The National Rifle Assn. (NRA) in 2014 met with Dmitry Rogozin, one of Vlaimir Putin's top deputies and the head of Russia’s defense industry and longtime opponent of American power. This was eighteen months after he was sanctioned by the U.S. for the invasion of Crimea and eastern Ukraine. Rogozin is chairman of the Russian Shooting Federation, and obviously had significant influence on gun relations between the two countries. So why was the NRA, who was Donald Trump’s most powerful outside ally during the 2016 election, there...
"The NRA had previously objected to the parts of the U.S. sanctions regime that blocked Russian-made guns from import into the United States."
Tim Mak, author of the Daily Beast article says the meeting has not been previously covered by the American media. Why not? I ask. Mak says the meeting was "one strand in a web of connections" between Trump, his staff and Cabinet appointments. Mak explains it this way...
"Attorney General Jeff Sessions and former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn both denied speaking with the Russian ambassador, which turned out to be untrue; former campaign manager Paul Manafort supported pro-Russian interests in Ukraine; Secretary of State Rex Tillerson won an “Order of Friendship” from Putin; and then, of course, there’s the hacking campaign that U.S. intelligence agencies say Russia launched to tilt the election in Trump’s favor."
Rogozin is prominent in many areas of the Russian government, as well as being a leader in gun rights; he is "particularly interested" in cyberwarfare and its ability to target with the speed of light. BINGO! But does Rogozin plus all these American connections from Donald Trump to the NRA add up to the hacking of the 2016 election to favor the candidacy of Trump? The million-dollar question. Rep. Mike Quigley, a member of the House Intelligence Committee, which is investigating Russia’s attempts to influence the 2016 presidential elections...
“Due to the NRA’s opposition to sanctions, it defies credulity that they wouldn’t have discussed sanctions and their extraordinary support for Donald Trump’s campaign.”
The top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee panel that oversees the CIA, Rep. Eric Swalwell...
Russia is not America’s friend. And it’s stunning to hear that while they were attacking our democracy, one of the largest organizations supporting Trump [the NRA] was cozying up with a sanctioned Russian in Moscow.”
Conspiracy, killings and new President
It is true that National Rifle Assn. head, Wayne LaPierre and his minions will go to any length to getSeven children and teens (age 19 or under) are killed with guns in the U.S. on an average day. Rogozin having been sanctioned by the U.S. had apparently no effect on the NRA gang, which included David Keene, the former NRA president, board member Pete Brownell, top NRA donor Joe Gregory, and Trump supporter Sheriff David A. Clarke. Mak reports further...
guns on the streets of the United States, even when it results in the murder of our children:
"The National Rifle Association’s support for Trump was unprecedented—and it seems to have paid off. The organization backed Trump in May 2016—much earlier than they had endorsed other candidates in previous election cycles, and before he had even been officially named the Republican presidential nominee. The NRA spent $30.3 million to elect Trump—more than even the top Trump super PAC, which spent just $20.3 million, according to OpenSecrets."
And it was right after the election that Donald John rescinded a move by Barack Obama in the last days of his election "that banned lead ammunition in various hunting and fishing areas." The NRA, of course, did a back flip.
Since the NRA nor its associates that attended these Russian meetings have ever mentioned it publicly, is there something to cover up? The fact that they were there to begin with, considering the sanctions, is bad enough, but if there was an ulterior motive, other than just gun business, someone should find out. But they won't, as long as Republicans are in charge of the government. Wayne LaPierre basks in this kind of glory while there still continues to be 12,000 gun homicides every year. Purely pathetic when you consider guns' rights are placed above people's lives.
The sane population of this country is battling the gun nuts that have been given the right-of-way to do just about anything they want with their guns. In Arizona, they can even carry them into bars where fights, even brawls break out occasionally. Now, by sane, I don't mean just staunch gun control advocates like me, it also includes those innocent people without guns that just don't want to be shot and maimed, possibly killed. Here are some appalling figures from the gun advocacy organization, Everytown for Gun Safety...
Data from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) show that on an average day, 93 Americans are killed with guns.
On average there are nearly 12,000 gun homicides a year in the U.S.
For every one person killed with guns, two more are injured.
Seven children and teens (age 19 or under) are killed with guns in the U.S. on an average day.
In an average month, 50 women are shot to death by intimate partners in the U.S.
