RedSpawn

The GOP is trying to rollback ACA so it can give tax breaks to the wealthy constituents before the 2018 midterm elections. There is a method to the madness.

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/07/14/house-passes-defense-policy-bill-240561 http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/12/02/house-passes-611-billion-defense-policy-bill-by-wide-margin.html ==> 2017 amount was $611 billion The House approved a defense spending bill for $700 billion on Friday July 14 which was more than Trump's budgetary appropriation? We can't solve the health care bill but we can approve the 2018 military budget for more than Trump requested....hmmmm Any bill as large as the 2008 TARP bailout should get a little heavier press coverage.

http://www.snopes.com/2017/07/11/sinclair-broadcast-group-propaganda/ Wow! And the FCC is complicit in the consolidation. . .

Now, that we have a thread dedicated to BC. . . We all agreed that the meeting with Loretta Lynch is . . .disturbing. But why should we give BC the benefit of the doubt in this scenario? Admittedly, we can't just throw spaghetti against the wall and see what will stick but understanding that BC has been fined by a federal judge for perjury as a sitting President (for lying under oath to hide a dalliance) and has been accused of obstruction of justice by an independent prosecutor of the Monica S Lewinsky case, we have to wonder what was BC's intent. And a fair question, would these type of unseemly acts have stopped if he had become 1st Gentleman in the White House? Granted, it is a speculative question, but he was having unethical meetings with Loretta Lynch before he would become 1st Gentleman.

[

This is not a hijack but a continuation of an earlier thought you had about consolidation and its influence on how we see the world through the red and blue sunglasses: http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-w3wOv0wqjeY/UXBRc0iETkI/AAAAAAABhqk/9gaLBu-kmt8/s1600/graphic.jpg This screen caps says volumes and just makes me say wow! MOVIE STUDIOS now control the NEWS companies.

What does Russian-American lobbyist mean? I am interested in the hacking accusation. Can the news expound on the nature of the hacking accusation which did not result in a conviction? This drawing out of pieces of the story is insulting to the general public. I didn't realize the whole story required carefully crafted piecemeal distribution. And on the flip side, who was the wise person who decided that a former Soviet counter intelligence officer should be granted American citizenship? This smells very fishy on both sides; he appears to be an equally dangerous agent as a Washington lobbyist. http://www.gannett-cdn.com/-mm-/e6091af2f6d83f7f7436b5adcf10f9450c0f542e/c=1-0-1022-768&r=x513&c=680x510/local/-/media/2015/04/23/Louisville/Louisville/635653905546972822-murphy-0424.jpg

Agreed. It is bad and poor, hasty decision-making. I am surprised that this request was not run through their legal counsel which should have nipped this in the bud early on. They had to wait a few days to meet so there was time to dot the I's and cross the T's.

Nice example, but I don't discuss hypothetical false comparisons, I discuss FEDERAL LAW and FEDERAL CODES. https://transition.fec.gov/pages/brochures/foreign.shtml I said Trump Jr. might be guilty of solicitation since an intermediary he knows offered for him to meet a Russian lawyer who promised damaging information on Hillary Clinton. Trump Jr. accepted the offer from his intermediary and then coordinated to meet the Russian lawyer through his intermediary. The Russian lawyer and Trump Jr. met and nothing of value was exchanged. Solicitation of political contribution -- indirectly, yes. Who made the solicitation to offer damaging information on Hillary Clinton? The Russian lawyer? Rob Goldstone, the intermediary who e-mailed Trump, Jr.? Or did Donald Trump solicit the Russian lawyer directly in another e-mail string we don't have? The e-mail string shows he accepted an offer of solicitation from his intermediary without having his lawyers review the Federal Election Campaign Act for this. The Russian lawyer is also on record saying that she never promised Trump Jr. any damaging information on Hillary Clinton, though Trump Jr. may have desired such information from her. http://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/russian-lawyer-who-met-trump-jr-i-didn-t-have-n781631 . So, if she didn't promise damaging information on Hillary Clinton, who promised Rob Goldstone that they had damaging information on Hillary Clinton? One must KNOW the solicitor for the act to be prosecutable. Acceptance of political contribution -- Ummm, no. He can't accept a thing of value the Russian lawyer doesn't have. Receipt of political contribution --- Ummm, no. He can't receive a thing of value the Russian lawyer didn't give.

