The Trump Card...

[Turtle]

Trust it or not, this is an example of the reporting I am talking about.

The WSJ says special grand jury, the NYT says most definitely not, and The Hill uses unnamed sources that won't confirm and has a story loaded with qualifiers like "some say." That's why I don't see any bets based on reporting.

eventually we will probably know with reasonable certainty whether this is a special, Mueller-dedicated grand jury or one of the more traditional variety.

It doesn't matter either way. Mueller-dedicated or not, the jury members will turn over in 6 months, and they'll do whatever he wants them to regardless.

 

[muttly]

I happened to watch Republican consultant Ed Rollins last night on Fox Business channel. He thinks that Mueller should be persuaded to resign( yeah, good luck with that) and instead have one Democrat and one Republican head the investigation.

I happened to watch Republican consultant Ed Rollins last night on Fox Business channel. He thinks that Mueller should be persuaded to resign( yeah, good luck with that) and instead have one Democrat and one Republican head the investigation.

Is there a reason to leave independent voters unrepresented if you are going to politicize the investigation? Why not have it headed jointly by one Dem, one Rep and one Ind? Or if it is objectivity you seek, why not have it headed by a true independent?

Of course, if you are going to open that door, should we include Libertarians and Greens too? What about the Constitution Party?

Best, I think to identify a person of known integrity and repute and have him or her head the investigation, which is kinda what happened, is it not? Mueller was highly praised by Democrats and Republicans when appointed. Congress is very much of a mind these days to protect him from White House interference.

If not Mueller, who would you have? If you picked two people based on their partisan credentials to lead the investigations, how biased should they be.... a little, a lot, not at all? If not at all, what difference does their party affiliation make?

No, I just thought Rollins' idea was better than what we have now; An apparent investigation veering off to other things that aren't connected to Russian meddling.
I don't know much about Mueller. But his actions so far look very troubling in conducting a fair investigation: Quite a few Obama and Hillary supporters are doing the investigating. Looking in to Trump land deals with Russians that happened 10 years ago.

Yes, Mueller initially received compliments from republicans when he was selected, and I recall Newt Gingrich saying he will be fine. But Newt backtracked soon after that when he noticed the people Mueller was selecting on his team. Mueller also has a conflict of interest by being friends with former FBI head Comey.
Of course we could just go back to having the FBI look at the Russian meddling, but this time have Trump's new FBI chief conduct the investigation. He was confirmed with OVERWHELMING BIPARTISAN SUPPORT. Would you object to that?

 

[ATeam]

Of course we could just go back to having the FBI look at the Russian meddling, but this time have Trump's new FBI chief conduct the investigation. He was confirmed with OVERWHELMING BIPARTISAN SUPPORT. Would you object to that?

Overwhelming bipartisan support is a good thing, so no, I would not object in the hypothetical you present. But an FBI-led investigation is unlikely because the Mueller-led probe will continue. His mandate is very broad. There is nothing in it that limits him to Russia stuff.

We had an FBI-led investigation underway before Mueller was appointed. The only reason Mueller was appointed was Trump fired Comey. That got people's attention in both parties. It sparked suspicion that Comey was on his way to finding something Trump very much did not want found. It gave rise to the protection congress is giving Mueller now.

 

[muttly]

Of course we could just go back to having the FBI look at the Russian meddling, but this time have Trump's new FBI chief conduct the investigation. He was confirmed with OVERWHELMING BIPARTISAN SUPPORT. Would you object to that?

Overwhelming bipartisan support is a good thing, so no, I would not object in the hypothetical you present. But an FBI-led investigation is unlikely because the Mueller-led probe will continue. His mandate is very broad. There is nothing in it that limits him to Russia stuff.

We had an FBI-led investigation underway before Mueller was appointed. The only reason Mueller was appointed was Trump fired Comey. That got people's attention in both parties. It sparked suspicion that Comey was on his way to finding something Trump very much did not want found. It gave rise to the protection congress is giving Mueller now.

Although it sparked suspicion, there was no evidence of Trump doing anything wrong or illegal. Trump wasn't even under investigation by Comey.

 

[ATeam]

Although it sparked suspicion, there was no evidence of Trump doing anything wrong or illegal. Trump wasn't even under investigation by Comey.

