RedSpawn

The Prosecutor and Judge are both Department of Justice agents of the principal which is the sovereign entity of the United States of America. Ex parte applies to both. But let's move beyond mere conjecture. Please click the following link http://congressionalresearch.com/RL30060/document.php for information about the McDade-Murtha Amendment, 28 U.S.C. 530 B which contains a "no contact rule" for state and federal prosecutors. This federal law was passed by Congress to hopefully curtail prosecutorial misconduct. Under the no contact rule, they suggest that the Attorney General should only be talking to Hillary Clinton's lawyer not Bill Clinton even if the contact occurs pre-arrest and pre-indictment. Again, the judge and prosecutor are to avoid even the slightest appearance of impropriety. The Department of Justice doesn't like this amendment, but those are the ethical standards and federal laws by which we must abide. We picked a very contentious area of the law.

I think you missed what the American election was about. It's always about the economy as the global economy is making American jobs evaporate faster than they can be replaced. People who have worked their whole lives and watched their jobs evaporate before their very eyes feel that they have been sold a false bill of goods. They feel the rules of the game have been changed midstream and the American dream is now a moving target. Further, the explosive growth of the internet is vertically integrating a lot of industries and ruthlessly decimating others. It is eliminating certain parties in the distribution chain so retail and "middle man" jobs are drying up as retailers close some of their retail outlets and opt for a regionally located warehouse with a small complement of staff to ship goods via internet. Also, the populace is upset about the child-like infighting and political dysfunction of our government where politicians appear more beholden to lobbyists and special interests than governing of the people, by the people, and for the people. If you look at the last 16 years, both Democratic and Republican Presidents have run up our federal public debt by $13.8 trillion! Yet we have repeated war mongering, ambiguous immigration enforcement, an all-out assault on the financial stability of the middle class, out of control military spending with annual unreliable DoD financial statements to conceal potential savings opportunities, increased mandatory entitlement spending for Social Security & Medicare as the biggest generation begins to retire from the work force, and the turtle-paced replacement and reinvestment in critical infrastructure. The Treasury and Federal Reserve Bank have misplaced priorities as they assume we can "quantitatively ease" and deficit-spend our way into economic prosperity. Silly rabbit, financial magic tricks are for kids. Both sides of the aisle are having problems keeping appearances with their constituents. The Tea Party movement on the Republican side was born from the out of control spending by George W. Bush, the Iraq War intelligence failure, and the housing bubble massacre before the November 2008 election. In this last election, the media cast Bernie Sanders as the inexperienced anti-establishment hero on the Democratic side and Trump assumed the same role on the right--even though he was an alleged billionaire who fraternized with the D.C. establishment. The election of Trump was a sordid way for the populace to give the middle finger to the establishment since the nomination process to the Presidency is fundamentally flawed and broken. They want more than the predictable career politician who caters to lobbyists and deficit spends to oblivion. But its very possible Trump will give us more of the same if we can get past the political kabuki theater of the last five months. Finally, my main premise about the tarmac rendezvous is that one of the parties appears to be obstructing justice; therefore, we should reject the propaganda-like explanation provided by the AG. The rabbit hole on this matter may be even deeper than what I have provided and may involve planned leaks as well, but I am not required to reveal my entire line of thought on this matter. I just know the one supplied by our government doesn't pass the smell test; thus, we must do our due diligence and dig deeper.

Agreed, but here's the rub and yes it's conjecture. I honestly believe most of the "characters" in this story line use play books that have worked before. So, they believed the same strategy (program) should work this time. However, they have missed a very important paradigm shift. With the advent of technology, we the people, have swift, ubiquitous access to information. We can use that information as a wedge against "power play" moves that masterminds successfully used in the past despite the flowing stream of propaganda. Also, we have stronger and more coordinated networks courtesy of our technology so our ability to gain access to previously "private" information is tremendously larger. All of this helps intelligence gathering services in our journey toward a surveillance state, but it also empowers the populace. This is a double-edged sword. No one was supposed to know about the tarmac meeting (regardless of what was actually discussed between AG Lynch and Former President Bill Clinton). Just because the FBI (agents) controlled the rules of engagement between the two parties under the cover of darkness doesn't mean they can control ALL of the possible outcomes of this unethical meeting. What was supposed to be a "harmless" private rendezvous entered the public domain and consciousness. They tried damage control to stem the tide, but it's too late, the damage was irreparable. And worse yet, their own horribly constructed narrative doesn't even reconcile with the optics! I could choose to believe the misrepresentations I am told from government officials about this matter, but I'd rather believe a much simpler answer. We have just witnessed a sneak preview of how dirty the politics can get in the D.C. establishment!

