New Yorkers are demanding

[soxfan]

Get back to me on that donation at the end of the year. I'm SURE that will be the ONE promise he keeps.

 

[Dancing Fire]

And they still wonder why Americans voted them out of offices...

 

[the_mother_thing]

Get back to me on that donation at the end of the year. I'm SURE that will be the ONE promise he keeps.

Not necessary; I'm sure there will be plenty of bloodthirsty libs posting here on Dec. 31st at midnight if they don't see/hear about it before then.

 

[minousbijoux]

Wow, JoCoJenn, why do you have to be so harsh and disrespectful? Can't you just clarify your comments and position in a calm and logical manner without getting snarky? At least that's how it reads to me...

 

[E B]

Get back to me on that donation at the end of the year. I'm SURE that will be the ONE promise he keeps.

And the only way he'll do it is if journalists hold his feet to the fire on it. Otherwise, there's no way. And honestly, even if they do, he doesn't really have an incentive to. His hardcore base will give him a pass as they've done for everything else so far, and his "non-supporter" supporters will hem and haw a little but find an excuse for why it isn't so bad, or "did you hear that one time, Obama...?" So, no real need. And he knows this.

I see conservatives here and elsewhere become incredibly offended at the mere implication that Trump voters aren't as knowledgable about politics, government, etc., but no one so blatantly "implies" this as much as Trump and his admin do. No one thinks his supporters are as dumb as he/they do. It is absolutely bewildering to watch. A little fascinating, a little more depressing.

 

[the_mother_thing]

Wow, JoCoJenn, why do you have to be so harsh and disrespectful? Can't you just clarify your comments and position in a calm and logical manner without getting snarky? At least that's how it reads to me...

I'm perfectly calm, and didn't post any 'snark' above or beyond anyone else's. Not sure what you read to make you think otherwise.

 

[the_mother_thing]

And the only way he'll do it is if journalists hold his feet to the fire on it. Otherwise, there's no way. And honestly, even if they do, he doesn't really have an incentive to. His hardcore base will give him a pass as they've done for everything else so far, and his "non-supporter" supporters will hem and haw a little but find an excuse for why it isn't so bad, or "did you hear that one time, Obama...?" So, no real need. And he knows this.

I see conservatives here and elsewhere become incredibly offended at the mere implication that Trump voters aren't as knowledgable about politics, government, etc., but no one so blatantly "implies" this as much as Trump and his admin do. No one thinks his supporters are as dumb as he/they do. It is absolutely bewildering to watch. A little fascinating, a little more depressing.

When someone posts EVIDENCE (vs more biased, nonsense allegations without evidence because they fail to comprehend facts) of something he does/has done that is found to be against the law or presidential precedent, let me know. I'm just still waiting for something that is truly worthy of ruffling my feathers, but I'm hardly offended; rather, I'm more amused at how many liberal heads seem to explode every time the guy farts.

 

[E B]

Did you mean to reply to me? I said nothing about legal or illegal. But if you think we're the ones doing the heavy lifting, you crazy. We're just posting the chaos as it hits, which just so happens to be daily. Hourly? It seems much more strenuous an activity to defend said chaos.

 

[Dancing Fire]

Wow, JoCoJenn, why do you have to be so harsh and disrespectful? Can't you just clarify your comments and position in a calm and logical manner without getting snarky? At least that's how it reads to me...

Snarky??..Do go read some of the PSer libs who posted their remarks about politics.

 

[the_mother_thing]

Did you mean to reply to me? I said nothing about legal or illegal. But if you think we're the ones doing the heavy lifting, you crazy. We're just posting the chaos as it hits, which just so happens to be daily. Hourly? It seems much more strenuous an activity to defend said chaos.

Yes, I meant to quote your post, which contained yet another round of negative assumptions about those who oppose the liberal regime. You (collectively) can post all you want about the various Trump-tivities...however ridiculous they may be. And I and others are also free to call out not only the level of ridiculousness (and many times ignorance) of the facts & topics, but the absolutely false nature of how some choose to spin them.

Comprehending facts is not at all strenuous task for me; perhaps it is for others.

