the phone call that launched the impeachment inquiry into President Donald Trump, Ukraine’s newly elected leader was already worried about pressure from the U.S. president to investigate his Democratic rival Joe Biden.

    Volodymyr Zelenskiy gathered a small group of advisers on May 7 in Kyiv for a meeting that was supposed to be about his nation’s energy needs. Instead, the group spent most of the three-hour discussion talking about how to navigate the insistence from Trump and his personal lawyer, Rudy Giuliani, for a probe and how to avoid becoming entangled in the American elections, according to three people familiar with the details of the meeting.

    The meeting came before Zelenskiy was inaugurated but about two weeks after Trump called to offer his congratulations on the night of the Ukrainian leader’s April 21 election.

    The White House has offered only a bare-bones public readout on the April call, saying Trump urged Zelenskiy and the Ukrainian people to implement reforms, increase prosperity and “root out corruption.” In the intervening months, Trump and his proxies have frequently used the word “corruption” to reference the monthslong efforts to get the Ukrainians to investigate Democrats.

    Within days, Giuliani flew to Madrid to meet privately with Yermak, Zelenskiy’s aide who was in the May 7 meeting.

    Both Trump and Giuliani made public comments and tweets referencing the Biden accusations, with the president’s lawyer suggesting in a Fox News interview on April 7 that the U.S. Justice Department should investigate the matter.

    Trump has said he would release a transcript of the first call, but the White House had no comment Wednesday on when, or if, that might happen.

    One day before Zelenskiy’s May 7 meeting with his advisers, the U.S. State Department recalled Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch, a career diplomat with a reputation for combating corruption. Yovanovitch had been the target of a sustained yearlong smear campaign by Giuliani and his associates.

    Edited from: “Ukrainian Leader Felt Trump Pressure Before Taking Office”

    The Associated Press, 10/23/19

    1. Regarding Above: The full article notes that in the run-up to Trump’s Easter Sunday call to Zelenskiy, Fox News had been running numerous stories regarding Hunter Biden’s activities in Ukraine. This illustrates once again the closed feedback loop between Fox News and this White House. One can never be sure which end of that loop is driving events.

  15. TAYLOR RECALLS HOW GORDON SONDLAND

    PRESENTED THE QUID PRO QUO

    Mr. Taylor brought to the House hearing a 50-year résumé of public service, starting as a cadet at the United States Military Academy at West Point and an infantry officer with the 101st Airborne Division in Vietnam. He served every administration, Republican and Democrat, since President Ronald Reagan, culminating with a posting as ambassador to Ukraine under President George W. Bush. And he was recruited last spring by Mike Pompeo, Mr. Trump’s secretary of state to return to Kiev to replace Marie L. Yovanovitch, the ambassador tarred by Mr. Trump’s camp as an adversary.

    In his 14-page opening statement, bristling with indignation yet chock-full of dates, facts and quotes, Mr. Taylor on Tuesday described “two channels of U.S. policymaking and implementation, one regular and one highly irregular,” run largely by the president’s personal lawyer Rudolph W. Giuliani, as well as others like Gordon D. Sondland, the ambassador to the European Union.

    Taylor recalled being stunned to learn during a secure video conference call on July 18 that the aid to Ukraine had been delayed with no explanation other than that “the directive had come from the president to the chief of staff to” the Office of Management and Budget.

    “I and others sat in astonishment,” he testified. “The Ukrainians were fighting the Russians and counted on not only the training and weapons, but also the assurance of U.S. support.”

    No one told the Ukrainians at first, and Mr. Taylor recalled meeting with President Volodymyr Zelensky in Kiev on July 26, the day after Mr. Trump pressed the newly elected Ukrainian leader on the telephone to investigate Mr. Biden and the 2016 election conspiracy theory.

    As weeks went by without a resolution of the aid impasse, Mr. Taylor said he began preparing to resign. His resolve was strengthened when Mr. Sondland and Timothy Morrison, the senior director for European and Russian affairs at the National Security Council, both indicated to him that the aid was conditioned on Ukraine opening the investigations sought by the president.