Fair enough. The missing links regarding Brazile, Wasserman Schultz, and the Clinton tarmac scandal are as follows: http://thegrio.com/2017/03/20/donna-brazile-emails-dnc-clinton http://www.CNN.com/2016/07/24/politics/debbie-wasserman-schultz-dnc-chair-career/index.html http://insider.foxnews.com/2016/07/01/how-was-local-reporter-tipped-clinton-lynch-meeting http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loretta_Lynch I think the 1st two links solidly establish that the Democratic National Committee loaded the political dice in Hillary's favor. It sounds like we are focusing on what conclusions, if any, we can draw from the Phoenix tarmac rendezvous. I think we agree that at a minimum an "ex-parte communication" appears to take place while the AG is still investigating Hillary. This action seems both unethical and professionally irresponsible. And as a result, AG Loretta Lynch recused herself from the investigation and agreed to blindly accept the recommendations of the FBI probe of Hillary Clinton's email server scandal. Please click the link to get a better legal explanation of "ex parte communication" http://www.criminaldefenselawyer.com/resources/criminal-defense/criminal-defense-case/what-ex-parte-communication . So we have to look at motive. What motive would a Former President have to arrange an unscheduled rendezvous on a Phoenix tarmac at night with the Chief Prosecutor of the U.S. when his wife is under investigation and could face criminal indictment? What would compel him to do this under the cover of darkness and in a clandestine way with no official record taking place? It creates the appearance that he is about to interfere with, influence, or obstruct judicial matters to protect his wife from pending criminal charges. That is not a quantum leap of supposition, but it is definitely a more plausible explanation than the one AG Lynch provided. Are we to believe that Former President Clinton went through this rigmarole to discuss family matters and children with the AG for 30 minutes? That explanation insults the public's intelligence. And why would other FBI agents on the tarmac clarify that the rules of engagement are "no photos, no pictures, and no cell phones" as reported by Christopher Sign of ABC-15? Was FBI Director James Comey aware of this clandestine meeting and how it casts a shadow over the entire FBI investigation? What did he know and when did he know it? His integrity is on the line now that the AG's integrity and independence seem compromised. There is too much at stake here to let government officials provide weak, Dr. Seuss explanations for unethical behaviors. The scales of justice should not be for sale to the highest bidder or to individuals with significant political clout. By the way, you are right. Neither Bill nor Hillary are in office but yet the AG decides to delay her schedule for 30 minutes to meet with the Former President anyway. The fact that the AG didn't end the meeting abruptly shows the political gravitational pull Bill Clinton has on people and his former subordinates. And I refuse to disassociate Bill from Hillary because both have significant political currency in the D.C. establishment. They have an seemingly unbreakable union that is stronger and deeper than marital ties. It survives and thrives despite family, financial, legal, and political turmoil. They are One.

AMEN! I went on record that I am a forensic political junkie who is not a party loyalist. There is enough "conspiratorial" graft, corruption, and unethical behavior on both sides of the aisle to fill "Law & Order" episodes for the next century. http://blog.rickbreslin.com/extras/doink-doink.mp3

