MESO-Rx
Anabolic Steroids
Trump Timeline ... Trumpocalypse
- Thread starter CdnGuy
- Start date
NOT OK
https://claytoonz.com/2019/03/30/not-ok/
Before Republican Devin Nunes was suing imaginary cows, he was chairman of the House Oversight Committee for the first two years of the Trump administration.
The committee was investigating Russia’s interference in the 2016 presidential election and Nunes pretended to recuse himself since he was on Trump’s transition team. He denied that the intelligence community had any evidence there was contact between Russia and the Trump campaign, which turned out to be a lie. He was accused of leaking classified information to the public and used the investigation to feed information to Donald Trump and his lawyers.
When Nunes learned that communications of members of Trump’s transition team had been “incidentally collected” by the intelligence community, he shared it with the White House before he informed his colleagues on the committee. He also used the investigation to attack Special Counsel Robert Mueller and the FBI, even beginning an investigation into the bureau because they had the gall to acquire a FISA warrant on a suspected Russian spy. At one point during the investigation, his committee released a memo attacking the FBI for the FISA warrants while also saying they were totally legal.
He canceled hearings where former acting Attorney General Sally Yates, former National Security Agency Director James Clapper, and former CIA Director John Brennan were scheduled to testify. Nunes eventually closed the investigation declaring there wasn’t any collusion and that Russia didn’t even try to help Trump win the election.
When Michael Flynn was busted for lying to the FBI about his secret contacts with Russia, Nunes said, “he was doing this country a favor and he should be thanked for it.”
For his mismanagement, lack of ethics, lies, and politicizing the committee and investigation to protect Donald Trump, no Republican called for his removal as chairman. Paul Ryan, Speaker of the House at that time, ignored Democrats calls for his removal.
Now, Nunes and the Republicans are calling for Adam Schiff to be removed as chairman of the committee because he said he had evidence of the Trump campaign colluding with Russia. Donald Trump even said Schiff should resign and be removed from Congress for lying. Seriously. Donald Trump thinks someone should be removed from office for lying. The Republicans are basing their allegations on the four pages AG William Barr released.
At a rally in Michigan, Trump even referred to Schiff as “pencil neck.” This, coming from a guy with a neck that looks like a vagina.
At the start of a hearing this week, the Republicans began by calling for Schiff to be removed. Every single Republican on the committee was on board for Schiff’s removal. Schiff didn’t take it lying down and he gave the shitweasels what for. It was a moment when every Republican on the committee appeared uncomfortable as they squirmed in their seats.
Schiff gave the retort of the year. He owned the GOP and Donald Trump. Their best comeback so far has been “pencil neck.” Schiff was magnificent. Schiff pointed out that everything Trump did during the campaign and since is “not OK.”
I’m including his remarks at length because if you missed it or haven’t read it, you need to.
“My colleagues might think it’s OK that the Russians offered dirt on the Democratic candidate for president as part of what’s described as the Russian government’s effort to help the Trump campaign. You might think that’s OK.
“My colleagues might think it’s OK that when that was offered to the son of the president, who had a pivotal role in the campaign, that the president’s son did not call the FBI; he did not adamantly refuse that foreign help – no, instead that son said that he would ‘love’ the help with the Russians.
“You might think it’s OK that he took that meeting. You might think it’s OK that Paul Manafort, the campaign chair, someone with great experience running campaigns, also took that meeting. You might think it’s OK that the president’s son-in-law also took that meeting. You might think it’s OK that they concealed it from the public. You might think it’s OK that their only disappointment after that meeting was that the dirt they received on Hillary Clinton wasn’t better. You might think that’s OK.
“You might think it’s OK that when it was discovered, a year later, that they then lied about that meeting and said that it was about adoptions. You might think that it’s OK that it was reported that the president helped dictate that lie. You might think that’s OK. I don’t.
“You might think it’s OK that the campaign chairman of a presidential campaign would offer information about that campaign to a Russian oligarch in exchange for money or debt forgiveness. You might think that’s OK, I don’t.
“You might think it’s OK that that campaign chairman offered polling data to someone linked to Russian intelligence. I don’t think that’s OK.
“You might think it’s OK that the president himself called on Russia to hack his opponent’s emails, if they were listening. You might think it’s OK that later that day, in fact, the Russians attempted to hack a server affiliated with that campaign. I don’t think that’s OK.
“You might think it’s OK that the president’s son-in-law sought to establish a secret back channel of communication with the Russians through a Russian diplomatic facility. I don’t think that’s OK.
