Bluegrassrivals

With just a little over 3 weeks in office and one of King Donald's top adviser resign's
Who's Next ?
Matthew 24:24

That's a lot of silence.

I believe they have all taken there shoes off and counting
Let's see if the Republicans in Congress love there country more than party

I am very curious to see how "Love of Country" comes to play. How many hearings did we have on Bengazhi? That was justified, I agreed to them. How many hearings on a private server did we have? A little extreme, but ok. My simple two part question is will we having a hearing on Russia and the influence they have had our election system with the context of two members of the President's team now resigning in light of this revelation. Second, will we have a hearing about the use of the President's unsecured cell phone that he uses to conduct not only his business (which in my mind would be fine) but also takes phone calls dealing with national matters (not fine). Where are the hearings... it only adds to the fuel to the fire that the GOP cares more about politics and not about the country (I don't necessary think it is all GOP) Thoughts?

mr.fundamental Wrote:I am very curious to see how "Love of Country" comes to play. How many hearings did we have on Bengazhi? That was justified, I agreed to them. How many hearings on a private server did we have? A little extreme, but ok. My simple two part question is will we having a hearing on Russia and the influence they have had our election system with the context of two members of the President's team now resigning in light of this revelation. Second, will we have a hearing about the use of the President's unsecured cell phone that he uses to conduct not only his business (which in my mind would be fine) but also takes phone calls dealing with national matters (not fine). Where are the hearings... it only adds to the fuel to the fire that the GOP cares more about politics and not about the country (I don't necessary think it is all GOP) Thoughts?

Are there any examples of selflessness by Dems upon which you have based your opinion?

Any Dem that voted for the "Patriot Act" of 2001. This flew in the face of personal liberty, which I believe that Dems always stress, especially in the the argument of Roe V. Wade. That is an example. However, even if I could not give an example, is that really what we want from our country? "Well, the other party doesn't care about the country so why should we?" Are we still going by Ronald Reagan's 11th golden rule? Do we sacrifice our moral beliefs over a party?

Micah 6:8!!!

Again I ask
"will we having a hearing on Russia and the influence they have had our election system with the context of two members of the President's team now resigning in light of this revelation. Second, will we have a hearing about the use of the President's unsecured cell phone that he uses to conduct not only his business (which in my mind would be fine) but also takes phone calls dealing with national matters (not fine). Where are the hearings..."

mr.fundamental Wrote:I am very curious to see how "Love of Country" comes to play. How many hearings did we have on Bengazhi? That was justified, I agreed to them. How many hearings on a private server did we have? A little extreme, but ok. My simple two part question is will we having a hearing on Russia and the influence they have had our election system with the context of two members of the President's team now resigning in light of this revelation. Second, will we have a hearing about the use of the President's unsecured cell phone that he uses to conduct not only his business (which in my mind would be fine) but also takes phone calls dealing with national matters (not fine). Where are the hearings... it only adds to the fuel to the fire that the GOP cares more about politics and not about the country (I don't necessary think it is all GOP) Thoughts?

mr.fundamental Wrote:Any Dem that voted for the "Patriot Act" of 2001. This flew in the face of personal liberty, which I believe that Dems always stress, especially in the the argument of Roe V. Wade. That is an example. However, even if I could not give an example, is that really what we want from our country? "Well, the other party doesn't care about the country so why should we?" Are we still going by Ronald Reagan's 11th golden rule? Do we sacrifice our moral beliefs over a party?

Micah 6:8!!!

Again I ask
"will we having a hearing on Russia and the influence they have had our election system with the context of two members of the President's team now resigning in light of this revelation. Second, will we have a hearing about the use of the President's unsecured cell phone that he uses to conduct not only his business (which in my mind would be fine) but also takes phone calls dealing with national matters (not fine). Where are the hearings..."

It might take more than 10 minutes even in the face of an oppositional Congress to get an investigation together. Why don't you check on the timelines involving Benghazi and the server scandal and you might get some clarity. Meanwhile the President says the rats in the woodpile who're divulging all sorts of classified information from the present administration, were strangely silent in the last.