It's not that there is no evidence. At present, there is no evidence we know of. The investigations continue in secret. We know what is leaked. We do not know what is not leaked.

Also, some would argue that Trump has very publicly and intentionally done much to stop or undermine the investigation. Some would argue the most overt act in that regard was firing the man who was leading the investigation. Some would offer that as evidence of obstruction of justice, which is a crime.

I do not know if the investigators will agree that Trump obstructed justice. I do not know if they will include that charge in their report. Time will tell. If that developed, it would not matter if Trump personally was the target of the investigation. It would matter that an investigation was underway and Trump used the powers of his office to interfere with or stop it.

 

[ATeam]

That may be true, but say there were 15 or 21 journalists from the New York Times, The Atantic, and The Washington Post( whatever the grand jury number is) that were empaneled on a Grand Jury. Would you feel confident that they could put their biases aside and look at the evidence objectively?

Yes, I would feel very confident that the journalists you name could put their biases aside and look at the evidence objectively. I would say the same if you listed journalists from Breitbart, Fox and other Trump-friendly news outlets.

I say that because when I was politically active, I interacted with hundreds of journalists over the years and got to know a good number of them, not as close friends but as acquaintances who operated in the same circles we did. There were many times we visited casually while waiting for one thing or another.

For example, a press conference might be scheduled for 11:00 a.m. The press would arrive at 9:30 - 10:00 to set up. The governor may be on his way from another location. That gave the news crews and us an hour to kill with nothing in particular to do. So we'd chat to pass the time. Another example is the capitol cafeteria where I might be finishing a meeting with someone over coffee. We're done and a reporter walks in for his morning break. We invite him to our table and we visit about nothing in particular. That went on a lot and we got to know these guys and gals and grew comfortable with them; and they with us.

I came to greatly admire these people and envy their experience. They are highly educated and highly intelligent. They are trained observers who have -- over decades of reporting -- covered all manner of human interest stories, disasters, political events, investigations and more. Part of their job is to learn and report what other people think and feel. These professionals have been exposed to all manner of beliefs by a large number of people in a wide variety of situations. In every interview they do, every fact they research, every report they submit, every response to every story they write; they gain insight into how humanity functions and how the world works.

Expediters go to work on the road every day and many do it for decades. If you ask a question about the road of an expediter and a four-wheeler who commutes 10 miles to work each day and drives "long haul" once a year on vacation, the expediter's response would be more informed. So too with journalists who go to work every day to cover organizations and people in crisis, victory, new life, end of life, etc. Journalists not only watch things develop, they watch them with full attention because they will report the events and be evaluated by people who were also there. Journalists gain a breadth and depth of experience that most people in most other professions do not have. As I said, I envy their experience.

Exposed to such a variety of experiences, and trained to be objective, I have no doubt that journalists would be better skilled at being jurors than average citizens, and I believe they would relish the opportunity. They would relish it because in the jury room, they have no editors to please, no audience to write for, no deadlines to meet. For them it would be a rare chance to use their listening skills to determine the truth and use their reasoning skills to understand and follow the legal guidance the judge provides.

If I was charged with a crime of some sort on questionable evidence in a case that was brought by an unethical prosecutor with questionable motives; and if I had a choice of a jury filled with journalists vs. one filled with average citizens, I'd choose the journalists every time because they would be less likely to be swayed by one argument or another and more likely to take the facts into account.

 

[Turtle]

... if I had a choice of a jury filled with journalists vs. one filled with average citizens, I'd choose the journalists every time because they would be less likely to be swayed by one argument or another and more likely to take the facts into account.

Any litigator will tell you that insurance industry employees and teachers make the worst jurors, because they have a strong tendency to factor in and convict based on things outside of the presented evidence. Prosecutors favor them, though.

Journalists, on the other hand, as a group, tend to be liberal and have a jaded and distrustful view of the system itself. They also have an excellent ability to see through any smokescreen the defense may throw in their face. So as in any case, whether or not a journalist will make a good juror, and whether or not even the judge would allow them to serve, depends the case and the biases the journalist brings with them.

A political reporter with a known bias stands virtually no chance of being selected as a juror for a trial with partisan political overtones.

 

[muttly]

Although it sparked suspicion, there was no evidence of Trump doing anything wrong or illegal. Trump wasn't even under investigation by Comey.