There are more you can see on the Everytown for Gun Safety site. But I ask you gun nuts out there, which of the above figures do you want to argue with. They are confirmed by the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), that organization your leader, Wayne LaPierre, who heads up the National Rifle Assn, (NRA), tried to keep quiet for years. LaPierre and the NRA backed legislation that has blocked gun violence research for 20 years. What you are seeing above are raw figures supplied to the CDC by hospitals, doctors, police departments and other groups. The NRA would stop this if they could.
The case dates to January 14, when Reeves, then 71, confronted a man in a suburban Tampa movie theater about texting during the previews before a showing of "Lone Survivor." The two argued, and then Reeves walked out of the theater to complain to an employee. When Reeves returned, he and the man, Chad Oulson, began arguing again.
Oulson threw a bag of popcorn at Reeves, according to a criminal complaint, and Reeves then took out his handgun and fired at Oulson, killing him.
The Judge established through evidence that Oulson did not throw a cell phone at Reeves, charged by the complainant, and Oulson's actions were not considered aggressive enough to qualify under Florida's 'Stand Your Ground' law, which also figured in George Zimmerman's 2013 trial in the killing of Trayvon Martin. Prosecutors played audio of Reeves talking to detectives shortly after the shooting...
"As soon as I pulled the trigger I said, 'Oh shoot, that was stupid.' If I had to do it over again, it would have never happened," he said. "If I had to do it over again, it would never have happened. I wouldn't have moved. But you don't get do-overs."
While millions risk losing their health insurance, perhaps dying as a result, Rep. Pete Sessions (R-TX), chairman of the powerful Rules Committee, thinks he has the perfect replacement for Obamacare in his POS ‘World’s Greatest Healthcare Plan of 2017.’ Sessions thought he would slip his legislation in as a model for what Speaker Paul Ryan and the rest of the House plan to do. "Instead, Speaker Paul Ryan and his team modeled their initial bill on legislation authored by former
Rep. Tom Price." This is what Price had to say...
"...that that bill as currently written is a “work in progress,” and that future legislative and regulatory fixes will be necessary to address all of the health-care policies that Republicans hope to implement."
But the health care industry doesn't want anything to do with any of it. Seven groups speaking for hospitals, health systems and medical colleges collectively added their “significant concerns,..."
"...to the growing opposition, focusing on the prospect of sharply lower numbers of insured Americans if the GOP plan becomes law. Separately, the American Medical Association, a powerful lobbying group for physicians, rejected the bill for the same reason."
Based on health care specialists who have analyzed the Republican House bill, millions will lose coverage with Americans in their 50s and 60s as the most likely to not be able to afford the coverage. By 2020 the premium subsidies based on income would be gone, according to the New York Times. The current system would be replaced by tax credits of $2,000 to $4,000 per year, based on age. But this would leave a significant deficit from current coverage plans under Affordable Care Act requirements. Meaning, many would have to give up their health insurance.
Here's a statement from a major health care provider...
The central issue is the tax credits are not going to be sufficient, admits Dr. J. Mario Molina, chief executive of Molina Healthcare who offers coverage through Obamacare marketplaces in California, Florida and several other states.
One unhappy Trump voter says she thought he would make her health insurance more affordable not more expensive. Under the House Plan, she would get $5,188 less each year than she did under the Affordable Care Act. "I'm scared," she says. Although there are no official figures yet, a report from Standard & Poor's claims that somewhere from 2 million to 4 million people will leave the insurance because, in their 50s and 60s, aren't old enough for Medicare but can't afford the new Republican House Plan. Brookings Institution estimates even higher losses.
With this new round of opposition nationwide, the GOP is finding new resistance at every corner. The health care groups also challenged the proposed changes to Medicaid...
"...warning that they would mean lost coverage and funding cuts for a program charged with caring for vulnerable children, elderly and disabled Americans."
"AMA chief executive James L. Madara, a doctor, wrote a letter to congressional leaders released Wednesday expressing the same sentiment: 'We cannot support the AHCA as drafted because of the expected decline in health insurance coverage and the potential harm it would cause to vulnerable patient populations.'”