I am on a tablet device and will put in the links regarding Donna Brazile and Debbie Wesserman later. You can click the link http://thegrio.com/2017/03/20/donna-brazile-emails-dnc-clinton to see where Brazile clearly says she acted as a Clinton operative and stepped over the line as vice chairwoman of the DNC and CNN commentator in her zeal to see Hillary as the first woman President. She expressed regret that she leaked topics and potential debate questions to the Hillary campaign before two debates with Bernie Sanders. This is just messy! This is not conjecture. The DNC was fundamentally compromised this year and the hacking of the DNC and the subsequent e-mail leaks clearly show that the DNC had loaded the dice in Hillary's favor. In fact, Debbie Wessermen and her staff e-mails were so scandalous that she could not preside over the DNC convention. She had to recuse herself, step down, and eventually resign from the DNC. The scandal became an unnecessary distraction to an already turbulent campaign season. See link http://www.CNN.com/2016/07/24/politics/debbie-wessermen-schultz-chair-career/index.html The DNC convention gavel was handed over to Donna Brazile but her hands were covered in "conspiratorial" blood too because she aided and abetted the Hillary campaign by supplying it with potential debate questions/topics before debates with Bernie Sanders, but her "heads up" emails hadn't been leaked yet. Note: CNN was clearly disturbed by this revelation/betrayal and asked Brazile to resign as CNN commentator and she complied. With respect to former President Bill Clinton's meeting with Attorney General (AG) Loretta Lynch on the Pheonix tarmac, optics matter in politics. I can't imagine what pressing family matters Clinton needed to discuss with the Chief Prosecutor of the U.S. in person when his wife is under investigation by the FBI and could be indicted. Any lawyer who passed the bar knows this type of behavior during the course of an investigation is unethical and unbecoming of anyone holding office. Why? Because it creates the appearance that justice is being bought or obstructed, regardless of reality. The Attorney General and Former President are held to a higher ethical standard; they should avoid any and all actions that could create even the slightest appearance of impropriety. And they both failed that lithmus test miserably. The meeting on the tarmac should have never occurred or at least should have ended very abruptly if AG Loretta Lynch was blindsided by a "drive-by" visit from her former boss. Former President Bill Clinton is the confidante and husband of a party the AG is investigating. Therefore, the AG should not be engaging in ANY ex-parte communications AT ALL. She should avoid any and all conversations with Former President Bill Clinton that could even create the appearance of an ex-parte communication taking place. Instead they allegedly discussed family and children in person for about 30 minutes and I guess they don't know how to use cell phones, text messages or email for such matters. Sorry, but this is scandalicious and a breach of the public trust and a "facepalm" moment.

Also, we need to take a very hard look at our Presidential nomination process to the convention on both sides of the aisle. I think part of the disillusionment and frustration stems from the realization of how unfair, unethical, and broken the process appears to be. The Presidential campaign season should be a marketplace where the best ideas, solutions, and leaders win. . .not the best game masterminds. Clinton had the political pedigree to win the nomination but her dynasty and her associates appeared almost always mired in scandal. It took a slew of hacked leaks from The Democratic National Committee (DNC) to reveal how biased chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz was and how her committee staffers had deliberately tried to sabotage Bernie Sander's campaign. Please click link http://www.CNN.com/2016/07/24/politics/debbie-wasserman-schultz-dnc-chair-career/index.html Then, with another slew of hacked leaks we learn her replacement, Donna Brazile, funnelled inside information to Hillary Clinton before two debates with Bernie Sanders. At no point did the Clinton campaign blow the whistle on this clearly unethical behavior which signals complicity and reveals a seemingly rigged DNC nomination process. Please click here for link http://thegrio.com/2017/03/20/donna-brazile-emails-dnc-clinton Then on 06/26/16, we have the unseemly, unscheduled 30 minute meeting on a Phoenix tarmac between Attorney General Loretta Lynch and former President Bill Clinton. His wife is under investigation by the FBI for the email server scandal which could derail her Presidential political campaign. Who knows what, if any, political favors were exchanged especially since former President Clinton appointed Lynch to serve as United States Attorney General for the Eastern District of New York in 1999. He catapulted her legal career and paved the road for her ascendancy to Attorney General of the United States during Obama's administration. Hmmm. In short order, FBI Director James Comey recommended on 07/06/16 to not file charges against Hillary for the e-mail server scandal. And the Department of Justice followed suit, of course. And the rendez-vous on the tarmac had absolutely nothing to do with these legal outcomes? Christopher Sign the reporter who broke the story stated, "The FBI there on the tarmac said no photos, no pictures, and no cell phones." That means Comey knew or should have known of this clandestine meeting by the time the media broke the story because his men were right there outlining the rules of engagement! See link http://insider.foxnews.com/2016/07/01/how-was-local-reporter-tipped-clinton-lynch-meeting Comey's integrity was on the line regarding this matter and his subsequent reopening of the email server investigation before Election Day seems to counterbalance any benefits Hillary might have gained from her husband's "obstruction" of the FBI investigation. But it's too little too late. The optics of ALL of these story lines cast a horrible shadow over the integrity of the DNC nomination process for Presidential candidates, the Department of Justice, the FBI, and of course the Clinton dynasty. It doesn't help that the perpetrator of the last story line is Hillary Clinton's husband who had articles of impeachment filed against him for OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE and PERJURY regarding the Monica Lewinsky scandal. The irony of it all. Could he be a repeat offender and does the apple fall far from the tree in the Clinton dynasty? The DNC needs to conduct a postmortem on their processes because this last Presidential campaign season was a hot mess. They owe a level of intellectual honesty to Bernie supporters who were dished a very raw deal courtesy of the D.C. political establishment. Supporters don't have a problem if their candidate loses an election. They want to know that the political dice aren't loaded from the start. I will discuss Republican issues soon...