It's not that there is no evidence. At present, there is no evidence we know of. The investigations continue in secret. We know what is leaked. We do not know what is not leaked.

Also, some would argue that Trump has very publicly and intentionally done much to stop or undermine the investigation. Some would argue the most overt act in that regard was firing the man who was leading the investigation. Some would offer that as evidence of obstruction of justice, which is a crime.

I do not know if the investigators will agree that Trump obstructed justice. I do not know if they will include that charge in their report. Time will tell. If that developed, it would not matter if Trump personally was the target of the investigation. It would matter that an investigation was underway and Trump used the powers of his office to interfere with or stop it.

At the time Trump fired Comey he wasn't under investigation. Three times Comey told him that. But Comey wouldn't publicly disclose that fact and Trump felt that it contributed to undermining his presidency, his agenda.
You say some would offer that firing Comey is evidence of obstruction. Many legal scholars would say otherwise. That it is the President's right to fire a FBI Director. The FBI isn't some entity that answers to no one.
Mueller should decide that any good prosecutor wouldn't file charges on such a weak case.
But it would appear this Special Prosecutor may have decided to 'pass the buck' to a Grand Jury from an area that voted all of 4% for Trump.
Yeah, I guess people can put aside their feelings about a Presidential candidate they didn't vote for in a highly partisan election, but it isn't likely.
The flip side of that would be holding grand jury proceedings in a rural area of Pennsylvania or West Virginia. You think they would vote to indict Trump on some sketchy Obstruction of Justice charge? They'd laugh the Prosecutor all the way back to Washington.

 

[ATeam]

The flip side of that would be holding grand jury proceedings in a rural area of Pennsylvania or West Virginia. You think they would vote to indict Trump on some sketchy Obstruction of Justice charge? They'd laugh the Prosecutor all the way back to Washington.

You seem to have a strong belief that people cannot overcome their biases, whatever their perspective may be. I believe otherwise, as did our Founding Fathers. Because we are dealing with human beings, there will always be flaws in the system but it's the only one we have and it's a good one.

It does not follow that because someone voted in a particular way in a particular election that he or she will be unable to be objective when serving as a juror. Nor does that follow because one is a member of a particular party, or donated money to a particular candidate, or resides in a particular region in which a strong majority voted one way or another.

I've been called for jury duty twice in two different states. Both times I saw about 100 citizens arrive to be in the jury pool and watched as myself and others went through the jury selection process. Initially, nearly everyone complained about having been summoned and would rather be someplace else (myself included). As we moved through the process and listened as administrators and judges explained the importance of this duty, people resolved themselves to the fact that they had no choice. As we got closer to being selected or got selected, the duty point was made again as instructions were given and questions asked about our ability to sit in judgement, fairly and with respect to the law as the law is explained by the judge.

As that went on, people's attitude changed. They came to understand that it was indeed important to do their very be to serve well. It is also significant that no juror was selected who had disqualifying ties to the case or disqualifying opinions that would render them unable to be objective. And it is significant that jurors must agree on whatever outcome they decide. A jury starts out as strangers in a strange process. Each has his or her own learning style and perception of reality. All must agree for a verdict to be rendered.

My respect for the jury process has increased each time I went through it. That's what lies behind my belief that the process is essentially objective and fair.

Let me ask you, Muttly. You are a seemingly biased, hard core Trump supporter. If you were asked to serve on Mueller's grand jury, do you think you could do so in a fair and objective manner? Or would you be so blinded by your biases, and so driven by your desire to see Trump win, that it would not be fair to include you on that jury?

 

[skyraider]

Just so you get a good crooked Christian lawyer....Rosary Beads anyone,,, the Pope is on line 2...

I forgot to mention,,,no one is perfect.....................

 

[muttly]

The flip side of that would be holding grand jury proceedings in a rural area of Pennsylvania or West Virginia. You think they would vote to indict Trump on some sketchy Obstruction of Justice charge? They'd laugh the Prosecutor all the way back to Washington.

You seem to have a strong belief that people cannot overcome their biases, whatever their prospective may be. I believe otherwise, as did our Founding Fathers. Because we are dealing with human beings, there will always be flaws in the system but it's the only one we have and it's a good one.

It does not follow that because someone voted in a particular way in a particular election that he or she will be unable to be objective when serving as a juror. Nor does that follow because one is a member of a particular party, or donated money to a particular candidate, or resides in a particular region in which a strong majority voted one way or another.