How many more of you get the feeling, and this dates back for years, that Republicans don't give a shit about those in need of assistance from others? I'm betting plenty. Yes, there are those who take care of the welfare system but that is limited based on expenditures by welfare recipients. And here are 7 lies about welfare that many people believe are fact. AARP has come out against the GOP bill, and even some conservative advocacy groups like Heritage Action for America, FreedomWorks and the Club for Growth have also rejected it. It's proving a bummer, hands down.
Let's talk the Republican Healthcare Plan...
The Republican Plan will have a huge effect on Alan Lipsky of Arden, N.C. Lipsky is 60, his wife in her 50s, and they would lose $13,664 annually under the new plan. He thinks that Obamacare could be improved on, as do most of the Act's supporters, but at least it's baseline. And the GOP bill is taking this away from him with what's left unaffordable, he says. Bu the healthcare wrecking crew are determined to do it their way...
"House Speaker Paul D. Ryan (R-Wis.) expressed confidence the bill would eventually pass, even though some conservative House GOP members have railed against it, complaining it does not undo the ACA aggressively enough."
Also on the chopping block, he financial assistance available to low income people with out-of-pocket costs like deductibles and co-payments. There are some large deductibles under the Affordable Care Act but the cost-sharing reductions that are available are a big protection for low income people that end up with huge medical bills that would otherwise cause financial disaster. The insurance market itself could be in harm's way by the elimination of the individual mandate, hated from the beginning of the ACA, but evntually found to be practical.
In 2016, The Washington Post called Paul Ryan's health care plan, "flimsy." Here's their commentary...
"IT HAS been more than six years since the Affordable Care Act passed and nearly three years since its major provisions began phasing in. During that time, the rate of uninsured Americans has plummeted to a historic low. Also during that time, Republicans have blamed the law for practically every problem with the health-care system, the economy and more. But they have infamously not united behind a credible alternative."
Then Paul Ryan, who should just go back to Wisconsin and stick to making cheese, came out with his version which has ended up, along with Tom Price's version, as what Republicans are going with. But listen to this, two weak points that are pointed out by WP in the 2016 rendition...
The proposal does not say how valuable the credit would be, nor the rate at which it would increase.
The document also does not predict how many people it would cover, nor how much the plan would cost.
Whether these weaknesses were addressed in the latest bill that just cleared the first hurdle in the House and is now being debated in Committee, hasn't been revealed. Ryan, who is beginning to mirror Donald Trump in misinformation, stated "Because of Obamacare, Medicare is going broke." NPR says, "In fact, the opposite appears to be true — Obamacare may actually have extended the life of Medicare."
This year's Medicare Trustees Report says the program would now be able to pay all its bills through 2028, a full 11 years longer than a 2009 forecast — an improvement Medicare's trustees attribute, in part, to changes in Medicare called for in the Affordable Care Act and other economic factors.
What is occurring here, from the top down, is the use of lies and deception from the Republicans to
sell their programs, with healthcare just the latest issue. It rose to popularity in the days of George W. Bush and Karl Rove when prevarication was the norm. It hasn't changed. But apparently Paul Ryan hasn't differed as much as he thought in his bill with Obamacare. Here is what the experts are saying...
"And the irony of the Ryan Medicare plan, say some health policy analysts, is that it would turn the government program into something that looks very much like the structure created for insurance plans sold under the ACA."
"'The way it works is comparable to Obamacare,' says physician and conservative policy analyst Avik Roy, founder of the
Foundation for Research on Equal Opportunity."
There is no way to predict just where and how far the Republicans will take their drive to get rid of the Affordable Care Act, or what they will come up with as a replacement, if they are successful. What we do know is that the American public will not be the beneficiary. It will be the wealthy and big business.
Rumor has it that when the producers of the Anderson Cooper/Kathy Griffin CNN New Year's Eve show saw the video below, they decided to replace Kathy Griffin with Kellyanne Conway, because Conway could make Anderson laugh tons more than his current co-host. Kathy Griffin even agreed and said she might even decide to apply for a job with the Trump administration.. You have to see this video...
I am an ardent fan of George Orwell's work including, Animal Farm and 1984. Animal Farm is political satire at its best, depicting the unrest of the animals at the Manor farm because they are treated poorly. Mr. Jones, the farmer, wasa mean and drunken man who exploited them, leading to a rebellion by the animals that eventually gets out of hand. It's a short read that will illustrate the kind of uprising that is imminent when people, or animals, are unhappy with their situation. Or their government. It's an issue I'll cover later using the book to draw similarities with the U.S.