 

[Calliecake]

Jaaron, GREAT POST!!!! I love you

 

[Dancing Fire]

Jaaron, GREAT POST!!!! I love you

CC...you don't love me???

 

[E B]

You (collectively) can post all you want about the various Trump-tivities...however ridiculous they may be. And I and others are also free to call out not only the level of ridiculousness (and many times ignorance) of the facts & topics, but the absolutely false nature of how some choose to spin them.

Fair enough! It's all part of the bewilderment, baby!

By the way, I wish we'd had this "get back to me when something's illegal" Jenn during the election. If only Hillary had been afforded this same consideration.

 

[soxfan]

Fair enough! It's all part of the bewilderment, baby!

By the way, I wish we'd had this "get back to me when something's illegal" Jenn during the election. If only Hillary had been afforded this same consideration.

Oh snap.

 

[OreoRosies86]

Fair enough! It's all part of the bewilderment, baby!

By the way, I wish we'd had this "get back to me when something's illegal" Jenn during the election. If only Hillary had been afforded this same consideration.

Boom! What was that about hypocrisy?

 

[the_mother_thing]

Fair enough! It's all part of the bewilderment, baby!

By the way, I wish we'd had this "get back to me when something's illegal" Jenn during the election. If only Hillary had been afforded this same consideration.

Clinton DID break the law (mishandling classified information); Comey said so in his statement, he just didn't think it was a prosecutable case.

Specifically:

From the group of 30,000 e-mails returned to the State Department, 110 e-mails in 52 e-mail chains have been determined by the owning agency to contain classified information at the time they were sent or received. Eight of those chains contained information that was Top Secret at the time they were sent; 36 chains contained Secret information at the time; and eight contained Confidential information, which is the lowest level of classification.

With respect to the thousands of e-mails we found that were not among those produced to State, agencies have concluded that three of those were classified at the time they were sent or received, one at the Secret level and two at the Confidential level.

Although we did not find clear evidence that Secretary Clinton or her colleagues intended to violate laws governing the handling of classified information, there is evidence that they were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information.

Although there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information, our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case.

https://www.fbi.gov/news/pressrel/p...-clinton2019s-use-of-a-personal-e-mail-system

 

[the_mother_thing]

Oh snap.

Boom! What was that about hypocrisy?

 

[E B]

Under persistent questioning at the hearing of the House Oversight Committee, Comey said Clinton did not break the law.

"The question I always look at is, is there evidence that would establish beyond a reasonable doubt that somebody engaged in conduct that violated a criminal statute. And my judgment here is there is not," Comey said.

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-idUSKCN0ZN0XW

Careless, though? Yes. Forehead-slappingly so? Absolutely. That's simply the path we're following with Trump. In all fairness, of course.

(I won't even get into Benghazi. Point being, we're all guilty of criticizing politicians for wrongs they're guilty of, in reality or simply in our hearts. Let's not pretend otherwise.)

 

[minousbijoux]

I hate these threads. Both sides are just hitting their heads against the wall, unfortunately, though I have to say it sure seems like one wall is crumbling rapidly - and I'm not talking about any wall with Mexico!

 

[the_mother_thing]

Under persistent questioning at the hearing of the House Oversight Committee, Comey said Clinton did not break the law.

"The question I always look at is, is there evidence that would establish beyond a reasonable doubt that somebody engaged in conduct that violated a criminal statute. And my judgment here is there is not," Comey said.

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-idUSKCN0ZN0XW

Careless, though? Yes. Forehead-slappingly so? Absolutely. That's simply the path we're following with Trump. In all fairness, of course.

(I won't even get into Benghazi. Point being, we're all guilty of criticizing politicians for wrongs they're guilty of, in reality or simply in our hearts. Let's not pretend otherwise.)

And the very next sentence in your article:

Comey also said Clinton knew her email server at her home in Chappaqua, New York, was not authorized to receive classified information.

And the first sentence of your article:

FBI Director James Comey told U.S. lawmakers on Thursday that FBI employees who mishandled classified material in the way Hillary Clinton did as secretary of state could be subject to dismissal or loss of security clearance.