I've been called for jury duty twice in two different states. Both times I saw about 100 citizens arrive to be in the jury pool and watched as myself and others went through the jury selection process. Initially, nearly everyone complained about having been summoned and would rather be someplace else (myself included). As we moved through the process and listened as administrators and judges explained the importance of this duty, people resolved themselves to the fact that they had no choice. As we got closer to being selected or got selected, the duty point was made again as instructions were given and questions asked about our ability to sit in judgement, fairly and with respect to the law as the law is explained by the judge.

As that went on, people's attitude changed. They came to understand that it was indeed important to do their very be to serve well. It is also significant that no juror was selected who had disqualifying ties to the case or disqualifying opinions that would render them unable to be objective. And it is significant that jurors must agree on whatever outcome they decide. A jury starts out as strangers in a strange process. Each has his or her own learning style and perception of reality. All must agree for a verdict to be determined.

My respect for the jury process has increased each time I went through it. That's what lies behind my belief that the process is essentially objective and fair.

Let me ask you, Muttly. You are a seemingly biased, hard core Trump supporter. If you were asked to serve on Mueller's grand jury, do you think you could do so in a fair and objective manner? Or would you be so blinded by your biases that it would not be fair to include you on that jury?

With regards to your jury selection experience, it appears you were involved with some generic cases. What I'm talking about is a specific highly partisan election that took place not too long ago. If one was paying attention there was a high degree of dejection and anger (among other emotions) from the losing side. IMO, having someone experienced that, sit on a jury being spoon fed 'evidence' by a Prosecutor against someone they feel caused them that pain will only end with one result, Guilty!

With regards to your question about my ability to serve on a grand jury against Trump. My own biases/ opinions are that this whole investigation originated from a bogus Russian/ Trump collusion counterintelligence scheme. It's veered off into a sketchy/ Tickytac/ flimsy obstruction of justice probe because Comey got his feelings hurt about Trump hoping he could wrap up the Flynn investigation because he felt he was a 'good man'. Now the investigation is looking at land deals in Russia and Don Jr.'s meeting to hear possible Clinton illegalities. That's a crime? Lol
BTW, Fake News CNN in a recent article(readers beware) stated that the Russian collusion will be at this point...wait for it...hard to gather evidence on.(Wow)Too murky at this point to investigate.(you don't say?)
But the Mueller team is focusing on 'more fertile areas' of Trump's business deals with Russia.
(Hey Martha, we hit the mother lode!)

I agree with Charles Krauthamer( not a Trump fan) that this investigation is becoming a constitutional crisis.
You are seeing the outcome of a duly elected president trying to be overturned by a silent coup of people who can't stand the thought of Trump being President.

So put me in the column of a juror who would choose nullification in this case.
And I might just lie to get on the jury too.(honest answer)
IMO, you will have someone like me on the jury or the one who thinks Trump should be in prison for a long time because he must have did something wrong with this Russian thing.

 

[Turtle]

Comey got his feelings hurt about Trump hoping he could wrap up the Flynn investigation because he felt he was a 'good man'.

It goes farther back than that. Comey got butthurt when he laid out the case against Hillary and then said he wasn't going to file charges, and Trump skewered him for it.

And with the release of the shamefully redacted correspondence between Lynch's DOJ and Comey's FBI we can see why Comey got mad, because Trump nailed it on why Comey wouldn't prosecute. Comey's FBI responded to the FOIA request with a straight up lie (no relevant documents could be found) and it took a lawsuit to get them to miraculously produce more than 400 pages. Now it's going to take another lawsuit to get the un-redacted versions. But even with the redactions it's clear the DOJ and FBI colluded (there's that word) with each other to ensure Hillary didn't get indicted and that everyone on both sides had the same story about the Lynch-Clinton tarmac meeting. Comey was corrupt and Trump nailed him on it.

 

[ATeam]

With regards to your jury selection experience, it appears you were involved with some generic cases. What I'm talking about is a specific highly partisan election that took place not to long ago. If one was paying attention there was a high degree of dejection and anger (among other emotions) from the losing side.

I Googled this: In the District, of 478,688 registered voters, 287,403 cast ballots, for a 60 percent turnout, roughly the same turnout as in 2012.