But 1984 offers a multitude of possibilities for comparison with the new Donald Trump admin., even as it completes just over a month of tenure. The timing only emphasizes the number of conspiracy theories Donald John has been able to concoct in such a short amount of time. They are numerous and at times so bizarre that they defy the reality that the man that has just been elected to the presidency of the United States is the one who spawned them. It is more likely that we would expect such disjointed discourse from Jack Nicholson in One flew Over the cuckoo's Nest. Examples...
Trump's phones in Trump Tower were tapped
Said there was Rampant voter fraud in 2016
Anti-Trump protesters are paid
Obama is coordinating the [Trump] protests
There were 1.5 million people who attended his inauguration
In none of these cases has Donald John come up with any corroboration for the statements he made, with the most blatant number five. This was where Trump cried to the heavens how much larger his inauguration crowd was than Barack Obama's in 2008, when independent photos proved him wrong. But the freakish behavior of Donald Trump isn't the basis for this post, rather just some background and sidebars to explain the aberrant nature of the man who has risen from mediocrity to the President of the most powerful nation n the world. And how Orwell's 1984 has its parallels.
This isn't the first post or article on this issue, there have been several, but, notably, believe mine is the first to use the Orwell Today site in drawing these comparisons and cross-referencing with Jackie Jura's excellent notes and correlations with the future. On March 5, CNN's headline blazed, "The President of the United States traffics in conspiracy theories," then goes on to document Donald Trump's ongoing perpetuation of lies and misinformation. Jackie Jura n Orwell Today has a section on "Conspiracy Goes Mainstream," which chronicles history's most unique conspiracies.
But time now to look at George Orwell and then Donald trump through the eyes of "Orwell Today." And the only way to begin is to start with Orwell's most imposing creation, Big Brother. It was the Proles who marched through the streets with placards celebrating Big Brother’s ability to 'Make Oceania Great Again.' Fast forward to the 2016 campaign when Trump followers with red hats were marching everywhere with signs that said, 'Make America Great Again.' Now Donald Trump is not Orwell's Big Brother, but he is the epitome of his oligarchs.
1984's Winston character tries to recall the past when everything had been better but today's world was the remnants of a society that was free and uncomplicated, unlike 1984, and the new world order where the world was broken into three super-states. Steve Bannon has three tenets on which he plans to build the new "Trumpism" and, although they aren't geographical like Orwell's three nations, they do represent the kind of one-nation ideology of a country that is at the current time highly divisive. They are Capitalism, nationalism, and “Judeo-Christian values.”
It was the plan of the 1984 autocrats to "Keep the Masses Down" in order to maintain a hierarchical society that could only be possible through the proletariat's poverty and ignorance. Although not directly related to Donald Trump, it is the policy of the Republican Party to amass the wealth in only a few (1% of the population) and keep the rest in the dark over what the Party is really doing, in order to maintain the blind votes of their followers. Like Orwell's world, Donald John and the GOP feel their complete survival depend on collectivism.
1984's"Ministry of Truth" must have been the prototype for Donald Trump's communications dept. with Sean Spicer playing the part of the book's character, Winston, whose job it was at the Ministry to take news items he received and turn them around to mean what the higher-ups in the Party wanted said. To be certain, the Ministry of Truth was only the front for a persisting procession of lies to the citizens of Oceania, tied in a neat bundle that, when exxhibited, was meant to be bona fide. Well, in 2017, as in 1984, there is nothing truthful about Donald John's Ministry of Truth.
Orwell's "Falsification of the Past" follows closely to the Ministry of Truth in the fabrication of any information that is granted to the public. If Trump doesn't like what has already been said, he will change it to fit what he wants. Like right after the inauguration when he removed the term "climate change" from the official White House website. In Oceania there was Oldspeak and "Newspeak," when translated corresponds to the civil tone coming from the White House during Barack Obama and earlier presidents, compared to Donald John's crude and sometimes lewd rhetoric.
PoliticoMagazine talks of the multitude of contradictions of Donald Trump: "Has anyone ever disagreed with Donald Trump more than Donald Trump?" The Inner Party in 1984 was governed by adherence to a common doctrine of "Doublethink," which means "the power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them." Here are Politico's examples...