That alone tells me - as a citizen and voter - that this is NOT a person who should be holding office ... PERIOD. And if Chump does the same, I'll jump on the train to tow his azz back to NY.

But this isn't about Hillary's emails; she lost, Chump won, and he & his wife are entitled to make decisions about their living arrangements & child's education. And the law says they will have SS protection.

 

[jaaron]

What exactly am I unable to distinguish in terms of something being legal vs illegal? I actually take the time to research matters of law to determine what the law says, the elements/thresholds/tests to determine legal vs illegal, etc. How else do you think I knew what the law said with regard to POTUS protective service? And thanks for your history lesson on the POTUS protection law, but I already knew all of that, which is why I pointed it out to you.

So Trump is the first president to have as many kids as he does, and you want to penalize him or his family for that? Would you have felt the same if the Obamas or Clintons had 5+ kids? Be glad it's not the "18 kids & counting" crew!

And I know you are not seriously going to pick apart Trump traveling to Maralago or playing golf, considering he is conducting meetings at both with foreign & domestic leaders as has been widely reported - again, no different than any other president, including his predecessor. Ronald Reagan also spent much of his time as President at his CA ranch as well as Camp David; Dubya at his Texas ranch, Obama spent several weeks/year at Martha's Vineyard and Hawaii. All of these required additional, costly security and other services paid for by taxpayers to a degree.

Security for Melania & Barron would be necessary whether they were in NY or D.C., and I would hazard a guess that at least some of any additional security 'expense' of Melania & Barron remaining in NY is a wash considering they aren't requiring additional taxpayer provided services if they were in DC, since they are remaining in their own home. Lastly, it was reported that Melania was working with a decorator to 'revamp' the First Family's quarters at the WH, as is usual for new first families moving into the WH. If I didn't have to 'live' through that kind of renovation hassle, I wouldn't want to either.

So again I ask: what exactly is Trump or his family doing or taking advantage of that is either illegal or in some way not consistent with his predecessors' security and/or use of non-WH dwellings (be them privately-owned, rented, or Camp David)? The only issue I see is ya'll are whizzed Melania is keeping her kid in his current school until the end of the year to minimize impact on him, thus not moving to the WH until then.

How dare she not consult with every citizen before making a decision about her child's best interest.

Yes, I have no doubt you can read. What I doubt is that you have the ability to take that information and synthesise it to close the circuit. I.E. your mangling of Nunes's disclosure of information to trump as 'discovery.' So I'm going to say this and bow out, not because I'm awed by your logic, but because your illogic appears impenetrable.

I also want to point out that what you have said above is the exact opposite of what I said. I did not say that you were incapable of distinguishing legal from illegal. I said that you seemed incapable of seeing the areas in between, where something is legal, but not desirable or morally defensible.

First of all, yes, I am going to pick apart the travel to Mar-a-lago. First of all, when they start to keep logs that disclose what he is doing and with whom, I would probably cut some slack on it, but until then, no. And secondly, yes, other presidents golfed and travelled (no need, I suppose to bring up the dozens and dozens of tweets with Trump wailing about Obama doing that). But at this point, everything points to Trump's costs being exorbitant in comparison. The Forbes article posted above estimates his travel cost 10M his first month in office. Obama' cost roughly 12M his first year in office. This is particularly egregious given the aforementioned tweets, not to mention the fact that a good portion of Trump's platform was cutting and trimming government cost/spending.

As far as how many children he has. Fine, I could not give a flying. Let him spread the Trump seed (I shudder) as often as he is able in as many women will have him. And, while I think there is probably an area so grey it's approaching black in the case of the sons travelling the world using the presidency to line their pockets, I don't even object to providing taxpayer funded protection for them (and I'm not talking condoms, although that's a thought). Ivanka's little jaunt to Aspen was tacky and very expensive, but ok, whatever. And, yes, protection in Washington for Melania and the son would be expensive, but not nearly so expensive as the cost of guarding Trump Tower, shutting down a portion of the UES, and shuttling them back and forth.