Prospective grand jurors in D.C. come from the list of registered voters. 60% of them voted, which means 40% did not care enough to show up and vote one way or another. Of the 60% who did vote, it is unlikely that every last one of them experienced a high degree of dejection and anger. It is more likely that some of them did indeed have the emotional response you describe. How many, I do not know. Maybe half of them? Maybe less?

Even if half of the D.C. Clinton voters were consumed with anger and remained rabid anti-Trumpers beyond all reason, that would mean about an equal split between those and the others who either voted for Trump or did not care enough to vote at all. While the selection process for a grand jury is different than for a trial, steps are taken to weed out those whose opinions are so strongly held that they would interfere with objectivity.

Also note that the pool of prospective D.C. jurors is larger than registered voters. Per the D.C. Courts web site, "Jurors are selected from lists of registered District of Columbia voters, persons who have obtained driver's licenses or identification cards from the D.C. Department of Motor Vehicles, records provided by the D.C. Department of Tax and Revenue, and public assistance rolls."

Reading up on this a bit, I found an interesting tidbit (below). You might be able to lie your way onto a grand jury but a judge will likely be fairly skilled in detecting liars. If you chose to lie, you would be lying directly to a judge who is looking you in the eye. Even if you made it through that phase, you could be later removed if the judge determined you were anything less than objective or acting in bad faith.

"In a regular jury, the judge and lawyers ask the jurors multiple questions in order to vet them. But in a grand jury, the judge asks selective questions. Given the highly sensitive nature of a grand jury, a juror can be removed at any moment from the panel if the judge deems that they may not be impartial. After all, neutrality is key in any jury but in a grand jury, it becomes crucial to the utmost for jurors to maintain absolute objectivity while examining the case before them." Source

Is it possible that the grand jury will be selected by a corrupt judge who secretly hates Trump and will do everything he/she can to insure an anti-Trump outcome? Yes it's possible. Is it likely? I think not.

Will we be able to resolve this difference of opinion about juror bias and the legitimacy of the investigation by talking about it more here in this forum? Maybe later as additional facts become known, but it appears unlikely at this point.

 

[ATeam]

Comey got his feelings hurt about Trump hoping he could wrap up the Flynn investigation because he felt he was a 'good man'.

It goes farther back than that. Comey got butthurt when he laid out the case against Hillary and then said he wasn't going to file charges, and Trump skewered him for it.

And with the released of the shamefully redacted correspondence between Lynch's DOJ and Comey's FBI we can see why Comey got mad, because Trump nailed it on why Comey wouldn't prosecute. Comey's FBI responded to the FOIA request with a straight up lie (no relevant documents could be found) and it took a lawsuit to get them to miraculously produce more than 400 pages. Now it's going to take another lawsuit to get the un-redacted versions. But even with the redactions it's clear the DOJ and FBI colluded (there's that word) with each other to ensure Hillary didn't get indicted and that everyone on both sides had the same story about the Lynch-Clinton tarmac meeting. Comey was corrupt and Trump nailed him on it.

I do not disagree with what you said above but remain curious about something. If what you say is accurate, why is the Trump administration, the Republican-controlled House and the Republican Controlled Senate doing seemingly nothing about it?

There is absolutely nothing keeping them from launching investigations into this to find the evil-doers and put them in jail, yet nothing seems to be happening. Why is that? What keeps the Republicans from using the power they clearly have to air out all information, set the record straight and bring deserving people to justice?

This is not a rhetorical question. I truly don't understand why the Republicans are taking little or no action on this.

 

[ATeam]

Once again, Trump seems ham-handed in presidential PR. He's on a "working vacation" while the White House undergoes long-needed repairs. He would have been better off if he simply stated he'd be working at a different location. Why introduce the idea of a vacation at all? It also would help if he went to Camp David to work while the White House renovations are underway.

 

[Turtle]

Even if half of the D.C. Clinton voters were consumed with anger and remained rabid anti-Trumpers beyond all reason, that would mean about an equal split between those and the others who either voted for Trump or did not care enough to vote at all.

A couple of things... "Did not care enough to vote at all" is not necessarily an indication of indifference towards Trump. Some of the more spectacular post-election night liberal meltowns that can be viewed on YouTube are by people who admit they did not vote. Interviews on the street during the Angry Women Pink Pussy Hat March showed the same thing, with many regretting not voting.