“I have no intention of running for president.” (Time,
September 14, 1987)
“I am officially running for president.” (New York, June 16,
2015)
“I don’t want it for myself. I don’t need it for myself.”
(ABC News, November 20, 2015)
“I wanted to do this for myself. … I had to do it for
myself.” (Time, August 18, 2015)
“Politicians are all talk and no action.” (Twitter, May 27, 2015)
“I’m not a politician.” (CNN, August 11, 2015)
“I’m no different than a politician running for office.” (New York Times, July 28, 2015)
Orwell's "Ministry of Love" is like other of his poetic symbols that mean the opposite of what they
say. This one is actually a torture chamber for people who have been picked up by the Thought Police for thinking bad things against Big Brother. Now Donald John has no thought police per se, except for his minions who try to unsuccessfully control the media, but he does have a lot of love he spews on a regular basis, like how much he loves women. How much he loves immigrants. How much he loves blacks. And then he degrades each with a vehemence not found when expressing the love.
I could go on for some time but it will be much more interesting for you to browse Jackie Jura's Orwell Today site and come up with your own conclusions of how George Orwell's book, 1984, corresponds with the idiocy of the Donald Trump administration. Check the 45 topics she has documented on the left-hand side of the site. and when you go to something like "Big Brother" be sure and take advantage of the notes and analogies she has referenced as they will often point directly to current events. Good Reading!
Donald Trump is in deep doo doo the Russian interference in the 2016 election and whether or not his election campaign staff was involved, while at the same time he must defend the lowlife Jeff Sessions he nominated for Attorney and a gutless Republican approved. So, does he do what any self-respecting individual would do--especially the President of the United States--build a palatable defense for each with facts? And since the world knows there is no defense for what has been done, what's left. Simple, we go on the offense with more lies and misinformation. Trump's tweet 3/4...
“How low has President Obama gone to tapp [sic] my phones during the very sacred election process. This is Nixon/Watergate. Bad (or sick) guy!”
First of all, the man is illiterate when it comes to spelling, and second, as has been the case with past accusations, he gives absolutely no proof. Here's what the master of handed-over misinformation, Sean Spicer, had to say 3/5...
“Reports concerning potentially politically motivated investigations ahead of the 2016 election are very troubling.”
What the hell are these people talking about? Fact checker asked for evidence of this "dramatic claim" but received nothing. The Washington Post reports that possibly Spicer's "reports" refer to news stories and not concrete information. But, "The Washington Post for months has sought to confirm this report of a FISA warrant related to the Trump campaign but has been unable to do so." More so, WP assumes other major news media have done the same and also come up empty. The gist of the matter is that month of FISA for information on Russian hacking have been denied.
"The FBI and five other law enforcement and intelligence agencies have collaborated for months in an investigation into Russian attempts to influence the November election, including whether money from the Kremlin covertly aided President-elect Donald Trump, two people familiar with the matter said."
"The agencies involved in the inquiry are the FBI, the CIA, the National Security Agency, the Justice Department, the Treasury Department’s Financial Crimes Enforcement Network and representatives of the director of national intelligence."
FISA court (Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act), has been approached from about every direction including the former White House, for the purpose of uncovering Donald John's connection to the Russians in the 2016 campaign, not for the purpose of wiretapping Trump Tower. There is more investigation into how money transferred from the Kremlin "may have been used to pay some email hackers in the United States or to supply money to intermediaries who would then pay the hackers. More from McClatchy...
"On Jan. 6, the director of national intelligence released a declassified report that concluded Russian President Vladimir Putin had ordered an influence campaign to “undermine faith in the U.S. democratic process,” damage Hillary Clinton’s election prospects and bolster Trump’s. The campaign included the hacking of top Democrats’ emails and fake news distributed by Russian sources."
“A Trump presidency scares me more than anything else. I’m terrified that he’ll become president.”
This, of course, was pre-election, and sounds like he may be comparing the then coming election of Donald Trump with books of his like Carrie, It, and Misery. If you lump all of King's chillers together, they wouldn't equal the repugnance of the Trump administration. Stephen King likens the Trump presidency with his 37-year-old book, Dead Zone, about a salesman who fights the establishment to run for president. He doesn't make it but King has some interesting tweets mocking Donald John's charges over Obama's wiretapping of Trump Tower...