None of these costs in and of itself, in isolation, is that egregious. Added together, they add up to a picture of a very entitled family taking a horrifying amount from the working people of the country. So, yeah, defend that, but I think it's disgusting.

I've said everything I can or want to, so with this, I'll bow out.


SATIRE FROM THE BOROWITZ REPORT
MANY IN NATION TIRED OF EXPLAINING THINGS TO IDIOTS

By Andy Borowitz
June 23, 2015

The Borowitz Report)—Many Americans are tired of explaining things to idiots, particularly when the things in question are so painfully obvious, a new poll indicates.

According to the poll, conducted by the University of Minnesota’s Opinion Research Institute, while millions have been vexed for some time by their failure to explain incredibly basic information to dolts, that frustration has now reached a breaking point.

Of the many obvious things that people are sick and tired of trying to get through the skulls of stupid people, the fact that climate change will cause catastrophic habitat destruction and devastating extinctions tops the list, with a majority saying that they will no longer bother trying to explain this to cretins.

Coming in a close second, statistical proof that gun control has reduced gun deaths in countries around the world is something that a significant number of those polled have given up attempting to break down for morons.

Finally, a majority said that trying to make idiots understand why a flag that symbolizes bigotry and hatred has no business flying over a state capitol only makes the person attempting to explain this want to put his or her fist through a wall.

In a result that suggests a dismal future for the practice of explaining things to idiots, an overwhelming number of those polled said that they were considering abandoning such attempts altogether, with a broad majority agreeing with the statement, “This country is exhausting.”

Borowitz Report, a satirical column on the news, for newyorker.com

 

[E B]

That alone tells me - as a citizen and voter - that this is NOT a person who should be holding office ... PERIOD. And if Chump does the same, I'll jump on the train to tow his azz back to NY.

Must it be the exact same? Because in the less than 70 days being president, he's used an unsecure android phone (for weeks!), left a key in a classified lock-bag atop his desk in a room full of non-cleared individuals, conducted national security business in an open DINING ROOM, and presided over a staff also using a private email server. Am I missing anything? Glad we dodged that 'careless' bullet...

 

[ruby59]

Fair enough! It's all part of the bewilderment, baby!

By the way, I wish we'd had this "get back to me when something's illegal" Jenn during the election. If only Hillary had been afforded this same consideration.

I was watching Fox yesterday and they were talking about some Uranium deal Bill was in on with the Russians and how his speaker fee was then doubled and how the foundation now has a 20% stake.

Not sure I have it all correct, but after that, Hillary is unelectable imo.

Because if that does not make your hair stand on end, nothing will.

 

[the_mother_thing]

Must it be the exact same? Because in the less than 70 days being president, he's used an unsecure android phone (for weeks!), left a key in a classified lock-bag atop his desk in a room full of non-cleared individuals, conducted national security business in an open DINING ROOM, and presided over a staff also using a private email server. Am I missing anything? Glad we dodged that 'careless' bullet...

IF these were facts/actually happened, and IF they were against the law, then I suspect he would have been charged with a crime, or at the very least, an FBI investigation would be underway regarding them. And to knowledge, there is not.

Look, I really don't think Chump is brilliant, polished, and I surely wouldn't want to have a beer with him. And I wish more than you know that he was NOT my party's 'candidate' (bet you're thinking Ted Cruz wasn't so bad now, aren't ya? ). I wouldn't oppose his impeachment (should it happen for legitimate reasons) at all! Do I think those things you posted are careless? Of course, especially as someone in private sector (post military/gov days) who was mandated to leave my office desk entirely bare before I left work each day. There are LOTS of things I personally object to, find abhorrent, etc., but they're not against the law, and fall into that category jaaron (I think) said earlier about 'just because you can doesn't mean you should'. So I just shake my head in disbelief, and move on. Like some here, I could worry myself sick with trying to ensure I caught & posted every 'byte' of them, but that just seems like a pretty lifeless & miserable way to live, IMO.

Like Comey - bring me something good, solid, with intent & evidence (not hypotheses, assumptions, or these biased, twisted spin salads) and I will hop on your "take Trump to jail" train. But if that's all you got, circumstantial nonsense based on 140 characters, it just isn't 'prosecutable'.