But yeah, I got a couple thoughts. First as to the hearings on Benghazi. As of 2010 Republicans chair the various committees and that is the direct result of the people's will having given them the majority to include the House Oversight Committee. But Dems still controlled much of the outcome of the Benghazi Investigation for the following reasons. The media were merciless critics of lead figures Darrell Issa and Jason Chaffetz, and I MEAN merciless. But their efforts paled in comparison to those of House Select Committee on Benghazi ranking member Elijah Cummings, who managed single handedly to greatly influence the outcomes of both Congressional panels on the subject. And of course, the documents subpoenaed by the investigatory committees were not exactly forth coming as I recall.

The media made Cummins look like a true statesman, and did their best to make Repubs look like vindictive conspiracy theorists IMHO. Years earlier, I watched the Dems use the clout of the CBC to get Bill Clinton off, and I watched the same thing go down during the Benghazi Hearings in getting Hillary off. Not that I think she alone was at fault. I believe she was doing the bidding of the Administration, which employed a tactic brought to light in the movie entitled " A Clear and Present Danger," there referred to as "the Potomac Two Step," to dodge responsibility.

The server, apart from the normal machinations of the KGB, was what led to any alleged Russian led election interference and meddling in US affairs in the first place. Russian hackers probably were responsible for brokering stolen John Podesta emails to Julian Assange. But if Podesta hadn't supplied so-called hackers (who got access to the account thanks to Podesta's stupidity in giving his email account pass word to them in a phishing scam), perhaps the whole thing would never have happened. As things turned out, no amount of lying could bail Dems out of the mess that created.

I guess the outcome of the hearings you mention were based on the same concept as 'too big to fail,' as nobody was held accountable for the failings you mention. And BTW, where the server is concerned, it seems the only folks who might not know what info was hadable to the bad actors of Director Comey's mention are the American people, as the server hard drive was destroyed.

I'd say a hearing on the Flynn matter will be forthcoming. But the outcome will not be as Dems so dearly hope because thanks to the ascension of Jeff Sessions, we now have a reasonably functional DOJ.

As to Trump's cell phone usage. He has a new security advisor now in the person of Admiral Harwood, though I would hope the President would have already been properly informed as to what the acceptably secure methods of communication actually are. Hopefully you're not suggesting Trump should be accosted for doing something which is so far completely unproven, but if so were done in the minor sense, while the former Secretary of State and the most qualified person to ever run for President in the person of Hillary Clinton, who as chief of national security reportedly did in the major. And who these same folks who're all aflame with concern now, made not a peep when Hillary said under oath, that she didn't know what the letter C in parenthesis meant on government documents.

I'm with you on tightening up security. But as I heard General Jack Keane say only today, if the intelligence community is responsible for these leaks, and according to him they are the most likely source, we've got a very real problem. In any case if as Dems contend, national security was a prime factor in the Dem's lament over Hillary's loss as that might have been relative to the leaked emails. It would seem that now the same concerns have suddenly become rather secondary, as obvious leaks which are being revealed in near real time on matters that are the normally considered protected national secrets, are not even being talked about outside of FOX News circles. It would seem the double standard still applies as the need to drain the swamp has been again highlighted by recent events.

BTW, you'd have to explain what Micah 6:8 has to do with Congressional hearings or Russian election shenanigans.

If, IF, Candidate Trump was in the loop of an ongoing "reach out" to Russian "spy gazing" into Democratic National Committee, and IF it is established he ordered and/or authorized his staff to do so, Houston, we got a problem. However, that's a lot of "if's".

The Urban Sombrero Wrote:If, IF, Candidate Trump was in the loop of an ongoing "reach out" to Russian "spy gazing" into Democratic National Committee, and IF it is established he ordered and/or authorized his staff to do so, Houston, we got a problem. However, that's a lot of "if's".