GO TO THE SOURCE: https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/11/110.20 11 CFR 110.20 - Prohibition on contributions, donations, expenditures, independent expenditures, and disbursements by foreign nationals (52 U.S.C. 30121, 36 U.S.C. 510). Where did the Russian lawyer, a foreign national, expressly or impliedly promise to make a contribution or thing of value? We don't have any of her e-mails. Also, there appears to be a misunderstanding as to what the nature of the meeting with the Russian lawyer was. Donald Trump, Jr wanted one thing and the lawyer was there for a different reason. http://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/russian-lawyer-who-met-trump-jr-i-didn-t-have-n781631 She denied having any intelligence for Donald Trump Jr. and she was there to discuss the removal of U.S. economic sanctions against Russia (been in place against Russia since at least 2014).

I would think even marginal Trump supporters now have to agree that when it comes to Russian collusion, Donald Trump's denials are meaningless. With politicians, it's rarely ever a question of do they lie. Deep down we all know politicians tell lies to keep their constituents happy and to protect themselves; it's usually a matter of which lie you catch them in that determines if you ever will believe them again. Let's look at the facts here: According to the Federal Election Commission, See https://www.fec.gov/help-candidates-and-committees/candidate-taking-receipts/contribution-types/ for additional information I want you to note that contributions include a THING OF VALUE GIVEN, LOANED, OR ADVANCED! So, let's look what happened. . . Rob Goldstone, an intermediary, sent an e-mail to Donald Trump, Jr and told him that a Russian government official might have some salacious, compromising information on Hillary Clinton. Donald Trump e-mails back and says he would love to hear it. Rob Goldstone and Donald Trump, Jr. coordinate a mutually convenient time to meet this Russian lawyer. They coordinate a time to meet her and eventually do. Donald Trump, Jr. finds out that the Russian lawyer has absolutely nothing of value (no intelligence) to offer as she switches the conversation to other matters. Since the Russian lawyer is denying that she is connected to the Kremlin, can our government provide explicit PROOF that this lawyer is in the employ of the Kremlin? Obviously we can't go to Putin to verify that considering the source and if the woman has a Russian passport, that does not mean that she works for the Russian government. It means she is a Russian citizen and is a foreign national who is prohibited from making a contibution to influence federal elections. Here's the rub: THE RUSSIAN LAYWER HASN'T GIVEN, LOANED, OR ADVANCED A THING OF VALUE TO INFLUENCE THE FEDERAL ELECTION. She didn't have $hit to offer. She hasn't made a contribution to influence a federal election, though she appears to be a part of a solicitation scheme coordinated by Rob Goldstone. You could say indirectly that Donald Trump Jr. is guilty of solicitation since he didn't initially seek this damaging information out; the OFFER to meet the Russian lawyer came through Rob Goldstone, an intermediary (who should also be pulled in any solicitation charges under the Federal Election Commission). However, Donald Trump Jr. (and others) agreed to meet with her because she allegedly promised a thing of value she didn't have. The Trump campaign did not CONSTRUCTIVELY ACCEPT OR RECEIVE intelligence or a thing of value which is prohibited by the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA). A promise to deliver intelligence is not a thing of value or a reportable contribution under FECA. The Federal Election Committee should investigate the matter for potential solicitation violations and affix a fine, but since the Trump campaign didn't constructively receive or accept A THING OF VALUE, I can't imagine an imprisonment coming out of this. There just isn't enough fire. The Trump campaign needed to have accepted or received A THING OF VALUE and then fail to report it to federal government. And while my interest is piqued, I still do not understand who masterminded the hack of the Democratic National Convention server and then released the trove of e-mails on Wikileaks. There are some missing pieces that need to be made before we employ terms like treason or dark money espionage.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/sciencefair/2017/07/12/massive-iceberg-breaks-off-antarctica/102637874/ How much is natural continental drift and how much could be man-made? Ok, I guess a few of the answers are here: http://digg.com/2017/scientists-teleport-object-into-space-explained Hmmmm

http://www.nytimes.com/1861/01/25/news/treason-against-the-united-states.html I don't think receiving sensitive, compromising information about Hillary Clinton (his opposition) from Russia qualifies as treason per the Constitution. See link. It's a dumb move if the campaign had received the intelligence because what was the legal consideration Russia expected in return? If money, the Trump campaign would be in direct violation of federal campaign financing laws. If a quid pro quo act, the Trump campaign might be in violation of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act or a future bribery charge if it could be proven why he granted Russia favorable treatment on a particular issue. See http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/07/18/foreign-money-campaign-finance-lobbying_n_897189.html We need a whole lot more linkages to solidify the collusion angle especially with the DNC server hacking still a mystery.