 

[the_mother_thing]

I was watching Fox yesterday and they were talking about some Uranium deal Bill was in on with the Russians and how his speaker fee was then doubled and how the foundation now has a 20% stake.

Not sure I have it all correct, but after that, Hillary is unelectable imo.

Because if that does not make your hair stand on end, nothing will.

I was trying to find more info about that as well, Ruby. The report surrounds HRC (as Secy of State) having sold uranium to the Russians, I believe. It surely raises some eyebrows, and does follow the usual defer/deflect pattern of the last 8 years (e.g., "Trump's in bed with Russians" to get everyone spun up and focused on that, meanwhile the wrong-doing is now being missed or overlooked). If I find more info on it, I will start a thread.

 

[E B]

I was watching Fox yesterday and they were talking about some Uranium deal Bill was in on with the Russians and how his speaker fee was then doubled and how the foundation now has a 20% stake.

The majority of those claims have been debunked, ruby, and I'll be happy to link you to some info, but they're found easily on Google/AOL.

Are you at all concerned that there have been claims of 'more than circumstantial' evidence of collusion with Russia and Trump camp?

 

[E B]

http://www.snopes.com/hillary-clinton-uranium-russia-deal/

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...-trump-inaccurately-suggests-clinton-got-pai/

http://www.factcheck.org/2016/10/a-false-corruption-claim/

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...hecking-donald-trumps-tweets-about-hillary-c/

 

[the_mother_thing]

The PS highly-revered NY Times found some points of it interesting ...

Cash Flowed to Clinton Foundation Amid Russian Uranium Deal
By JO BECKER and MIKE McINTIRE
APRIL 23, 2015
The headline on the website Pravda trumpeted President Vladimir V. Putin’s latest coup, its nationalistic fervor recalling an era when its precursor served as the official mouthpiece of the Kremlin: “Russian Nuclear Energy Conquers the World.”

The article, in January 2013, detailed how the Russian atomic energy agency, Rosatom, had taken over a Canadian company with uranium-mining stakes stretching from Central Asia to the American West. The deal made Rosatom one of the world’s largest uranium producers and brought Mr. Putin closer to his goal of controlling much of the global uranium supply chain.

But the untold story behind that story is one that involves not just the Russian president, but also a former American president and a woman who would like to be the next one.

At the heart of the tale are several men, leaders of the Canadian mining industry, who have been major donors to the charitable endeavors of former President Bill Clinton and his family. Members of that group built, financed and eventually sold off to the Russians a company that would become known as Uranium One.

Beyond mines in Kazakhstan that are among the most lucrative in the world, the sale gave the Russians control of one-fifth of all uranium production capacity in the United States. Since uranium is considered a strategic asset, with implications for national security, the deal had to be approved by a committee composed of representatives from a number of United States government agencies. Among the agencies that eventually signed off was the State Department, then headed by Mr. Clinton’s wife, Hillary Rodham Clinton.

As the Russians gradually assumed control of Uranium One in three separate transactions from 2009 to 2013, Canadian records show, a flow of cash made its way to the Clinton Foundation. Uranium One’s chairman used his family foundation to make four donations totaling $2.35 million. Those contributions were not publicly disclosed by the Clintons, despite an agreement Mrs. Clinton had struck with the Obama White House to publicly identify all donors. Other people with ties to the company made donations as well.

And shortly after the Russians announced their intention to acquire a majority stake in Uranium One, Mr. Clinton received $500,000 for a Moscow speech from a Russian investment bank with links to the Kremlin that was promoting Uranium One stock.

Photo

Frank Giustra, right, a mining financier, has donated $31.3 million to the foundation run by former President Bill Clinton, left.CreditJoaquin Sarmiento/Agence France-Presse — Getty Images
At the time, both Rosatom and the United States government made promises intended to ease concerns about ceding control of the company’s assets to the Russians. Those promises have been repeatedly broken, records show.