“You might think it’s OK that an associate of the president made direct contact with the GRU through Guccifer 2.0 and WikiLeaks, that is considered a hostile intelligence agency. You might think it’s OK that a senior campaign official was instructed to reach that associate and find out what that hostile intelligence agency had to say in terms of dirt on his opponent.
“You might think it’s OK that the national security adviser designate secretly conferred with the Russian ambassador about undermining U.S. sanctions, and you might think it’s OK that he lied about it to the FBI.
“You might say that’s all OK, that’s just what you need to do to win. But I don’t think it’s OK. I don’t think it’s OK. I think it’s immoral, I think it’s unethical, I think it’s unpatriotic and, yes, I think it’s corrupt – and evidence of collusion.”
“Now I have always said that the question of whether this amounts to proof of conspiracy was another matter. Whether the special counsel could prove beyond a reasonable doubt the proof of that crime would be up to the special counsel, and I would accept his decision, and I do. He’s a good and honorable man, and he is a good prosecutor.
“But I do not think that conduct, criminal or not, is OK. And the day we do think that’s OK is the day we will look back and say that is the day that America lost its way.”
“And I will tell you one more thing that is apropos of the hearing today: I don’t think it’s OK that during a presidential campaign Mr. Trump sought the Kremlin’s help to consummate a real estate deal in Moscow that would make him a fortune – according to the special counsel, hundreds of millions of dollars. I don’t think it’s OK to conceal it from the public. I don’t think it’s OK that he advocated a new and more favorable policy towards the Russians even as he was seeking the Russians’ help, the Kremlin’s help to make money. I don’t think it’s OK that his attorney lied to our committee. There is a different word for that than collusion, and it’s called ‘compromise.’
“And that is the subject of our hearing today.”
Each of the factual points Schiff raised is supported by evidence and none of them have been contested by Trump, the GOP, or Barr’s memo for dummies.
Republicans need to learn what is and isn’t OK. Defending America is OK. Obstructoin investigations into attacks on our nation are not OK.
Republicans are not behaving like Americans. They’re not even behaving like Republicans. They’re cultists now. They behave like North Koreans worshiping their Dear Leader after generations of being gaslighted.
Instead of calling for Adam Schiff’s removal, Republicans should be behaving more like Adam Schiff.
https://claytoonz.com/2019/03/30/not-ok/
Before Republican Devin Nunes was suing imaginary cows, he was chairman of the House Oversight Committee for the first two years of the Trump administration.
The committee was investigating Russia’s interference in the 2016 presidential election and Nunes pretended to recuse himself since he was on Trump’s transition team. He denied that the intelligence community had any evidence there was contact between Russia and the Trump campaign, which turned out to be a lie. He was accused of leaking classified information to the public and used the investigation to feed information to Donald Trump and his lawyers.
When Nunes learned that communications of members of Trump’s transition team had been “incidentally collected” by the intelligence community, he shared it with the White House before he informed his colleagues on the committee. He also used the investigation to attack Special Counsel Robert Mueller and the FBI, even beginning an investigation into the bureau because they had the gall to acquire a FISA warrant on a suspected Russian spy. At one point during the investigation, his committee released a memo attacking the FBI for the FISA warrants while also saying they were totally legal.
He canceled hearings where former acting Attorney General Sally Yates, former National Security Agency Director James Clapper, and former CIA Director John Brennan were scheduled to testify. Nunes eventually closed the investigation declaring there wasn’t any collusion and that Russia didn’t even try to help Trump win the election.
When Michael Flynn was busted for lying to the FBI about his secret contacts with Russia, Nunes said, “he was doing this country a favor and he should be thanked for it.”
For his mismanagement, lack of ethics, lies, and politicizing the committee and investigation to protect Donald Trump, no Republican called for his removal as chairman. Paul Ryan, Speaker of the House at that time, ignored Democrats calls for his removal.
Now, Nunes and the Republicans are calling for Adam Schiff to be removed as chairman of the committee because he said he had evidence of the Trump campaign colluding with Russia. Donald Trump even said Schiff should resign and be removed from Congress for lying. Seriously. Donald Trump thinks someone should be removed from office for lying. The Republicans are basing their allegations on the four pages AG William Barr released.
At a rally in Michigan, Trump even referred to Schiff as “pencil neck.” This, coming from a guy with a neck that looks like a vagina.
At the start of a hearing this week, the Republicans began by calling for Schiff to be removed. Every single Republican on the committee was on board for Schiff’s removal. Schiff didn’t take it lying down and he gave the shitweasels what for. It was a moment when every Republican on the committee appeared uncomfortable as they squirmed in their seats.