Knowing that, I think you are grossly underestimating the split of those D.C. Hillary supporters, who are eligible for jury duty, who are still to this day consumed with rabid anger.

And to that point, you ask,

"Is it possible that the grand jury will be selected by a corrupt judge who secretly hates Trump and will do everything he/she can to insure an anti-Trump outcome? Yes it's possible. Is it likely? I think not."

Corrupt or not, we have seen judges in four District and two Circuit Courts rule against Trump's travel ban, setting aside the rule of law and legal precedent, and in more than a few written opinions flatly state that if the same executive order were signed by any other president they would not rule against it.

Also to that point, we have seen a grand jury, and then a real jury, and a real judge, convict and sentence OJ SImpson to a laughably lengthy prison sentence for a botched first offense robbery that would otherwise be for 6-12 months or even straight probation, not for the robbery, but because they hated him and punished him for getting away with double murder in another state.

The consuming, emotional anger towards Trump (and his supporters, by the way) by the left has waned very little since the election. It's gotten to the point where the emotion has become part of them, where it has usurped all logic, reason and critical thinking. There mere thought or mention of Trump will elicit an immediate, unthinking, emotional knee-jerk reaction as sure as if a doctor hit them with a rubber hammer.

In this particular clip we do not see her reaction as Trump is being sworn in, but it's exactly the same as we see at the beginning of this video. Just uncontrolled disbelief at the horro she is witnessing. The last half of the video is a snippet of an interview that immediately follows her primal letting, when a British reporter asked her to relate her emotions verbally, and if she had any message to the world. It's really extraordinary. Pain like this is apt to be held tightly for months or years to come.

The following video is from a "March 4 Trump" event, this one in Lake Oswego, Oregon, but many of these events occurred simulataneously across the country. As the first speaker begins to speak, a disgruntled anti-Trumper of some sort (it is assumed) appears and just starts screaming as if she is being ever so slowly fed feet first into a wood chipper. This is three months after the election. This video only shows a couple of minutes of her nearly 10 minutes of screaming, when she finally wore herself out and ent away.

But the funny part of this is towards the end, when after pretty much ignoring everyone, in an attemp to elicit an assault of some kind, one man hilariously broke her concentration and got her attention with,
"Go get a job!"

 

[muttly]

Here is what those redacted talking points look like:

 

[Turtle]

I do not disagree with what you said above but remain curious about something. If what you say is accurate, why is the Trump administration, the Republican-controlled House and the Republican Controlled Senate doing seemingly nothing about it? There is absolutely nothing keeping them from launching investigations into this to find the evil-doers and put them in jail, yet nothing seems to be happening. Why is that? What keeps the Republicans from using the power they clearly have to set the record straight and bring deserving people to justice?

This is not a rhetorical question. I truly don't understand why the Republicans are taking little or no action on this.

The short answer... Members of the swamp fighting the drainage thereof notwithstanding, the Republicans are, by and large, spineless little slugs.

I would say it's because the Republicans have a big-picture sense of fair play, and they have an utter lack of the moral and ethical ambiguity that the Democrats see as their bread and butter, where the ends justify the means no matter the means, but really they're just spineless little slugs.

Long Turtle-esque answer rant... They can't govern even when given the overwhelming mandated power to do so, they don't care about the big picture, the party or the platform, or the American people. They only care about themselves, getting reelected, and in getting their way despite being a small part of a large team. If Democrats need to scrounge up another one or two votes, what with their lack of morals and ethics, they get 'em, easy peasy. A compromise here, a backroom promise there, it's a done deal.

Republicans have one estemed Senator from my home state of Kentucky sitting there with a proud little smirk on his face saying he can't do this or that because it's not exactly what he wants, and any compromise is a failure. That tactic opened the door for others to do the same.

Lisa Murkowski voted against Obamacare in the first place, and eagerly voted subsequently to repeal it, when she knew the vote wouldn't result in repeal, and campaigned on, and many times reiterated that, Obamacare must be repealed. Then it comes time where the House and Senate has the power to actually repeal it, and she's suddenly all like "I don't wanna repeal the thing without a full replacement plan in place, that's been my position all along," despite her voting record saying the opposite.

