TAKE THE POLL: HOW LONG BEFORE TRUMP GETS IMPEACHED

How long will it be before Trump gets impeached:

  • Before Finishing 1st year?

    Votes: 54 25.6%
  • After 1st year?

    Votes: 26 12.3%
  • After 2nd year in office?

    Votes: 25 11.8%
  • After 3rd year and before he completes his full term?

    Votes: 50 23.7%
  • I hate America, I don't believe in Justice and that Trump is guilty or should be Impeached.

    Votes: 56 26.5%

  • Total voters
    211
you sound like the centrist as you are thinking rationally as well as to weigh both sides whereas he is much more the lefty where he also has logical arguments but he'd petition and take more immediate forceful action to remove Trump as seen here:

well I did say...... at one time I thought I could live with him if he was proved innocent on the Russia thing..... but that is not looking good for him... looking more and more guilty!
but also after just part of what he has done since being pres.... is all for him and nothing for the country..... even those that support him are just to blind to the fucking coming.... he is determined to finish the job Reagan started..... completely destroy the middle class!


2.jpg

pol13.jpg
 
Trump Impeachment Articles Now Being Drafted, Says Democratic Congressman Al Green

Democratic Representative Al Green has said he is pushing ahead with the process of impeaching President Donald Trump and is currently drawing up articles of impeachment.

The Texas congressman last week appeared on the floor of the House of Representatives to call for his colleagues to begin impeachment proceedings. The appeal came a day after revelations of a memo from former FBI Director James Comey claiming that Trump had asked him to drop an investigation into former national security adviser Michael Flynn.

Green has since detailed racially charged threats he has received but insists he has not been dissuaded from the process. “We will move forward, and as a matter of fact, I am currently crafting, drafting if you will, articles of impeachment,” he told C-Span Tuesday.

Green did not say when he would file a privileged resolution for impeachment, which would have to be considered in the House within two days, but said he was working with constitutional lawyers. And, he added, he would be prepared to go at it alone if need be.

At some point, we’ll wait to see what others will do, and if no one else does, the president has committed an impeachable act, and I will take it upon myself to do that,” he said.

Some Democrats have been far more cautious about jumping fully aboard the impeachment train. Yet others began openly using the impeachment word this month for the first time, following the fallout from Trump’s firing of Comey and admittance that he did so while thinking about the FBI’s investigation into possible collusion between his campaign and Russia.

Senate Democrats have also accused the White House of instructing federal agencies to refuse requests for information from Democratic members of Congress on issues including the investigation into Russian interference in last year’s election, The Washington Post reported Wednesday.

As far as actually impeaching the president goes, it is still a long and difficult road for Democrats. Doing so would require a majority vote in the House and a two-thirds majority in the Senate. Republicans currently control both chambers.

Bookmakers, though, believe it is increasingly likely, adjusting their odds to an equivalent of around a 50-50 chance that Trump will be impeached before the end of his first term. An analysis from statistical model site FiveThirtyEight this week puts the likelihood at somewhere between 25 percent and 50 percent.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-impeachment-articles-now-being-150208284.html
 
As long as the GOP continues to support Trump and doesn't effect their races back home, I doubt Congress would ever impeach him.
If history is a guide, the republicans in Congress will do the appropriate thing with regard to impeachment. If there is actual evidence to support it....not just the "unnamed source" articles in the Washington post the media is going apeshit over....they'll impeach him.

That is what happened with Nixon. When the truth came to light, republicans in Congress went to Nixon and told him he was going bye bye. He chose to resign rather than go through the inevitable.

Democrats on the other hand showed their true colors with Clinton's impeachment. Billy was clearly guilty on both charges of perjury and obstruction of justice. Hell, Billy lost his law license and paid huge fines because of his crimes. But the democrats in the Senate ALL put their political blinders on and voted to acquit.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment_of_Bill_Clinton

http://www.politico.com/story/2007/02/when-the-gop-torpedoed-nixon-002680

http://www.snopes.com/bill-clinton-fined-and-disbarred-over-the-monica-lewinsky-scandal/
 
@MacNfries Exactly, I've resorted to ignore this fool from here on out. Mindless following Zombie brains.
2-jpg.1287602
This is 100% true and although I think that one party in total control and moving to extremes leads to disaster, we have a disaster sitting in the white-house right now and the Stock Market climbing to record highs all off a Bubble of hope with no substantive fiscal policy set on Taxes or healthcare reform in which once the imbecile in office is impeached or resigns it will be the pin that pricks the 'Trump-Bump' bubble and watch out below with those inflated stock prices with no hope left to hold them up.


DAM, DAMNING, DAMNATION: AND NOW THE CLOCK MOVES ANOTHER MINUTE CLOSER TO MIDNIGHT ON THE DOOMSDAY CLOCK FOR IDIOT IN CHIEF ELECT TRUMP
Screen Shot 2017-05-27 at 5.22.24 PM.png

Screen Shot 2017-05-27 at 4.32.54 PM.png

Screen Shot 2017-05-27 at 4.35.50 PM.png
"GOOD GRIEF. This is serious," said Bob Deitz, a veteran of the NSA and the CIA who worked under the Clinton and Bush administrations.