Schiff gave the retort of the year. He owned the GOP and Donald Trump. Their best comeback so far has been “pencil neck.” Schiff was magnificent. Schiff pointed out that everything Trump did during the campaign and since is “not OK.”
I’m including his remarks at length because if you missed it or haven’t read it, you need to.
“My colleagues might think it’s OK that the Russians offered dirt on the Democratic candidate for president as part of what’s described as the Russian government’s effort to help the Trump campaign. You might think that’s OK.
“My colleagues might think it’s OK that when that was offered to the son of the president, who had a pivotal role in the campaign, that the president’s son did not call the FBI; he did not adamantly refuse that foreign help – no, instead that son said that he would ‘love’ the help with the Russians.
“You might think it’s OK that he took that meeting. You might think it’s OK that Paul Manafort, the campaign chair, someone with great experience running campaigns, also took that meeting. You might think it’s OK that the president’s son-in-law also took that meeting. You might think it’s OK that they concealed it from the public. You might think it’s OK that their only disappointment after that meeting was that the dirt they received on Hillary Clinton wasn’t better. You might think that’s OK.
“You might think it’s OK that when it was discovered, a year later, that they then lied about that meeting and said that it was about adoptions. You might think that it’s OK that it was reported that the president helped dictate that lie. You might think that’s OK. I don’t.
“You might think it’s OK that the campaign chairman of a presidential campaign would offer information about that campaign to a Russian oligarch in exchange for money or debt forgiveness. You might think that’s OK, I don’t.
“You might think it’s OK that that campaign chairman offered polling data to someone linked to Russian intelligence. I don’t think that’s OK.
“You might think it’s OK that the president himself called on Russia to hack his opponent’s emails, if they were listening. You might think it’s OK that later that day, in fact, the Russians attempted to hack a server affiliated with that campaign. I don’t think that’s OK.
“You might think it’s OK that the president’s son-in-law sought to establish a secret back channel of communication with the Russians through a Russian diplomatic facility. I don’t think that’s OK.
“You might think it’s OK that an associate of the president made direct contact with the GRU through Guccifer 2.0 and WikiLeaks, that is considered a hostile intelligence agency. You might think it’s OK that a senior campaign official was instructed to reach that associate and find out what that hostile intelligence agency had to say in terms of dirt on his opponent.
“You might think it’s OK that the national security adviser designate secretly conferred with the Russian ambassador about undermining U.S. sanctions, and you might think it’s OK that he lied about it to the FBI.
“You might say that’s all OK, that’s just what you need to do to win. But I don’t think it’s OK. I don’t think it’s OK. I think it’s immoral, I think it’s unethical, I think it’s unpatriotic and, yes, I think it’s corrupt – and evidence of collusion.”
“Now I have always said that the question of whether this amounts to proof of conspiracy was another matter. Whether the special counsel could prove beyond a reasonable doubt the proof of that crime would be up to the special counsel, and I would accept his decision, and I do. He’s a good and honorable man, and he is a good prosecutor.
“But I do not think that conduct, criminal or not, is OK. And the day we do think that’s OK is the day we will look back and say that is the day that America lost its way.”
“And I will tell you one more thing that is apropos of the hearing today: I don’t think it’s OK that during a presidential campaign Mr. Trump sought the Kremlin’s help to consummate a real estate deal in Moscow that would make him a fortune – according to the special counsel, hundreds of millions of dollars. I don’t think it’s OK to conceal it from the public. I don’t think it’s OK that he advocated a new and more favorable policy towards the Russians even as he was seeking the Russians’ help, the Kremlin’s help to make money. I don’t think it’s OK that his attorney lied to our committee. There is a different word for that than collusion, and it’s called ‘compromise.’
“And that is the subject of our hearing today.”
Each of the factual points Schiff raised is supported by evidence and none of them have been contested by Trump, the GOP, or Barr’s memo for dummies.
Republicans need to learn what is and isn’t OK. Defending America is OK. Obstructoin investigations into attacks on our nation are not OK.
Republicans are not behaving like Americans. They’re not even behaving like Republicans. They’re cultists now. They behave like North Koreans worshiping their Dear Leader after generations of being gaslighted.
Instead of calling for Adam Schiff’s removal, Republicans should be behaving more like Adam Schiff.
A federal judge in Alaska late Friday declared President Trump’s order revoking a sweeping ban on oil and gas drilling in the Arctic and Atlantic Ocean illegal, putting 128 million acres of federal waters off limits to energy exploration.