I think we have to take a step back here. It is very important that we have a healthy level of professional skepticism of any source from whom we receive information. And yes, that even includes members of the Western Intelligence services and law enforcement community. COINTELPRO was under the Federal Bureau of Investigation but it gathered intelligence illegally, violated Constitutional rights, and was known for disseminating propaganda. See link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COINTELPRO. The huge intelligence failure regarding weapons of mass destruction in Iraq was committed by 16 different members of the Western intelligence community and led to an extended, costly war campaign. Edward Snowden revealed a mass surveillance program that again undermined the Constitutional rights of all American citizens, millions of whom have not committed crimes, and yet were the subject of mass electronic illegal searches and seizures. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Snowden. So, the ransomware attack in China, was it really executed by North Korea, or could it be Operation "Turbine" perpetrated by any partners of the Five Eyes global surveillance program as a false pretext to war or military action? Or could it have been a preemptive move to get bad actors like China to (1) curtail its ubiquitous software piracy (2) encourage its citizens and businesses to destroy bootleg copies of Microsoft Windows and (3) recommend that all users purchase legal software licenses with appropriate security patches to avoid future malware attacks. This would protect Western intellectual property rights and promote the U.S. economy. Snowden already said the NSA had attacks like these in the pipeline. As citizens of a constitutional Republic, we must determine how much of our Constitutional freedoms we are willing to sacrifice to help our government provide more security. I am surprised that our nation doesn't appear to be extremely disturbed by the revelations of Edward Snowden's actions. It appears we have officially entered the era of "thought police". Note: I am not suggesting Edward Snowden is a hero or a traitor. He just pulled back the curtain to reveal how Western intelligence services can abuse their powers and violate the Constitution if their powers remain hidden, unchecked and unquestioned. That is not what I call a conspiracy. It is just an inconvenient truth of our journey towards a surveillance state.

This is a very good article from the Rand Corporation. You do realize, however, with respect to how to propagate propaganda, this could be the very same model for our government and media-industrial complex, right? We have moved from ABC, CBS, and NBC as the primary three networks for television news in the 1950's to a variety of television and cable channels and news platforms: ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, PBS, CNBC, MSNBC, FOX, C-SPAN, CNN, HLN(Headline News), Bloomberg Television, FOX Business cable channel, a seemingly endless stream of magazines as well as INTERNET websites to obtain content. Have you ever looked at the enormity of the magazine rack at a local Barnes & Noble?--just wow!) Our news cycle has moved from multi-day in the 40's, to daily, now to a 24/7 news cycle a.k.a micro-news. This is basically a minute-by-minute update of news and the content is quite repetitive throughout the day. Some will even suggest that we have professional "bobble heads" that read teleprompters containing repetitious news selected by a television/cable news producer. Our news is so continuous that the term "BREAKING NEWS" has lost its celebrity status. Back in the 1950's and even early 80's, news was news and editorials were editorials. Nowadays, there appears to be less of a journalistic distinction between news and editorials and the bias from media is getting progressively worse. Even the term "fake news" has entered the lexicon. Viewers/subscribers/vistors have to do the dirty work of identifying what glaring omissions an article contains to make sure they receive both sides of the story a.k.a. (HIS-STORY + HER-STORY = TOTAL STORY) or (OUR STORY + THEIR STORY = TOTAL STORY). The amount of errors and omissions I have found in news media across all platforms, especially newspapers and internet websites is just astounding--especially since the internet boom. By increasing the frequency of news, we have compromised the overall quality and depth of content. I think the media-industrial complex has removed too many editors from the news department (due to downsizing and consolidation) and viewers/subscribers/visitors have become editors by default. Good grammar is sexy, but not when we become unpaid editors!