    Mr. Sondland explained that Mr. Trump saw it through a transactional lens. “When a businessman is about to sign a check to someone who owes him something, he said, the businessman asks that person to pay up before signing the check,” Mr. Taylor said, quoting Mr. Sondland. Mr. Volker “used the same terms several days later.”

    Edited from: “An Envoy’s Damming Account Of Trump’s Ukraine Pressure And It’s Consequences”.

    The New York Times, 10/22/19

    1. Regarding Above

      That last paragraph is essentially the Quid Pro Quo presented by Gordon Sondland: “When a businessman is about to sign a check to someone who owes him something, he said, the businessman asks that person to pay up before signing the check,”

      One could expand on this to say it’s an example of why we don’t want ‘businessmen’ in the White House.

      1. yes of course! we don’t want real leaders like business men–
        just the sort of “vetted” ticket punchers who will do precisely whatever Foggy Bottom bureaucrats tell them to do, regardless of any election or perceived executive decision making role.

        1. Except that Trump has failed at business, multiple times, stiffing creditors and filing multiple bankruptcies. He has a bad reputation in the business world, so much so that no US banks would loan him any more money. He has been a defendant in hundreds of lawsuits. So, he took on partners because they could get credit that he couldn’t, and he stiffed them, too. Since then, he has turned to Russia and Saudi Arabia to borrow money, hence the deference to the murderous dictators who run both of these countries. Also, he began trading on the fake persona of the self-made billionaire, which is pure fraud because he was supported by his Daddy well into his forties. So, he started The Apprentice, Trump University, sued by multiple victims for fraud, and for which there was a multi million dollar payout, also Trump Steaks, Trump booze, Trump golf accessories, and, of course, the hotels, most of which are now operating in the red. No problem–just divert refueling and maintenance routes for military aircraft to Scottish and Irish airports close to his properties, and for which an overnight layover is required. Also, schedule the G-7 summit for Doral, which is also running in the red when the PGA tour stopped going there because of Trump. What phony Emoluments Clause would prevent these things?

          The fundamental flaw in thinking that principles for running a successful business (even if Trump’s had been, which they weren’t) apply to government is that there are too many differences between the fundamental aims and purposes of government and business. One difference is that government does not exist to make a profit. Those who lead government take an oath to uphold patriotic values set forth in the Constitution. Business leaders are charged with making a return on investment for stockholders. Government officials are accountable to the citizens who elect them to decide policy, for the expenditures of monies collected through taxes, and for protecting and defending the Constitution, treaties and American values. Of course, these things conflict with Trump’s agenda of self-promotion and self-aggrandizement and attacks on opponents, the details of which are becoming more obvious every single day. Trump lacks a basic understanding of how government works. He has never been accountable for his conduct, either when his Daddy was supporting him or after Fred’s death, and he has never been required to report to a Board of Directors. Trump’s persona of a self-made multi-billionaire is all smoke and mirrors. He is neither patriotic nor altruistic, as the latest scandal proves. He tried to leverage aid to Ukraine by attempting to force the President of Ukraine to publicly announce that the Biden family was going to be investigated. He doesn’t understand that while he could get away with this maneuver in the business world, when it comes to government, this conduct is not only unethical but sufficient grounds for impeachment. He also attacks anyone who criticizes him, conduct which might not be unacceptable in the business world, but which is unacceptable for the American standard-bearer. Then, there’s the endless lying about everything and firing people who stand up for American values and against him and his agenda. Trump is no leader–he is a bully and failure.

          1. Natacha – when you have an empire as big as Trump’s you will fail at some things and be great at others. Look at the Ford Edsel, where is it today? And we would need the fingers of all the Chinese to count all the movies that have failed. Entrepreneurs are risk takers. You are not. You are in two risk adverse industries, nursing and law. You are in no place to throw stones. Anon1, if he is telling the truth, is at least meeting a payroll every week. You are just billing minutes and your firm probably over bills.