The decision by U.S. District Judge Sharon Gleason represented the third legal setback to Trump’s energy and environmental policies in a single week. On Friday the judge, who was appointed to the federal bench by Barack Obama in 2012, also blocked https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2018/01/22/zinke-to-sign-land-swap-deal-allowing-road-through-alaskas-izembek-wilderness/?utm_term=.24982cee4d8a (a land swap the Interior Department arranged)that would pave the way for road through wilderness in a major national wildlife refuge in Alaska.
Trump’s rollbacks of Obama-era conservation policies have suffered nearly two dozen setbacks in federal court, largely on procedural grounds. While the administration is appealing many of these decisions, and holds an advantage if the cases reach the Supreme Court, the rulings have slowed the president’s drive to expand fossil fuel production in the United States.
Earlier this month, for example, a federal judge https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/2019/03/20/federal-judge-casts-doubt-trumps-drilling-plans-across-us-because-they-ignore-climate-change/?utm_term=.cbe4ecaad51e (halted drilling on more than 300,000 acres) of oil and gas leases in Wyoming. And Friday’s decision on offshore drilling could affect a five-year leasing plan the administration plans to issue this summer, as well as block the six offshore lease sales it proposed to schedule in the Arctic Ocean starting as early as this year.
“President Trump’s lawlessness is catching up with him,” Erik Grafe, the lead attorney from Earthjustice who argued to reinstate Obama’s leasing withdrawals in the Arctic and Atlantic, said in a statement Friday. “The judge’s ruling today shows that the president can not just trample on the constitution to do the bidding of his cronies in the fossil fuel industry at the expense of our oceans, wildlife, and climate.”
How I Met Your Mothers
Stephen Moore, the economics commentator chosen by Donald Trump for a seat on the Federal Reserve board, was found in contempt of court after failing to pay his ex-wife hundreds of thousands of dollars in alimony, child support and other debts.
Court records in Virginia obtained by the Guardian show Moore, 59, was reprimanded by a judge in November 2012 for failing to pay Allison Moore more than $300,000 in spousal support, child support and money owed under their divorce settlement.
Moore continued failing to pay, according to the court filings, prompting the judge to order the sale of his house to satisfy the debt in 2013. But this process was halted by his ex-wife after Moore paid her about two-thirds of what he owed, the filings say.
In a divorce filing in August 2010, Moore was accused of inflicting “emotional and psychological abuse” on his ex-wife during their 20-year marriage. Allison Moore said in the filing she had been forced to flee their home to protect herself. She was granted a divorce in May 2011.
Moore said in a court filing signed in April 2011 he admitted all the allegations in Allison Moore’s divorce complaint. He declined to comment for this article.
Allison Moore declined to comment during a brief telephone discussion this week. A person close to the Moores said they now had a better relationship and that Allison Moore had a more favourable view of their marriage.
All of those redactions are proper under current law, although there are legal methods to disclose additional information if Barr were interested in greater transparency. But the attorney general has gone further, pledging to redact additional information beyond that required by law to protect “the personal privacy and reputational interests of peripheral third-parties.” It is hard to imagine lawmakers deferring to Barr’s judgment regarding redactions not required by law, given his rush to reach a conclusionregarding obstruction of justice. While in typical cases, DOJ does not publicly release derogatory information regarding people who weren't charged with a crime, there is no credible reason not to share all of the information related to this investigation with Congress.
It didn’t have to be this way. Barr could have written a letter containing lengthy quotations from the report itself. He could have reached out to congressional leaders, shown them as much of the report as possible now, and negotiated a timetable for them to see the rest. That would have been consistent with the transparency Barr pledged during his confirmation process.
Instead, Barr has refused to commit to ever let Congress see the full report. In the face of a request by House Judiciary Chairman Jerrold Nadler for the “full and complete Mueller report” by April 2, Barr appears committed to release only a redacted version to “the appropriate congressional committees,” including Nadler’s committee.
Barr’s position is indefensible. The Constitution gives the “the sole Power of Impeachment” to the House of Representatives, and the House Judiciary Committee has jurisdiction over impeachments. The Mueller investigation was, among other things, an investigation into possible criminal conduct by the president of the United States. There is no legal principle, including the separation of powers, that would permit the executive branch to block the results of an investigation into crimes allegedly committed by the president from the House of Representatives. To do so would deny the House’s ability to carry out its constitutional power of impeachment.
So why isn’t Barr being more forthcoming? The details contained in the report will not be as unwaveringly positive towards Trump as Barr’s four-page letter. As Barr notes, his letter was not a “summary” of the report and did not detail Mueller’s findings and analysis. While Barr provided the top-line conclusion that Mueller could not prove a conspiracy with Russia beyond a reasonable doubt, he did not detail incriminating evidence of potential coordination.