Beyond learning to navigate the political swamp, Trump's only shortfall is in having underestimated the power and resolve of the DC establishment in the form of Obama hold-overs and career bureaucrats. Somebody has broken the law in all of this, I doubt it was General Flynn and am almost positive it was not Mr Trump. With so much time in front this President, if those guilty aren't sweating bullets, they likely should be.

One does not come into high federal office like Alice in Wonderland, thus calls of the nature being discussed are an altogether acceptable practice, even requisite practice. Flynn would still be National Security Advisor if not for that conversation with VP Pence and his subsequent airing of denial on the part of the General. Saying that, it's a shame that the whole thing transpired. The transcript of the phone call in question reportedly floating around in media circles, was not the result of foreign hostiles hacking General Flynn's phone conversations. Rather it was the result of a clandestine and illegal action undertaken undoubtedly for the sake of political agenda on the part of a US citizen whose job affords him/her access to secret documents. So who has been denied the much needed skills and services of a true patriot at the top of his very highly specialized career field? Oh just the American public, who by the way, should be incensed and concerned about the nature of the whole mess.

BTW, do I need to point out how the last NSA began her stint? Appearing on no less than five Sunday news programs to forcefully push the Administration's position that a video had provoked the Benghazi attacks?

TheRealThing Wrote:Are there any examples of selflessness by Dems upon which you have based your opinion?

mr.fundamental Wrote:Any Dem that voted for the "Patriot Act" of 2001. This flew in the face of personal liberty, which I believe that Dems always stress, especially in the the argument of Roe V. Wade. That is an example. However, even if I could not give an example, is that really what we want from our country? "Well, the other party doesn't care about the country so why should we?" Are we still going by Ronald Reagan's 11th golden rule? Do we sacrifice our moral beliefs over a party?

Micah 6:8!!!

Again I ask
"will we having a hearing on Russia and the influence they have had our election system with the context of two members of the President's team now resigning in light of this revelation. Second, will we have a hearing about the use of the President's unsecured cell phone that he uses to conduct not only his business (which in my mind would be fine) but also takes phone calls dealing with national matters (not fine). Where are the hearings..."

Maybe I'm missing something but still I don't follow your line of thought in your love of country remark, nor can I think of a single instance in which a Dem was hurt by not voting for the Patriot Act, nor would Dems support of Roe be an act of selflessness. Maybe mindlessness.

Something over 90% of this whole media generated firestorm is the product of speculation. And that slim percentage which is based in fact is owing to an act which is likely treason or something very close to it, by a person or persons who've been given a position of trust, but who decided to betray that trust in releasing to the media a transcript of a classified document attributable to the National Security Advisor.

Your Micah 6:8 reference indicates you think Republicans will circle the wagons, and that you expect them to act unjustly. Is the firing of General Flynn just enough for you when the whole mess is the result of treachery? But I suspect your hopeful excitement is not limited to the fall of General Flynn, the left has a much bigger fish to fry, correct?

TheRealThing Wrote:Beyond learning to navigate the political swamp, Trump's only shortfall is in having underestimated the power and resolve of the DC establishment in the form of Obama hold-overs and career bureaucrats. Somebody has broken the law in all of this, I doubt it was General Flynn and am almost positive it was not Mr Trump. With so much time in front this President, if those guilty aren't sweating bullets, they likely should be.

One does not come into high federal office like Alice in Wonderland, thus calls of the nature being discussed are an altogether acceptable practice, even requisite practice. Flynn would still be National Security Advisor if not for that conversation with VP Pence and his subsequent airing of denial on the part of the General. Saying that, it's a shame that the whole thing transpired. The transcript of the phone call in question reportedly floating around in media circles, was not the result of foreign hostiles hacking General Flynn's phone conversations. Rather it was the result of a clandestine and illegal action undertaken undoubtedly for the sake of political agenda on the part of a US citizen whose job affords him/her access to secret documents. So who has been denied the much needed skills and services of a true patriot at the top of his very highly specialized career field? Oh just the American public, who by the way, should be incensed and concerned about the nature of the whole mess.