"This raises a bunch of problematic issues. First, of course, is the Logan Act, which prohibits private individuals conducting negotiations on behalf of the US government with foreign governments," Deitz said. "Second, it tends to reinforce the notion that Trump's various actions about [fired FBI Director James] Comey do constitute obstruction."


"In other words, there is now motive added to conduct," Deitz noted. "This is a big problem for the President."


Kushner did not previously disclose the December meetings to US officials during his background check, and the White House only acknowledged them after news outlets reported on it. It follows a pattern among key Trump advisers that unfolded during and after the 2016 election.



"If you are in a position of public trust, and you talk to, meet, or collude with a foreign power" while trying to subvert normal state channels, "you are, in the eyes of the FBI and CIA, a traitor," said Glenn Carle, a former top counterterrorism official at the CIA. "That is what I spent my life getting foreigners to do with me, for the US government."

Former CIA Director John Brennan, in testimony Tuesday before the House Intelligence Committee, said that he was concerned by some of the "interactions" between Russian officials and members of the Trump campaign that took place during the election last year.

Republican Rep. Tom Rooney asked Brennan if he ever found "any direct evidence of collusion between the Trump campaign and Putin in Moscow" while he was the CIA director.


Brennan replied that "there was intelligence that the Russian intelligence services were actively involved in this effort ... to try to get individuals to act on their behalf either wittingly or unwittingly." He added that he was "worried by the contacts that the Russians were having with US persons" and "had unresolved questions" by the time he left office about whether" the Russians had succeeded in getting Americans to do their bidding.


Pressed further, Brennan said that "the information and intelligence revealed contacts and interactions between Russian officials and US persons involved in the Trump campaign that I was concerned about because of known Russian efforts to suborn such individuals. It raised questions in my mind about whether the Russians were able to gain the cooperation of such individuals."


Scott Olson, a recently retired FBI agent who ran counterintelligence operations and spent more than 20 years at the bureau, agreed that it is not unusual for low-level staffers to work between governments and bypass bureaucracy to exchange views and build consensus in advance of higher-level negotiations.


But what Kushner appears to have done is "substantially different, in two ways," he said.


"First, he is not seeking a back-channel for a low-level staff exchange," Olson said. "He wants high-level direct-contact communication. This is extremely dangerous because it results in verbal (and therefore undocumented and unwitnessed) agreements, which are binding on governments. Free governments do not work this way. They can't. If they do, they are no longer free."


He continued:


"Second, he asked to use a foreign government's communication facilities. This is way beyond a private server. This is doing US government diplomatic business over a foreign government's communication system. It's not an off-the-record conversation. It's a conversation recorded by the opposing party. This shows a staggering lack of understanding of the US and its place in the world. Actually, it shows a staggering lack of common sense. When he negotiates a business deal does he use the other guy's notes?"



Kushner, President Donald Trump's *******-in-law and a top White House adviser, was willing to go extraordinary lengths to establish a secret line of communication between the Trump administration and Russian government officials, The Washington Post reported Friday.


Kushner met with Russia's ambassador, Sergey Kislyak, in December at Trump Tower, where he floated the possibility of setting up a secure line of communication between the Trump transition team and Russia — and having those talks take place in Russian diplomatic facilities in the US. That would essentially conceal their interactions from US government scrutiny, The Post wrote, citing US intelligence officials briefed on the matter.

Kislyak reportedly passed along Kushner's request to Moscow. The Post's Ellen Nakashima, Adam Entous, and Greg Miller reported that the Russian ambassador was "taken aback" by Kushner's request, because it posed significant risks for both the Trump team and the Kremlin.



"This was probably as off-putting to Kislyak as it is for you and me," Michael Hayden, who served as the director of the NSA and the CIA, told CNN on Saturday. "This is off the map. I know of no other experience like this in our history, and certainly not within my life experience."


"What manner of ignorance, hubris, suspicion, and contempt [for the previous administration] would you have to have to think doing this with the Russian ambassador would be a good or appropriate idea?" Hayden added.

Kislyak reportedly orchestrated the meeting between Kushner and Vnesheconombank CEO Sergey N. Gorkov, The New York Times reported earlier this year. Gorkov was appointed by Russian President Vladimir Putin in January 2016 as part of a restructuring of the bank's management team, Bloomberg reported last year.

Between 2012 and 2014, Vnesheconombank was used as cover for Russian spy Evgeny Buryakov as he attempted to recruit New York City residents as intelligence sources for Moscow, according to the Department of Justice. Before that, Buryakov used Vnesheconombank as a cover to spy and recruit assets in South Africa.

Gorkov would have had good reason to push for the US to lift sanctions: Vnesheconombank had huge success between 2007 and 2014, but came crashing down when oil prices tanked and President Barack Obama levied sanctions on Kremlin officials and entities over Russia's annexation of Crimea.


By February 2016, the bank — whose stated official mission is to "take efforts to make the Russian economy more competitive, diversify it, and foster investment" — was struggling to find enough cash to stay afloat. Its bailout needs had increased to $16 billion between 2016 and 2020, Reuters reported.