I will co-sign ggwhiz with backup from the ACBL. 1st -- your team has 10 secured trump in the boss ♠ suit. This means your opposition are sharing 3♠ cards. You already know your team's trump fit while the opposition must scramble to find theirs. While your team may not have game values, you need to block the opposition from looking for any fits they may have in major or minor suits. A bid of 3♠ will accomplish this. A bid of 3♠ over 2♦ can be a weak or intermediate raise per ACBL so your partner should exercise discretion if he holds a minimum or medium strength hand. See link below where the ACBL shows 1♥-2♣-3♥ to be a weak or intermediate raise: http://www.acbl.org/clubs_page/club-administration/club-directors/rulings-faq/major-suit-raises/ Now, you can also call "pass" as ggwhiz says, and that is not a "wrong" call either since you have 0 HCP ==> "bust" hand with ample trump support. However, if you call "pass" in this auction, that doesn't come for free. You implicitly give permission for the opposition to explore a heart fit or minor fit or even an NT contract (which could very well lead to game bids). So, 3♠ or "PASS" depending on your strategy and risk appetite.

Agreed. I want to make it clear, this is not an indictment of the Republican brand, but some things I have noticed. I think George W. Bush on some level diluted the Republican brand as President of the United States. Let us not forget that George Bush was elected into office in 2000 amid the "hanging Chad" controversy against Al Gore; so he won the Presidential seat with much national controversy over whom should receive the electoral votes for the hotly contested State of Florida. With the 09/11 terrorist attacks, Bush became a wartime President and directed the invasion of Afghanistan to depose the Taliban which had harbored Al-Qaeda and this effort was successful. As a result, he had few issues with being re-elected as President in 2004. I think, however, Bush diluted the Republican brand particularly after 2004 because of the preemptive war strike on Iraq and the subsequent realization that there were no weapons of mass destruction. His entire pretext for war in Iraq was proven to be invalid. It was a huge intelligence failure and made the War on Terror seem like an exorbitant, extended propaganda campaign. This is a very interesting article from CBS News about Bush's state of mind on Iraq: http://www.cbsnews.com/news/bush-sought-way-to-invade-iraq/ Keep in mind also, that before the November 2008 election, our nation watched one of the biggest stock market crashes in October 2008. https://www.thebalance.com/stock-market-crash-of-2008-3305535 ==> The list of events between September 2008 - December 2008 is somewhat chilling. Granted, the housing market crash was the result of housing and banking/finance policies that both Democrat and Republican politicians passed or approved. However, the capital wealth evaporation and job destruction began to occur right before the November 2008 election and proved to be a bit much for the nation to digest. I honestly believe a lot of the electorate was disillusioned, financially compromised, and war-weary. They were on the verge of losing jobs or had lost jobs because of the housing bubble crash and decided to stay home, if they still had one. As a result, they did not vote for John McCain and Sarah Palin. And if they did vote amid this market chaos, they did the unthinkable and crossed party lines and voted for "Change" which was President's Obama's platform. The link below discusses the Impact on U.S. Public Debt by President: https://www.thebalance.com/stock-market-crash-of-2008-3305535 The notion of Republican fiscal conservatism was a very hard sell in light of the public debt figures presented during Bush's administration. He diluted his party's brand. But, I must be fair, and include President Obama's impact as well. So, over the course of sixteen years, two presidents both Republican and Democrat, increased our public debt by a total of $13.8 TRILLION! Is that the change we want to believe in? Our nation has to have a honest dialogue about how to stem/stop the public debt hemorrhaging as well. Trump also says he can address these financial concerns, but not with arithmetic that double-counts $2 trillion in his own budget.

Agreed. It makes me wonder is there some global pact where we seemingly "relax" the enforcement our immigration laws as a result of the persisting war theatre and all of the destabilization we do across the world. Qualification: I know the media has released statistics showing that deportation is on the rise under the Trump administration but then CNN contests that. https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/4/18/15326330/trump-immigration-arrest-deportation-statistics http://www.cnn.com/2017/04/28/politics/trump-deportations-slow/index.html Hmmmm. . . Interesting link talking about immigration http://www.globalissues.org/article/537/immigration