            1. Paul: I see you are a true believer. You really believe Trump has a huge empire that has been successful overall and that he did it all himself, by virtue of his unmatched genius, none of which is true. It is a fable, a fake persona he has carefully cultivated over the years because of his malignant narcissism. If only some parts of this allegedly huge empire failed but was successful overall, then he wouldn’t have trouble getting loans, and if he was the mega-billionaire he claims to be, why does he need to borrow money all of the time, take on partners with good credit, and sell things like steaks, booze, golf accessories and start Trump University and “The Apprentice”? Most Edsels are in the hands of collectors or in museums, and there is an entire story about the undeserved bad publicity this vehicle received that accounts for it being labeled as a failure. As to movies that have failed, some were critically acclaimed but tanked at the box office only to succeed later on as cult classics or being rediscovered. In any event, comparing Trump’s business failures to cars and movies is false equivalency. He is not an entrepreneur–he took over a real estate business started by his father. He never invented anything unique. He is no visionary. Why do you feel the need to falsely accuse me of cheating my clients, anyway?

                1. You made the accusation–you prove it. And, BTW, there are few to no greater risk-takers than personal injury plaintiff’s attorneys, which is part of what I do. You work and advance expenses on the hope and belief that you can get a good recovery for your client. You have no way to control whether you get stuck with some extreme conservative with no empathy like you or Karen that you can’t get rid of with a peremptory, and who is so pro-defense that no facts would persuade them.

                  1. Natacha – so, you are taking contingency cases, for part of what you do. What about the rest? Why would I have empathy for you as a client? Is empathy part of the attorney-client relationship? BTW, is your cut 33 or 40%? And are you absorbing the court costs or passing them on to the client?

                    1. Here’s an well-grounded example about empathy and Trump supporter: Karen recently went on a rant about the young females who were groomed by Epstein to perform sex acts. Alan Dershowitz admits to stripping down to his underwear and accepting a “massage” from one of them, but he denies anything sexual happened. Karen was so hell-bent on defending Dershowitz that she actually mused that perhaps this 12 or 13 year old Jezebel was trying to set up poor innocent Dershowitz for blackmail or money. Anybody whose head is shoved that far up their butt that they could even entertain the idea that a vulnerable child* could conceive such a scheme is the sort of juror I am referring to. That there could be people whose thinking is this warped is why defense attorneys make outrageous arguments in defense of what is indefensible to any rational person. There just might be a Karen on the jury could actually be convinced that some conniving 12 year old was trying to take advantage of a middle-aged man old enough to be her grandfather who only innocently wanted a mostly-nude massage.

                      Another example: I read about an Indiana case once in which a lawyer was charged with murdering his wife. She was found with a bullet wound to the head, rolled up in a carpet inside of a closet. Her bed was covered in blood. After attacking her in multiple ways by trying to paint her as a bad person, this lawyer argued that her final act of being a bad person was to shoot herself in the head while lying in bed; then, she got up, laid down on a rug, rolled herself up and got into the closet. He claimed she staged what he claimed was her suicide to make him look bad. Of course, this argument is beyond stupid, but there are people out there who just might buy it. It would only take one for a mistrial. Some women judge other women particularly harshly.

                      My contractual relationships with my clients are none of your business.

                      *Epstein knew that girls in precarious family situations were ripe for being exploited: girls who had no father figure in their lives, whose mothers had to work long hours, or who were having trouble adjusting.

                    2. im not aware of any such case from Indiana. I think you may have typed Atlanta and your spell check changed it.

                      the google search for “lawyer murdered wife” only turns up one from atlanta

                      https://www.foxnews.com/us/atlanta-attorney-convicted-of-killing-wife-influencing-witnesses

                      oh wait, she can’t read Fox, let’s get it from a more likely source

                      http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/ex-lawyer-who-murdered-his-wife-loses-standing-bid-to-dismiss-estates-wrongful-death-suit

                    1. LOL

                      I have been away for 2 days and see that nothing has changed if not gotten worse

                      Peter Shill’s writing voice is found on several different profile names making him cringeworthy.