The New York Times’s examination of the Uranium One deal is based on dozens of interviews, as well as a review of public records and securities filings in Canada, Russia and the United States. Some of the connections between Uranium One and the Clinton Foundation were unearthed by Peter Schweizer, a former fellow at the right-leaning Hoover Institution and author of the forthcoming book “Clinton Cash.” Mr. Schweizer provided a preview of material in the book to The Times, which scrutinized his information and built upon it with its own reporting.

Whether the donations played any role in the approval of the uranium deal is unknown. But the episode underscores the special ethical challenges presented by the Clinton Foundation, headed by a former president who relied heavily on foreign cash to accumulate $250 million in assets even as his wife helped steer American foreign policy as secretary of state, presiding over decisions with the potential to benefit the foundation’s donors.

In a statement, Brian Fallon, a spokesman for Mrs. Clinton’s presidential campaign, said no one “has ever produced a shred of evidence supporting the theory that Hillary Clinton ever took action as secretary of state to support the interests of donors to the Clinton Foundation.” He emphasized that multiple United States agencies, as well as the Canadian government, had signed off on the deal and that, in general, such matters were handled at a level below the secretary. “To suggest the State Department, under then-Secretary Clinton, exerted undue influence in the U.S. government’s review of the sale of Uranium One is utterly baseless,” he added.

American political campaigns are barred from accepting foreign donations. But foreigners may give to foundations in the United States. In the days since Mrs. Clinton announced her candidacyfor president, the Clinton Foundation has announced changes meant to quell longstanding concerns about potential conflicts of interest in such donations; it has limited donations from foreign governments, with many, like Russia’s, barred from giving to all but its health care initiatives. That policy stops short of a more stringent agreement between Mrs. Clinton and the Obama administration that was in effect while she was secretary of state.
Either way, the Uranium One deal highlights the limits of such prohibitions. The foundation will continue to accept contributions from foreign sources whose interests, like Uranium One’s, may overlap with those of foreign governments, some of which may be at odds with the United States.

When the Uranium One deal was approved, the geopolitical backdrop was far different from today’s. The Obama administration was seeking to “reset” strained relations with Russia. The deal was strategically important to Mr. Putin, who shortly after the Americans gave their blessing sat down for a staged interview with Rosatom’s chief executive, Sergei Kiriyenko. “Few could have imagined in the past that we would own 20 percent of U.S. reserves,” Mr. Kiriyenko told Mr. Putin.

GRAPHIC
Donations to the Clinton Foundation, and a Russian Uranium Takeover
Uranium investors gave millions to the Clinton Foundation while Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton’s office was involved in approving a Russian bid for mining assets in Kazakhstan and the United States.


OPEN GRAPHIC
Now, after Russia’s annexation of Crimea and aggression in Ukraine, the Moscow-Washington relationship is devolving toward Cold War levels, a point several experts made in evaluating a deal so beneficial to Mr. Putin, a man known to use energy resources to project power around the world.

“Should we be concerned? Absolutely,” said Michael McFaul, who served under Mrs. Clinton as the American ambassador to Russia but said he had been unaware of the Uranium One deal until asked about it. “Do we want Putin to have a monopoly on this? Of course we don’t. We don’t want to be dependent on Putin for anything in this climate.”

Read more if you want: https://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/24/...ssed-for-control-of-uranium-company.html?_r=0

 

[E B]

The NYT info is addressed in the information gathered in the fact-checking articles.

 

[the_mother_thing]

The NYT info is addressed in the information gathered in the fact-checking articles.

Indeed; I read their takes on it as well.

But herein lies a PERFECT example of this ongoing debate laced with biased viewpoints on perceived political 'misconduct'. You can't point at the Clinton/uranium concerns and say 'nope, no proof, she's innocent, look over here at Trump & Russians, etc' while simulanteuously hanging a noose from the tree with Trump's name on it for something he is perceived (ONLY by the media and liberals) to have done.

'Innocent until proven guilty' (from a legal sense) is still the rule of law here. Call him cheeto, call her crooked. But to allege criminal wrongdoing for one and not the other is reflective of bias, and I prefer to not play that game; rather, rely on facts & the law - regardless of one's political affiliation. That's just how I roll.