Thanks for the cogent response and feedback. It seems we have a lot of common ground. Amen! After these Senate Intelligence Hearings with Comey, the politicians in the Senate and House need to acknowledge the obvious and get on that debate floor and come up with some ideas to address this before the chickens come home to roost. We can not afford to take an ostrich approach to this problem as the global economy waits for no one. Why are so many people calling the DoD problem a fake $6.5 trillion scandal when internal auditors & inspector generals within the United States government consistently provide a disclaimer of opinion on their annual audit reports (from 2002 to 2015)? These auditors and inspectors are effectively stating that a reader can't rely on the financial statements coming out of the Department of Defense. They are saying that the DoD's accounting entity size and unsupported year-end accounting adjustments are so large that they cast a material shadow over the consolidated U.S. financial statements. As such, the internal auditors refuse to provide an opinion for the consolidated U.S. government financial statements taken as a whole. I am not seeing the "fake"ness of this. It just isn't as sexy and fluid as a Russia/Trump collusion story. If this accounting problem was ONLY a computer problem it would have been solved in less than 2 years like the Y2K bug conversion issues. Intelligent, competent information technology consultants could resolve this problem rather quickly. It would not take 15+ years to accomplish this. There are savings locked away in the DoD and Donald Rumsfeld knew this. That's why he said the enemy is much closer to home and has a disease called institutional inertia--they resist change and transparency. He even called the bureaucracy a national security threat. Hmmm. But let's go to a more credible source than my conjecture. Let's review Donald Rumsfeld actual speech on 09/10/2001. Click on the link below: http://www.asbl.com/documents/Donald_Rumsfeld_Speech_About_Bureaucratic_Waste.pdf Read this speech please and tell me if you would ever expect a Secretary of Defense, Republican or Democrat, to turn on his own department and release a speech like this just to curry political brownie points? Does that sound like an accounting sleight of hand, "legacy" computer system problem or potentially something more sinister and intractable as money "disappears" down a Matrix-like rabbit hole? Why would Rumsfeld want to highlight such a money-driven problem at the Department of Defense and use such harsh vernacular about his own department if this was just an everyday, run-of-the-mill governmental problem? And why would he label it a national security threat and liken it to Old Russia?

I am not a lefty, however, I am a forensic political junkie. I am known to reference our founding document, the Constitution, when our governmental institutions start to violate our rights and civil liberties and the principles our founding fathers believed in. I give praise where praise is due and I will identify incompetence, malfeasance, corruption, and graft when I see it on either side of the aisle (Blue or Red). I am not a party faithful. With respect to the Manchester bombing, it is a tragedy; however, it will give license for the UK to conduct even more surveillance especially on a Muslim community that has grown from 5.0% in 2001 to 8.68%+ in 2011. This will create more malcontents who might be more susceptible to the ideologies of terrorism since they will receive disparate treatment by citizens and the government. As we (the US) continue to destabilize portions of the Middle East to mitigate the threat of global terrorism, there will be more displaced Muslims seeking refuge in Europe and the UK. This will create even more civil unrest and disturbances because UK citizens will question their neighbors' loyalties based on religion and race (appearance) and resistance to assimilation efforts. I know that the BREXIT is related, in part, to the fact that the UK wants better border control and vetting of travelers (immigrants) who cross its borders and reside/migrate in the United Kingdom. They do not want to outsource that function to a slow-moving, compromise-driven European Union. The UK wants the ability to identify "problem people" quickly and hopefully prevent terrorist acts like this. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/05/24/manchester-attack-latest-detectives-hunt-terror-network/ Finally, I am not shocked that CNN didn't report on the bombing until 2 1/2 hours after the fact. They should rename the CNN acronym to mean Crisis News Network. Sad, but true.

Agreed. Please review my posting#6151 about welfare state versus warfare state. http://dailycaller.com/2017/05/23/trump-proposes-3-6-trillion-cut-to-welfare-state/ So here we go. . . To correct the $2 trillion arithmetic error, we are going to cut welfare spending by $3.6 trillion and increase military (war spending) by. . . $(insert figure here). Question: How much are we going to spend on NATIONAL INFRASTRUCTURE and RETRAINING OUR WORK FORCE FOR GLOBAL COMPETITION over the next 10 years in light of all of these tax cuts and increased military appropriations? As a nation we are better than this. We deserve a more thoughtful analysis of how to inject tax cuts responsibly and accomplish more pressing objectives (like rebuilding our infrastructure and retraining our work force to compete in this new global economy where technology changes at an exponential rate). This is way too partisan of a response for an enormous error the media uncovered just yesterday!