"Not only did Obama tap Trump's phones, he stole the strawberry ice cream out of the mess locker."
"Populist demagogues like He Who Must Not Be Named aren't a new thing; see THE DEAD ZONE, published 37 years ago."
"Obama tapped Trump's phones IN PERSON! Went in wearing a Con Ed coverall. Michelle stood guard while O spliced the lines. SAD!"
It is pretty pathetic when one of the greatest writers of all time spends part of his valuable time to poke fun at the new president of the United states, not in a playful way, but to point out the absurdities and lunacies of this new administration. Avi Selk, in the Washington Post story once again reiterates...
An Obama spokesman and a former intelligence director said there was no wiretap. Some speculated that Trump was referring to claims on talk radio and the conservative website Breitbart that Obama used “police state” tactics against him. Others accused Trump of trying to distract from reports that his staff covered up conversations with Russian officials during the campaign.
On the legal side, FBI Director James Comey feels there is no credibility in Trump's claims that Barack Obama wiretapped Trump Tower phones and told the Justice Department to refute the charges. Donald John fired back refusing to "acknowledge" Comey's judgment, probably leading to some kind of confrontation with the head of the nation's leading law enforcement agency. The New York Times is leery of the fact that Trump would fire Comey because that could very well backfire into a cover-up over his campaign connections with the Russians.
Although Sean Spicer has made several comments stating Donald Trump's conclusion that former President Barack Obama did in fact wiretap trump Tower during the 2016 presidential campaign. He offered no evidence at the time, nor has Donald John since his accusations. Yet the two of them are adamant it happened. But not so sure are others in the White House, including Sarah Huckabee Sanders who pretty much hedges on most of Spicer's and Trump's allegations. This is why Spicer didn't really want to talk about this...
"During an at-times-painful interview with ABC's Martha Raddatz, Huckabee Sanders repeatedly suggested that Trump's allegation was worth looking into but declined to vouch for it. Raddatz pointed this out repeatedly, and Huckabee Sanders responded by saying 'if this happened,' 'if this took place,' 'if it did' and 'let's find out.'”
Martha Raddatz is one of those reporters that gives no quarter when it comes to getting the truth and
Martha Raddatz-Sarah Huckabee Sanders
didn't relent with Huckabee Sanders continued use of the preposition "if" when Raddatz finally exclaimed, “If,” “if,” “if,” “if.” Huckabee Sanders reply, ""I agree." Raddatz added...
"Let me just say one more time. The president said, “I bet a good lawyer could make a great case out of the fact that President Obama was tapping my phones in October.” So the president believes it is true?"
HUCKABEE SANDERS: I would say that his tweet speaks for itself there.
In a nutshell, Donald Trump "trumped" up this conspiracy theory of Barack Obama wiretapping Trump Tower during the 2016 campaign, solely for the purpose of diverting attention away from the issues that he and his staff were in cahoots with Putin and the Russians in 2016 to aide his election chances and damage Hillary Clinton's, And the other issue, the skaggy lowlife he nominated for AG, Jeff Sessions lying about his contact with the Russians during the election. With a lack of support from his FBI Director, now some of his staff, where does the American public draw the line?
In the Senate hearings to confirm Jeff Sessions for Attorney general under the new Donald Trump administration, Sen. Al Franken (D-Minn) asked him a simple question of had he had contacts with the Russians. Sessions reply...
“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."
Not only was he in contact with a Russian, he met with the Russian ambassador. And more than once. Nancy Pelosi, the House's minority leader, says that Sessions lied to Congress and must resign. Chuck Schumer, the Senate Democratic leader also called for Sessions to resign. When Sessions did everything he could think of to change his story and rearrange the facts, all of which still didn't work, he recused himself...
"...from any and all investigations into the 2016 campaign by the Justice Department, a clear attempt to throw a bone to the howling pack in hopes that the controversy would die down."
It didn't, has only gotten worse, and Donald John was reportedly furious for his action, enough to start the maniac on another tirade accusing Barack Obama of ordering the wiretapping of the Trump Tower during the 2016 campaign. Completely unsubstantiated...nada...zip to back it up. But then, that's Donald Trump, a part of his formula to spread misinformation about anyone who crosses him or disagrees with him. The other part of his formula is outright lies, a technique he has employed from the first day of his presidential campaign, perhaps all his business life.