I am willing to follow your theory of weaponization when you answer how do we know Russia and/or Russian propagandists hacked the DNC server when no federal investigative authority analyzed the hacked DNC server? I am not wooed by the slow trickle of information because the answers I want on the government side won't be answered. That's the beauty of intelligence leaks, the government gets to determine what is fit for public consumption but will withhold information that may paint itself in an unseemly light.

He lied under oath in a legal proceeding regarding SEXUAL HARASSMENT AND witness tampered AND hid subpoenaed gifts from the court. Do not mitigate this to some small lie to Congress. Make sure you discuss the subsequent obstructionist behavior which is also illegal. This happened under the Paula Jones case and he paid a whopping $850,000 settlement to end the civil case once the sperm on the blue dress knocked down the impressive house of cards he built. The judge fined BC $90,000 because unlike our Congress, she found him in contempt of court and guilty of perjury. See https://www.theguardian.com/world/1999/jul/30/clinton.usa He had the benefit of reasonable doubt UNTIL science proved what his soul refused to confess under oath. Why would he admit to sexual harassment even if he had done it when the burden of proof is on the prosecution? He is a good leader who happens to be a very good liar and obstructionist. And despite these failings, we are going to side with the accused because THIS TIME he is telling the truth in a different sexual harassment case?

They aren't equivalent but the sexual assault allegations against BC for Kathleen Willey and Juanita Broddrick are right up Trump's pu$$y grabbing alley. When a man gropes you and kisses you without invitation, I thought that qualified as sexual assault. OK, enough about sexual assault. http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/07/politics/bill-clinton-history-2016-election/index.html

I'm not seeing how we can rail on Trump but any comparison of the same behavior to other President's similar behavior is considered hijacked and moderator worthy and requires a separate thread. If the Office of the President has a moral standard, then it applies to all Presidents, not just the one we are rooting for. I am deeply disappointed that we call moderators than discuss the double standard we hold for Presidents in terms of their character. Sad.

They were not adjudicated in a criminal proceeding because even our own forefathers could not conceive a scenario where we would need to prosecute a sitting President for acts that besmirches the Office of the President. What Congress did was take the path of least resistance and essentially censured his behavior because they wanted the nation to put this disgusting display of character behind them. With 100% of Democratic senators (45 of them) voting not guilty on both charges, it was not a vote of conscience, but a vote of political expedience. We played politics with the highest office of the executive branch. http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/clinton/senatevotes.html It is not a diversion or hijack to compare the sexual indiscretions of two Presidents in a Forum. But it is disingenuous to suggest that a President who did all of this for a dalliance could not possibly do something similar for his wife. Why is that? Why is it too conspiratorial with respect to Loretta Lynch?

I am not seeing how a Former President who grabbed and kissed an alleged victim, received fellatio in the White House from his subordinate, lied about it under oath, witness tampered to subjugate the truth, lied to the nation about said matter, obstructed justice by hiding subpoenaed gifts he gave to his fellator, and then tried to invoke Executive privilege about allegedly private sexual acts performed on federal property is a SIDESHOW. This is serious stuff not some child's play act. This man's character and behavior during the entire episode is just as alarming as the Pu$$y-Grabber in Chief but collectively the nation decided to overlook these character flaws despite the pattern of behavior and the subsequent criminal acts. Keep in mind I said he MIGHT have obstructed justice with the unscheduled meeting with Loretta Lynch on the Phoenix tarmac and people acted like that was too conspiratorial or out of character for the man. Oh really? He will attempt to obstruct justice for his fellator, but never his wife. That is beyond the realm of reason. Thank goodness he left his DNA on Lewinsky's dress or he might've gotten away with the perfect crime. Tell me how this series of acts qualify as an "aberration" of character. I would like to see how someone who unapologetically abuses his power and authority and risks his political career for a damn dalliance is less of a clear and present danger than Trump. BOTH MEN deserve public condemnation. There are no mitigating factors.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/golf/lpga/2017/07/10/donald-trump-said-have-threatened-usga-lawsuit/465590001/ Will principle or politics prevail?