BTW, do I need to point out how the last NSA began her stint? Appearing on no less than five Sunday news programs to forcefully push the Administration's position that a video had provoked the Benghazi attacks?

I said "IF" and hope there is no real fire behind the smoke. Personally, I take no joy or satisfaction from General Flynn's fate. Politicians, and their appointees, have to walk very circumspectly in a saturated media frenzy. It's tough business.

The Urban Sombrero Wrote:I said "IF" and hope there is no real fire behind the smoke. Personally, I take no joy or satisfaction from General Flynn's fate. Politicians, and their appointees, have to walk very circumspectly in a saturated media frenzy. It's tough business.

I'm synopsizing here, but relative to the media frenzy of your mention. The New York Times on Tuesday reported that Russian authorities had made contact with the Trump campaign in August of 2016. The article's obviously overarching inference was there may have been some amount of collusion between Russia and the Trump campaign, as that may have been applicable to the so-called Russian election interference. Having read the article, Shepard Smith of FOX News was in rare form today, frothing through his daily assault on all things Trump as if he were positive that this deal would eclipse Watergate or something. The parent network at FOX lost me for the most part when Megyn Kelley mounted her anti-Trump campaign with Cavuto and junk yard dog Charlie Gasparino joining in shortly thereafter, and the preponderance of the remaining shows have fallen like dominos until now, only Tucker Carlson and Hannity survive.

At any rate, after opening said article in such sensational fashion, the times reporter in question said "and BTW, "there is no proof of any kind of cooperation between Russia and the Trump campaign." DUH. But what we do have, is then President Obama caught on tape via a hot mic telling Russian Premier Medvedev to "wait until after HIS election" when he would be free evidently to do whatever Medvedev was asking, because after the election he'd be untouchable. I watched, I waited, and absolutely nothing was made of Obama's outrageous comment, much less whatever the heck his intention was. Who knows what it may have been, but I do know that Obama was reelected in 2012, and I know that Russia gained control of a staggering 20% of US uranium production in 2013. "Rosatom’s acquisition of Toronto-based miner Uranium One Inc. made the Russian agency, which also builds nuclear weapons, one the world’s top five producers of the radioactive metal and gave it ownership of a mine [SIZE="3"]in Wyoming."[/SIZE]
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/...anium-mine

Anybody here remember hearing the first negative story about that? I don't. But on evidence which is thinner than a gnat's hinder parts stretched over a box car, our US media bent on politics of destruction, are out there making the federal government look like a bunch of bozos, while the 9th Circus Court of Appeals has taken steps to ensure the bad guys can keep pouring into our country to spite a sitting President.

mr.fundamental Wrote:Any Dem that voted for the "Patriot Act" of 2001. This flew in the face of personal liberty, which I believe that Dems always stress, especially in the the argument of Roe V. Wade. That is an example. However, even if I could not give an example, is that really what we want from our country? "Well, the other party doesn't care about the country so why should we?" Are we still going by Ronald Reagan's 11th golden rule? Do we sacrifice our moral beliefs over a party?

Micah 6:8!!!

Again I ask
"will we having a hearing on Russia and the influence they have had our election system with the context of two members of the President's team now resigning in light of this revelation. Second, will we have a hearing about the use of the President's unsecured cell phone that he uses to conduct not only his business (which in my mind would be fine) but also takes phone calls dealing with national matters (not fine). Where are the hearings..."

It is hilarious to see liberals talk about personal liberty and claim that Democrats are the champions of individual freedom. Democrats, and liberal Democrats especially, are greater threats to personal liberty than the communists were. Why? Because Democrats consistently work to grow the federal government and centralize political power in Washington. They do what Marx and Lenin could only dream of doing to this country. A big centralized government is antithetical to personal liberty as iare liberals' relentless assaults on economic liberty and corporations.