Then there's Audrey Hepburn up in Maine (OK, her real name is Susan Collins, but I can be cruel and caustic at times). I can give her a pass on voting against the Skinny Bill, because she's consistently voted to not repeal Obamacare, mainly because she doesn't want to give up the Medicaid money. But on that point, she votes with Democrats an astonishing amount of the time. Her stated reason for not voting in favor of the Skinny Bill is because it defunded Planned Parenthood (Medicaid), of which she is a yooge fan and supporter. I'm personally anti-abortion, but I'm pro-choice, meaning, I'm not at all a fan of abortion, but I'm very much in favor of the one who is pregnant (and the one who got her that way) making the choice to abort or not. It's nobody else's business. But where I do draw the pro-choice line is with partial-birth abortions, where the fetus is completely viable outside the womb, but the birth is aborted just before it gets out. Susan Collins (along with Murkowski) broke ranks with the Republicans and voted against the partial-birth bill that would have prohibited those types of on-demand abortions. She came out early after the convention against Trump, saying she would not vote for him. She voted against the travel ban. And she criticized Trump repeatedly for not releasing his tax returns, and ever since his innauguration has pushed for a Sentate subpoena of Trump's tax returns, ostensibly as part of the investigation into the whole Russian thing. She claims to be a lifelong Republican, but she has spent her entire political life voting with Democrats more than she votes with Republicans. She threw a hissy fit worthy of a Democrat when my other favorite Kentucky Senator (affectionally known as Mitch McTurtle) refused to give Merrick Garland a vote. She should do the honorable thing, the honest thing, and just change her party affiliation and be done with it.

Speaking of doing the honorable thing. Mitch McTurtle needs to either resign as Majority Leader of the Senate, or he should step up to the podium on the Senate floor, put a gun to his temple, and blow his brains all over the chamber. But I digress.

Trump has his Interior Secretary play political hardball on health care with Murkowski and Hepburn, and Democrats are all up in it, calling for an investigation and even getting the Interior Inspector General looking into it. Democrats are calling the shots and grandstanding in the Republican-led committies doing the investigations of Trump - investigations that should have never commenced in the first place, because they commenced on unsibstantiated partisan rumor and not fact. We've got Senator Feinstein calling for an investigation into Lynch-Comey-Clinton and Republicans are still reluctant to move on it, because they're spineless slugs.

Debbie Wasserman Schultz already conspired to rig the electoral process in favor of Hillary,and now she's somehow wrapped up in what may turn out to be genuine espionage collusion by paying foreign nationals the going rate of a House member Chief of Staff, ten times the normal rate for IT support. Her and other Democratic House members paid members of this Pakistani family for IT support when some of them have never even set foot in the building. The ultimate in no-show jobs. Awan was barred from accessing House servers and computers on Feb 2, after it was shown that he was secretly accessing members’ computers and transferring files to remote servers, yet Wasserman Schultz kept him on the payroll. The Awan family has either swindled federal taxpayers out of millions and almost certainly put national secrets at risk, which smacks of massive democratic government incompetence, or there's something much, much bigger going on. She ckaims Awan is being profiled because he's Muslim. I think she's hiding something that makes this much more serious than she's letting on.

What is the Republican response to all this? To have a committe investigate? Call for a special prosecutor? Nope. To have the House Ethics Committee review it. Sheesh.

Spineless little slugs.

 

[Turtle]

Here is what those redacted talking points look like:

Illuminating, aren't they? LOL

 

[Turtle]

Once again, Trump seems ham-handed in presidential PR. He's on a "working vacation" while the White House undergoes long-needed repairs. He would have been better off if he simply stated he'd be working at a different location.

Presidents traditionally leave the swamp in August for a week or two of vacation. If the West Wing (A.K.A., The Dump) wasn't undergoing much needed renovations he might not even take the 17 days away from the White House. Since he is, he's calling it a working vacation.

Why introduce the idea of a vacation at all?

Probably because the NYT characterized the 17 days as a vacation. He corrected them by saying it wasn't a vacation, but ratgher a working vacation.

It also would help if he went to Camp David to work while the White House renovations are underway.

Why? Obama and Clinton favored Martha's Vineyard. Regan and Junior Bush favored their ranches. Bush Sr favored Kennebunkport. Putin favors the mountains of Sibera where he can fish, sunbathe, kayak, and pick mushrooms, either shirtless. or wearing his army outfit.