Let me qualify that I am oversimplifying here, but it's to illustrate a key point. The Democratic ideals in their purest forms push toward a welfare state. The Republican ideals in their purest forms push toward a warfare state. I want to be clear, I am not suggesting that one state is morally superior to the next. If we become a welfare-state===> Problem -- too many lazy or displaced, comfort-driven, employable citizens will drop out of the labor force and receive entitlements (they don't need) and will compromise the financial solvency of this nation and thus compromise our sovereignty. This state also tends to create too much business regulation and bureaucracy which hampers the growth of the economy and stifles competition in the marketplace. If we become a warfare-state===> Problem -- we create a "war" economy where we seemingly need to instigate and incite very costly wars without just cause (as in the case of "no weapons of mass destruction"). Eventually, the nation becomes dependent on this war economy and government military expenditures to "balance out" the crazy booms (highs & bubbles) and busts (lows & recessions) of our national economy. This war economy also compromises the financial solvency of our nation by increasing the public debt because war is never free. The penalty of war is death, disease, and debt. Also, with a persisting war economy we financially feed the "military industrial complex" (MIC) which shows no signs of reducing its empire size. It will continue to need larger and larger budget appropriations to function. The MIC will seemingly become larger, more combative, and more ominous and yes, more intrusive into our own personal lives under the Patriot Act. The goal of the Patriot Act is to root out terrorism by providing us "more comfort (security & surveillance)" in exchange for "our relinquishing some of Constitutional rights & liberties" such as protection from illegal searches and seizures of our intellectual property such as e-mails, text communications, etc under the 4th Amendment. A warfare economy creates a "surveillance state" which directly conflicts with the values and spirit of our Constitutional republic birth. A welfare economy creates a nation of dependents which directly conflicts with the values of liberty, free will, and freedom. That's why we need both Democrats and Republicans to come to the table in the House and Senate and debate it out because when we discuss our concerns as civil men and follow rules of procedure, we will reach a compromise and hopefully create NEITHER of the states I have mentioned above. I would like feedback on this one. Thanks.

Couldn't agree more. As the mathematician G.H. Hardy famously said, Has Budget Director Mick Mulvaney been talking to too many financial accountants over at the Department of Defense? You just can't plug $2 trillion to balance the budget and expect folks with a rudimentary understanding of arithmetic to miss the faulty underlying budgetary assumptions and the double-counting. INSPECTOR GENERAL'S WARNING: Falling for financial sleight-of-hand tricks can be hazardous to the health of the American U.S. economy and your personal economy. http://www.thinkgeek.com/images/products/zoom/af76_despair_posters_government.jpg

...And let the congregation say "Amen!" 🙏

Yet, Donald Trump claims he has no connections to Russia. I admit there is no proof of wrongdoing. But it seems a bit fanciful to believe that there is no association, doesn't it? The continued denials before the press forces agreement is perplexing and actions more usually aligned with people wanting to hide something. All in all, I don't see how it would hurt to turn all this over to an independent commission that has subpoena power - we need to know if there was wrongdoing, but equally, if there was no wrongdoing. Without a solution, the Russian ties controversy will continue to haunt this presidency. THIS, sir, which you posted on March 6, 2017 should have been in the news headlines and heavily scrutinized by the media conglomerates BEFORE the November 9th Election. The USA Today article appeared in February 2017 which is a bit late for the November 9, 2016 election. . .but better late than never. There is no proof of wrongdoing, but APPEARANCES matter in politics and any news outlet worth its weight should be asking very tough questions that Presidential candidates (Trump) hate to answer . . . BEFORE the election! The voting public needs to factor these type of business dealings and associations into their final decision making process. VERY GOOD STUFF!