As our founding fathers explained so eloquently, we are born with certain inalienable rights. A bigger federal government only facilitates the deprivation of our God given rights by our oppressors in DC.

As our founding fathers explained so eloquently, we are born with certain inalienable rights. A bigger federal government only facilitates the deprivation of our God given rights by our oppressors in DC.


Was our founding fathers talking about all the people or just the white people ?

Watched a very informative segment on the news last night. Former Senior Intelligence Agent William Binney, architect of the spying apparatus presently employed by the NSA, was the guest of Lou Dobbs. It seems according to Mr Binney, that the NSA can listen in to the phone conversations and read the written communications (emails) of the President, as well as those of his cabinet (yes that includes the Secretary of State) and all of their staff. Literally every member of Congress in both houses from Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, down to Freshman Congressman Ro Khanna, and from thence down to the lowly interns that answer the phones. On to the combined military to include the Joint Chiefs, and last but not finally, the members of the US Supreme Court and their clerks and staff.

Sort of lends the old axiom "that speaks volumes" a bit of an eye opening, does it not? To whatever extent that Mr Binney was correct, that would mean that all the back and forth between Congress and the DOJ and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, may not be floating around out there in the phantom zone of irretrievable and lost cyberspace after all. Would necessarily then everything we think we know of that time need to be completely reconsidered in new light to be understood? :yikes: Now, I do believe it is likely that there are ways for government officials to have a secure conversation away from NSA ears, though that would certainly not include the former Secretary's beloved blackberries.

But as all of this applies to General Flynn. According to Mr Binney, when one accesses NSA system logs applicable to any particular person and date, say for example to retrieve the text of a phone conversation with a Russian Ambassador, he too then falls victim to the system by being identified by the system. Uh-oh.

But we shouldn't be confirming to Russian ears the methods and modus-operandi of our intelligence operations anyway. All of these sophomoric machinations shows what happens when government agencies are politicized, and is the result of the political contempt clouding the judgment of the recently dethroned left. I would refer you to the opener in the "Contempt has turned to War" thread. It's not politics as usual as some would contend, and is certainly not harmless.

vector Wrote:As our founding fathers explained so eloquently, we are born with certain inalienable rights. A bigger federal government only facilitates the deprivation of our God given rights by our oppressors in DC.


Was our founding fathers talking about all the people or just the white people ?

Do you dispute their assertion that all of us are born with unalienable rights, vector, or are we only entitled to rights granted to us by a government?

The U.S. government has deprived many Americans of their God-given rights during our country's history, but prohibiting the exercise of rights does not eliminate those rights. Black Americans always had equal rights, as did citizens of Japanese and Italian ancestry, the federal government just prevented the exercise of those rights.

And that is my point - the bigger and more invasice a government is, the bigger threat it poses to the exercise of its citizens' rights. Big government loving liberals are the biggest threat to freedom that this country faces today.

Happy Presidents Day to our wonderful leader Donald J. Trump.

Pissing off liberal snoflakes everyday like its going out of style.

Happy President's Day. God Bless!

All most 6 weeks in office looks like another one of King Donald's Pals will be gone

Committee confirmation hearing, Sessions was asked by Sen. Al Franken, D-Minn., what he would do if he learned of any evidence that anyone affiliated with the Trump campaign communicated with the Russian government in the course of the 2016 campaign.

"I'm not aware of any of those activities," he responded. He added: "I have been called a surrogate at a time or two in that campaign and I did not have communications with the Russians."

WHO'S NEXT

vector Wrote:All most 6 weeks in office looks like another one of King Donald's Pals will be gone

Committee confirmation hearing, Sessions was asked by Sen. Al Franken, D-Minn., what he would do if he learned of any evidence that anyone affiliated with the Trump campaign communicated with the Russian government in the course of the 2016 campaign.

"I'm not aware of any of those activities," he responded. He added: "I have been called a surrogate at a time or two in that campaign and I did not have communications with the Russians."