                      Nutchacha writes comments as long as the copy and paste that Peter Shill vomits on these pages, only to have the usual crazies like Ynot and too many Anonymouses to keep track, excrete their foul shtick

                      Dont any of you have hobbies, spouses, or a few good books to write?

                      Is Paul still an agnostic?

                      😉

                      I do hope some of you will rejoin civilization and interact with locals who could use your wisdom, your intellect, your hands to straighten their paths

                      Just a thought ya know

          2. Natcha knows absolutely nothing about business and finance. His comments about business failures are moronic.

            1. No. My comments are based on facts–check out the A & E Biography on the Trumps. He has filed at least 6 business bankruptcies. He does cheat people in business–enters into contracts for goods and services, receives the benefit of the agreement, then doesn’t pay, forces them to sue him and then negotiates for a lower price. You might think this is smart. Most people think this is crooking, which is why he finds it hard to get people to do business with him.

                    1. Paul, Trump signed onto “The Apprentice” in the wake of his Atlantic City bankruptcies. Apparently those bankruptcies were a serious setback to Trump.

              1. He was an equity investor on a set of Atlantic City properties. The corporation filed for reorganization 4x before he finally sold his interest.

          3. Natch, all that blathering shows you have very little understanding of what comprises success for a business leader, or an executive.

            In case you didn’t know this, business leaders often stumble. They are not afraid to fail. Lee Iacocca for example was hailed as a leader and had many fine achievements as a captain of industry, but he also made many mistakes. Part of what makes them leaders is the ability to make a mistake and keep on trucking.

            You’re obsessed with him in a negative way.

      2. Who are you quoting? A secondhand quote? An interpretation of what another said? Hearsay?

        Let me expand on the quote… When a businessman who is the CEO of a company is about to sign a check to someone who owes the company something, the businessman asks that person to pay up before signing the check.” Thank goodness Trump knows what he is doing.

        That is a good reason for having a businessman in the White House.

        1. Thanks, Alan. ‘Yes’, that’s a quid pro quo regarding military aid in exchange for confirmation of conspiracy theories.

          1. Peter, I guess you will give Anon a check in full in advance of him building you a home without any specifications what so ever. We knew you weren’t very bright but never expected you to be this unaware.

            Thank goodness we have a President that expects something for our money and our blood.

        2. “Thank goodness Trump knows what he is doing” …….That should tell anybody reading this blog that you Allan are as clueless as they come. But I do thank you for making me laugh out loud.

          1. Allan a small insignificant fish in a pretty small pond (the comments section of this blog). He wants to be a big fish. And he thinks he’s in a big pond. And Allan is indeed as “clueless as they come.”

            1. Anonymous the Stupid keeps trying to appear smart but fails everytime. Maybe a CAT Scan of your brain will make it grow.

              1. Allan’s a teeny-tiny insignificant fish in a pretty small pond (the comments section of this blog). He wants to be a big fish. And he thinks he’s in a big pond.

                Allan is indeed as “clueless as they come.” The only stupid person in this exchange is Allan, as evidenced by his ridiculous retorts.

                He posts a lot of comments and gets a little attention from the other fish (not many) that hang out here, but he accomplishes nothing. Still, as others have said, at least he can’t do any damage in this realm. He’s an abusive know-it-all.

            1. Says “Allan” who knows from experience what it’s like to live in his mom’s basement. That’s where he is now.

              1. ” what it’s like to live in his mom’s basement.”

                Anonymous the Stupid I know what it is like to live in a slum. That type of place is surrounded by deadbeat braindead dudes like you.

    2. Your tunnel-vision intellectual limits are best evidenced by your knowledge of how to spell “damming” (this clearly is not a “typo.”)

  16. The President of the United States conducted foreign policy.

    OMG! Impeach him!
    ___________

    “That dudn’t make any sense.”

    – George W. Bush
    _______________

    Obongo wasn’t eligible for the office and conservatives didn’t even consider impeachment.

    Comey publicly proved the litany of crimes by Hillary and no charges were brought (prosecutors were left salivating for the slam-dunk case).
    __________________________________________________________________

    “We’ll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false.”

    – William Casey, CIA Director 1981

Leave a Reply