Not so fast. Obama would not have been indicted and charged in the sense we think. There are always Articles of Impeachment, but the question of whether we can indict a sitting President is still unclear from a Constitutional vantage point. https://www.forbes.com/sites/insider/2016/11/09/can-a-president-trump-be-prosecuted-based-upon-allegations-of-past-misconduct/#491bfda5491b http://www.nytimes.com/1998/01/25/weekinreview/the-nation-a-primer-prosecuting-a-president.html

To meet someone who agrees about the U.S. media abrogating its responsibilities to provide non-biased news. Wow! "They want to control the narrative." So very true. . . . When you control the narrative, you control HIS-STORY, and when you control history, you control the future. Narrative control is very critical in politics. The media conglomerates and D.C. Establishment said Trump wouldn't stick to the scripted message during his campaign and would frequently misspeak and "make up his own set of facts". That maybe true, but that is what narrators do sometimes. . . Trump was controlling the narrative that he was selling to HIS followers and that may directly conflict with the narrative that the media and D.C. establishment want to control for their viewers and constituencies. Hmmm... Below is a very intriguing article about narrative control and politics.... https://www.marketingsociety.com/the-library/narrative-politics#zRMBbcS1qZCJ4Zi0.97

Are you sure you missed the Trump melodrama in Washington, D.C.? http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/letter-flynn-cites-public-frenzy-invokes-5th-amendment/ar-BBBowHX?OCID=ansmsnnews11 Flynn was the eighteenth director of the Defense Intelligence Agency. And should I be concerned that Flynn is a former top military intelligence chief who has allegedly turned against the U.S. to help Russian interests? So does the Pentagon, NSA or CIA not coordinate their intelligence services with the assistance of the Patriot Act to make sure these high level people remain securely vested in American interests or do we wait for impeachment hearings to sound the alarm? The political drama just gets curiouser and curiouser. :lol:

Agreed. Again, your partner pays the cost to be the boss. If your partner is saying 4♠ was the bid, then how are you going to suggest that bid with a doubleton in your hand? It is really important that you remind your partner that you are not clairvoyant. He has to take some initiative when overcalling preemptive bids. Your partner should be bidding 4♠ if his spade holding is that couture. No where in the auction did he mention that spade suit, so I would keep the post mortem focused on the bid he didn't make.

:o OK. No vetting of Trump by the US government when he was a presidential candidate. How about when he became President-Elect? Wouldn't the government have to vet the President-Elect before he starts to view and read classified materials in daily meetings and briefings? I wonder how thorough this vetting is and what, if anything, they found when it was done (especially as it relates to business associations and dealings with "foreign entities"). Also, the media-industrial-complex did not vet Trump properly or conduct their due diligence through the old school investigative journalism we are used to. That type of journalism costs extra money and you know how today's corporate media leaders are about "non-value-added" business expenses; they are sliced and diced to beef up the profit margin. Instead, these media conglomerates figured if they put Trump's name on any article, it would increase their television and cable ratings and increase their magazine and newspaper circulation, and not to forget, increase their web traffic. https://cs.stanford.edu/people/eroberts/cs181/projects/2010-11/Journalism/indexcdf1.html?page_id=10 That is why Trump sucked up all of the media oxygen during the Presidential campaign cycle. It was financially profitable to do this, but the electorate did NOT receive a thorough political analysis and commentary of a man who has been in the real estate/casino business and television world for over 30 years! https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2016/05/31/yes-trump-sucks-up-all-the-media-oxygen-how-big-a-problem-is-that-for-clinton/?utm_term=.6a54f73d618b Nice article about the Trump-mob link, but the article did qualify it... I am pretty sure a New York mob boss made Trump "an offer he couldn't refuse" à la The GodFather. :lol:

Good article by the way. . . .but I am having a tough time with this one. One thing I want to ask, didn't some of these alleged connections exist way before Trump won the election in November 2016? And if so, why are we just hearing about this "intelligence" now? I trust that my government, who believes in wiretap surveillance without federal judge approval under the Patriot Act, had the "goods" on Trump way before now. If there were all of these suspicious relationships and associations, wouldn't the government have vetted them out before he became President-Elect? All I vaguely remember is that the media and the Washington D.C. establishment were quick to note that Trump was "friendly with Putin" during his campaign season as if that were a potential landmine they could use later should he accomplish the unthinkable and win the 2016 Presidential election. I think I am asking a very fair question, and if Trump (and his aides) were the threat to American national security that they "appear" to be, wouldn't somebody have leaked that to the government and the media way before now? Why would we wait until Trump won the election, had his inauguration, and then start this snowball chain of political drama? By the way, I am astounded at the broad surveillance powers of the US government after the passage of the Patriot Act. See the ACLU table in the article below. Just ridiculous how intrusive it is. https://www.aclu.org/other/surveillance-under-usapatriot-act