WHO'S NEXT

I know how tough it is when one is forced by the events of history to just sit back and watch his Party become sidelined. Democrats lost over 1000 seats in state and federal government during the Obama Era and 2018 looks to be even more foreboding for the hapless opposition.

Sorry about your bad luck but then after all, Dems brought all their problems on themselves with their guileful manipulations. In fact, it looks as if Trump will be an 8 year President and with any luck at all, Pence will follow for the next 8. You have in all likelihood, 16 years of Republican leadership laying ahead to endure. :biggrin:

Since the shocking results of the election, Dems have acted like a pack of vicious dogs looking to tear into their political foes with rabid abandon. So be it and enjoy what happened to Flynn, because history will not repeat itself. Speaker Ryan is on air at this moment in support of the Trump Administration. Earlier Judge Napolitano said he has watched the Al Franken questioning at least 8 times this very morning and that Jeff Session's answers were all perfectly logical responses without any sort of ambiguity whatever.

Even if supporters can't get over themselves with regard to the present political state of affairs, Dem Congressmen eventually will. There are limits to public gullibility, and Americans have had quite enough. But such is the nature of the Dem's blind contempt as they are obviously out of control, and the results will only serve to further the aspirations of the Republican Party.

Definition of perjury
: the voluntary violation of an oath or vow either by swearing to what is untrue or by omission to do what has been promised under oath : false swearing

He was under oath and they asked hin a question about anyone in the Trump campaign that had any contacts or communications with any Russian officials
He said NO
THEN HE HAD A CHANCE TO GO OVER THE RECORD AND FIX ANY MISTAKES
AND HE DIDN'T
Now he might not have any talks about the election but as of today there are I believe 26 members on that committee and he was the only one who met with Russian officials during the campaign
This is the top law official in the country he voted to impeach Bill Clinton for
Perjury in 1999
What's the difference?
All he had to do when he was under oath was to admit talking to Russian officials and this wouldn't be an issue or when he REVIEWED his record correct it but he chose not to

^^ All based on a false premise. The relative question asked was whether he'd discussed anything with the ambassador about the campaign. Sessions is not an idiot, the parameters of the question were narrow as was his direct and accurate answer, which was NO. And frankly, much of what Senator Sessions would have spoken with the ambassador about would have been classified. Further, unlike the former Secretary of State, Mr Sessions actually knows what the symbol © means when placed on government documents, and is not about to blurt out government secrets just because chuckleheads like Franken and Pelosi think he should.

Now in blurring the afore mentioned question parameters to the widest possible extent, your ilk would have us to believe that Sessions denied ever having spoken with Russian authorities at all. So many desperate hopefuls are out there praying for Republican demise, thankfully though, Sessions and his staff are smart enough to understand the true nature of the question. If it were me I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for who's next. But this is a free country as they say.

There was nothing about the campaign it was DURING the campaign

Franken: "CNN just published a story alleging that the intelligence community provided documents to the president-elect last week that included information that quote, ‘Russian operatives claimed to have compromising personal and financial information about Mr. Trump.’ These documents also allegedly say quote, ‘There was a continuing exchange of information during the campaign between Trump's surrogates and intermediaries for the Russian government.’

"Now, again, I'm telling you this as it's coming out, so you know. But if it's true, it's obviously extremely serious and if there is any evidence that anyone affiliated with the Trump campaign communicated with the Russian government in the course of this campaign, what will you do?"

Sessions: "Senator Franken, I'm not aware of any of those activities. I have been called a surrogate at a time or two in that campaign and I didn't have — did not have communications with the Russians, and I'm unable to comment on it."

Sessions and spokeswoman Sarah Isgur Flores have said his statement was truthful because he met with the Russian ambassador in his capacity as a senator, not as a Trump campaign surrogate.

"He was asked during the hearing about communications between Russia and the Trump campaign — not about meetings he took as a senator and a member of the Armed Services Committee," Flores told the Washington Post.

While one can argue that Sessions should have mentioned his meetings with Kislyak at the hearing, it’s possible he didn’t perjure himself based on the question Franken asked.