One can understand why Trump would be frantic over Jeff Sessions recusing himself since it is no doubt his Attorney General would have overseen an investigation of the Russian impact on Donald Trump's winning the election. And we all know from experience that Sessions is simply another of Donald John's yes men, ready to do his bidding no matter what. So, what's next? According to CNN...
"Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer said Thursday that Sessions' acting deputy attorney general, Dana Boente, should appoint a special prosecutor to oversee the investigation."
If they drag their feet...
"We will then urge (Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell) and (House Speaker Paul Ryan) to work with Democrats and create a new and improved version of the independent counsel law, which would give a three-judge panel the authority to appoint an independent counsel," Schumer said.
Yeah, lots of luck on that. Here's what PoliticusUSA had to say about a McConnell reaction...
"Given his support for Trump, expect Majority Leader McConnell to resist calls for an investigation, but when even he has to admit that there are unanswered questions, the President has big problems."
With trump's luck so far, his star will rise even higher because his numb nuts followers will scream their fried President is being persecuted. So, if Congress isn't going to do anything and his supporters will only glory in their man's "maltreatment," what's left? Well, it comes down to an anemic left that has been so disjointed in the past that they can't even help themselves, much less try to bring charges against the President. I want you to understand that I do not take pleasure in the fact that, the dozing Democrats under Debbie Wasserman Schultz were grossly outsmarted by the Republicans. Pathetic!
Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi calls for Jeff Sessions to resign have fallen on deaf ears in the Republican Congress and in the White House. The Washington Post's take on this says that, even as the democrats mount their opposition against Sessions, his own Party is faltering with some trying to dump him altogether, and others avoiding him in the cloak room. In politics, everyone knows the laws of survival and when you lie, especially in front of a Senate committee, your supporters have a tendency to shun any relationship with you. WP comments...
"If Sessions's response on Thursday morning was the best that he can offer to defend himself, you can expect that the few people sticking up for him right now will dwindle to his immediate family sometime very soon. And when you lose your friends while under heavy fire from your opponents in political Washington, it's almost always curtains."
Jeff Sessions and his spokeswoman have repeatedly tried to explain the whole thing away as a routine act of the Senator as a member of the Armed Services Committee. Sarah Isgur Flores, Sessions’s spokeswoman, said...
"Sessions last year had more than 25 conversations with foreign ambassadors as a senior member of the Armed Services Committee, including the British, Korean, Japanese, Polish, Indian, Chinese, Canadian, Australian and German ambassadors, in addition to Kislyak [the Russian ambassador]."
Neither the Russian ambassador, nor his spokesperson were available for comment but...
"The Washington Post contacted all 26 members of the 2016 Senate Armed Services Committee to see whether any lawmakers besides Sessions met with Kislyak in 2016. Of the 20 lawmakers who responded, every senator, including Chairman John McCain (R-Ariz.), said they did not meet with the Russian ambassador last year."
"...Sessions had tried to 'dramatically mislead' Congress. He stopped an inch or two short of calling his former Senate colleague a liar, but made it clear he thought Sessions had concealed the full truth from the Judiciary Committee at his confirmation hearing. “If there was nothing wrong” with meeting Ambassador Kislyak, Schumer asked, why didn’t he just come clean and tell the truth?'”
Russian Ambassador Sergey
Kislyak with Jeff Sessions
Schumer talks about a special counsel to investigate Jeff Sessions and the Beast thinks that idea willIn 1999 he wasa key proponent of prosecuting then-President Bill Clinton for allegedly lying under oath when Clinton was accused of perjury over statements he made regarding his relationship with Monica Lewinsky. Shoe on the other foot.
"avalanche" now, even with Senators that aren't in deep Red states. The downside of all this starts with Donald Trump who nominated this second-rate politician who is an avowed racist, and who has a past that should haunt him in this issue.
Lindsay Graham said in a tweet, "If Jeff Sessions spoke with Russian diplomat, then for sure you need a special prosecutor." Another republican Senator, Rob Portman, from Ohio joined in the call for a prosecutor. Here's a kick. Some thirty years ago, Sessions was too much of a racist to be a federal judge but now all of a sudden he has become Attorney General of the United States, which is on a higher level than the judgeship he wasn't qualified for. Just what happened in those thirty years to better certify him for this job? I think nothing.