This is where things get murky. Some folks think it is adulterous act but not a criminal one; it's just a marital matter. Some think it was sexual act with criminal acts that followed. Some folks look at the Lewinsky affair and his previously unaddressed sexual allegations and see an opportunistic womanizer. Others see a man on the verge of being a sexual predator given the pattern of seemingly repetitive behavior. Other folks think his lying and subsequent cover-up through obstruction of justice was understandable because he had a reasonable expectation of privacy about a "marital matter" even if the sexual acts occurred on federal property. This just shows how complex it is to reach a consensus on matters involving character. Did we all watch the same news videos and articles about this matter. And if so, how did we come to the conclusion that this behavior is a "character aberration"? And I hate to throw this into the ring but BC does not have the look nor calling card of a sexual predator. His victims are not especially innocent either which makes proving that case even harder.

http://www.burrardstreetjournal.com/updated-mayan-calendar-declares-world-will-end-on-jan-20-2017/ I like this one--the end of the world is coming when Trump starts his presidency on January 20th, 2017. :lol: http://vaticanenquirer.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/Mayan-Calendar-Predicts-World-Will-Now-End-On-January-20th-2017.jpg

Actually, I find someone telling me that opening the hand in question as 2♣ is fool's gold in an Expert Forum is even more obscene. Or to suggest that I need 11 playing tricks for a 2♣ open is just blasphemous. The discussion of points came AFTER the person suggested the hand is question is not good enough for 2♣ and isn't a 22+ points hand (see above). 2♣ openings don't have to be determined by points. You can count losers or playing tricks as well. But if you were to play TOTAL points, the hand has more than 21 HCP and just how much is your call, but to dismiss it and suggest that it isn't a 22 point hand because we experts don't commit to such novice academic exercises during hand evaluation...no problems here. At some point, however, you have to trade in shape and suit length and trick taking ability for points and while you may not want to commit an arbitrary # to it, you have to assign it something even if you prefer to evaluate 2♣ on a case-by-case basis.

BC and Monica's affair doesn't fall under the veil of privacy because he committed the acts on federally owned property! He didn't go onto some private property to make out with Monica or wait until he was on vacation at some private locale or meet her at some hotel while on business travel. He had sexual relations with a subordinate INSIDE the White House and on federal government property and then proceeded to use parts of his power and authority to cover-up the acts which occurred in the public domain. One should not enter federal public property and then demand a reasonable expectation of privacy for unseemly acts--with the exception of a bathroom or a dressing room of course. The maxim "don't dip your pen in the company ink" applies to this situation as well.

I have a few questions that I feel are fair--not to divert--but they need to be asked. The Democratic National Committee (DNC) was hacked in July 2016 and the e-mails that were hacked were released on Wikileaks prior to the November election. Was the release of the DNC e-mails online a national security matter under the jurisdiction of the federal government since it could potentially have a material outcome on a Presidential election? IF the hacking of the DNC and the subsequent release of the trove of DNC emails online was a national security matter with the potential to disturb our electoral process, then why did the federal government treat it is a private matter and allow a 3rd party service provider to analyze the DNC's server and conduct all of the forensic investigation of the server? I want to make the case that now the Department of Homeland Security is saying that communications and information technology infrastructure owned by individual states for voting purposes now falls under its jurisdiction and now DHS can access, examine, and scrutinize these systems without permission. See https://www.dhs.gov/news/2017/01/06/statement-secretary-johnson-designation-election-infrastructure-critical for additional information. How do we know that it was Russian hackers and propagandists who hacked the DNC server? Absolutely NONE of the cybersecurity or forensic work on the hacked server was done by a federal investigation authority. Remember, the FBI, CIA, or NSA didn't examine the DNC's server but relied on the results of Crowdstrike since the DNC would not grant them access to the servers. How does the FBI know that Crowdstrike followed proper evidence handling and investigation protocol? No governmental authority was present while Crowdstrike performed its work. This has practically destroyed the chain of custody for the critical evidence in question. Couldn't the FBI have petitioned the Supreme Court for an injunction to get access to the DNC server if the hack was truly a matter of national security which had the potential to affect the outcome of our federal election? So we have Crowdstrike, a 3rd party service provider, saying that it was the Russians who hacked the DNC server in July 2016 and we have, I don't know who to believe? Truth be told, this looks VERY ODD and SUSPICIOUS on the federal government's side AND on Trump's side. The way our federal government handled this matter made it seem like it was some small scale theft in the beginning. The FBI acted as if it had no legitimate jurisdiction in this "matter" and doesn't appear to go to any great lengths to pursue a matter that could have large national security concerns. So the DNC refused to give the FBI the server for review; the government relies on a private company to do the forensic investigative work on the server. The hacked e-mails are published on Wikileaks and our federal government does nothing substantial to offset the negative impact of this leak. It appears the federal government allows the media and the populace to sort out the details of this information for themselves. Now that Trump is President, the full measure of the intelligence agencies are being employed and presenting this "matter" as if it a huge collusion conspiracy and national security breach demanding the public's full attention. I don't give Trump a pass and I am not giving our government a pass either--something is fishy on BOTH sides of this story.