In a separate questionnaire, Sessions more directly denied personally contacting any Russian officials regarding the 2016 election.

Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., asked: "Several of the President-elect’s nominees or senior advisers have Russian ties. Have you been in contact with anyone connected to any part of the Russian government about the 2016 election, either before or after election day?"

Sessions responded, in total: "No."

Like I said, I know how bad it hurts to think it will be 16 years or more before Dems can hope to remotely become relevant again. Meanwhile unlike the last completely partisan DOJ which stonewalled Republican led investigations for the entire 8 year Obama tenure, AG Jeff Sessions took the high road by recusing himself from any campaign/Russian investigations.

And though it looks like you got that copy and paste thing down to pure science, the partisan posses have already seen their days of triumph. And I guess for those of the past administration who skirted the law so adroitly, the fact that Republicans now occupy the White House and the DOJ, has evidently escaped their notice. I mean, they got so much stuff swept up under the rug one can't even walk on it anymore.

The rats in the woodpile picked off Flynn that's true, but in so doing they risked exposing themselves to a very efficient and feared intelligence branch. And about right now I'd guess that the Trump Administration might be second guessing their expectations of any sort of rational bipartisanship in the federal government.

TheRealThing Wrote:Like I said, I know how bad it hurts to think it will be 16 years or more before Dems can hope to remotely become relevant again. Meanwhile unlike the last completely partisan DOJ which stonewalled Republican led investigations for the entire 8 year Obama tenure, AG Jeff Sessions took the high road by recusing himself from any campaign/Russian investigations.

And though it looks like you got that copy and paste thing down to pure science, the partisan posses have already seen their days of triumph. And I guess for those of the past administration who skirted the law so adroitly, the fact that Republicans now occupy the White House and the DOJ, has evidently escaped their notice. I mean, they got so much stuff swept up under the rug one can't even walk on it anymore.

The rats in the woodpile picked off Flynn that's true, but in so doing they risked exposing themselves to a very efficient and feared intelligence branch. And about right now I'd guess that the Trump Administration might be second guessing their expectations of any sort of rational bipartisanship in the federal government.

Now, about your "16 or more years" statement: does that apply to the Presidency AND majorities in House and Senate? Or, are you speaking more about state- level majorities?

AG Sessions did the politically prudent thing by recusing himself.

The Urban Sombrero Wrote:Now, about your "16 or more years" statement: does that apply to the Presidency AND majorities in House and Senate? Or, are you speaking more about state- level majorities?

AG Sessions did the politically prudent thing by recusing himself.

I agree and frankly, such selfless behavior was commonplace in the federal government up until the Clinton Administration. In all cases of appearance of conflict of interest, recusal is the right thing to do. Now, such things could be manufactured in today's adversarial political environment, so I don't believe automatic capitulation should be the norm. In this case though, sufficient conflict does in fact exist. But in the case of General Flynn for example, many felt the Trump Administration may have rolled over too easily.

IMHO, Republicans will pick up more seats in the Senate in 2018 and they will hold serve in the House. In 2020 DJT will be reelected and his coat tails will assure Republican majorities in both houses.

Oh dear!! Could Obama be "the next one"???

Can you say Obamagate???

Ive moved a couple of Vectors post referring to Granny Bear.

Ill let her decide what she wants to do with them.

In the meantime, talk like that again Vector, youll be on the sideline.

Granny Bear Wrote:Oh dear!! Could Obama be "the next one"???

Can you say Obamagate???

Trump says the Obama Administration wire tapped Trump Tower during the campaign. Obama says the allegation is false. FTR, I wouldn't believe Obama if he was standing on Mt Sinai.

TheRealThing Wrote:Trump says the Obama Administration wire tapped Trump Tower during the campaign. Obama says the allegation is false. FTR, I wouldn't believe Obama if he was standing on Mt Sinai.

"Deflectgate"

The use of Twitter in the attemp to deflect a news story with wild, unsubstantiated accusation.