Kushner's meeting with Gorkov, the struggling bank's CEO, came as Kushner was trying to find investors for a Fifth Avenue office building in Manhattan that is set to be heavily financed by Anbang Insurance Group, a firm with ties to the Chinese government.

The seemingly conflicting characterizations of the meeting — which was not disclosed publicly until The New York Times reported on it at the end of March — raise more questions about what kind of contact Trump's associates had with Russian officials through the latter half of 2016, as Russia was attempting to sway the outcome of the election in Trump's favor.


ref: http://www.businessinsider.com/kushner-meeting-russian-bank-gorkov-vnesheconombank-2017-5

FUK TRUMP (& ALL HIS BRAINLESS FOLLOWERS)!
PUTTING SELF-GAIN BEFORE COUNTRY IS TREASON. GUILTY AS CHARGED. IMPEACH HIM THEN LOCK EM UP.

Screen Shot 2017-05-27 at 5.25.56 PM.png

AND THEY CALLED OBAMA THE COMMUNIST, HA!
Screen Shot 2017-05-27 at 5.28.35 PM.png



 
Last edited:
As long as the GOP continues to support Trump and doesn't effect their races back home, I doubt Congress would ever impeach him.

you are right on that... he is doing to much for the wealthy/GOP... and they are loving it!
but sooner or later the patriotism bug is going to bite a bunch of people.... and he won't be an asset!
they can turn their head only so long..... those town halls are already showing it.... they can back him for a while.. voters forget pretty easy.... but the closer to mid-terms... they have to face the music!
but what the hell voting is so corrupt any more...may not hurt them.... congress approval rating has been around 10% for how many years?..... and yet over a 90% re-election... that should tell you something
 
As long as the GOP continues to support Trump and doesn't effect their races back home, I doubt Congress would ever impeach him.

Screen Shot 2017-05-27 at 5.46.41 PM.png
@Chungcheng21 Your too simplistic in your thinking to be wading in on this topic of discussion. What effects the races back home? Do the people not elect their officials and if there is a clear demonstration of guilt displayed here then will that not be enough political resolve for Congress to ACT less they show themselves morally deprived and people loose all faith in their elected officials. People will head to DC with pitch-forks and flaming torches to put all of the hypocrites heads on a pike.

A Government for the People by the People, We the People of these Great United States in order to form a more perfect Union...

Your words state you lack any back-bone and cut and run from a fight. Do what you must do and tell your representative if they don't act then we will and un-elect them. What is wrong is wrong - no matter which party or whom it is and here we have an egregious act of treason and obstruction of justice taking place as well as other laws that have been broken.

I'll never side with a traitor to this country.


Screen Shot 2017-05-27 at 5.32.35 PM.png
 
Last edited:
Speech from movie: "Well, I’m not gonna leave you alone. I want you to get MAD! I don’t want you to protest. I don’t want you to riot – I don’t want you to write to your congressman, because I wouldn’t know what to tell you to write. I don’t know what to do about the depression and the inflation and the Russians and the crime in the street. All I know is that first you’ve got to get mad. (shouting) You’ve got to say: ‘I’m a human being, god-dammit! My life has value!’

So, I want you to get up now. I want all of you to get up out of your chairs. I want you to get up right now and go to the window. Open it, and stick your head out, and yell: ‘I’m as mad as hell, and I’m not gonna take this anymore!’"
ref: from Movie 'Network'
Screen Shot 2017-05-27 at 5.50.06 PM.png

McMaster arrived to right the ship.

His selection was especially notable because many saw him as the antithesis to Flynn.

He was brought in as someone who was beyond reproach.
"He was brought in as someone who was beyond reproach, who wasn't in [President Donald] Trump's inner circle, had a stellar reputation, and was supposed to be distanced from Trump," said Jon Michaels, a professor and expert on national security at UCLA Law.


Like Secretary of Defense James Mattis, McMaster was revered by his troops while serving in the army and earned a great deal of respect from soldiers. He is an expert on military strategy, counterinsurgency, and history, and is not known for being a 'yes' man. "Put simply: McMaster isn't a political guy, unlike other officers who are trying to jockey for position and move up their careers," Business Insider's Paul Szoldra wrote after Trump chose him.

McMaster has historically "been willing to risk an awful lot to speak truth to power," said Claire Finkelstein, a professor and Director at the Center for Ethics and the Rule of Law at the University of Pennsylvania Law School.


But the former Army Lieutenant General has come under fire in recent days, as the White House was hit with a flurry of news stories that raised more questions about the Trump camp's ties to Russia.


Now, experts are beginning to question if McMaster's role has become dangerously politicized, and whether that could pose a threat to the US' national security.

Typically an a-political position

donald%20trump%20hr%20mcmaster.jpg


When The Washington Post broke an explosive report in which intelligence officials alleged that Trump shared highly-classified information with Russian officials during an Oval Office meeting, McMaster went in front of cameras to call the story false as reported and to defend the president's actions as "wholly appropriate."

His defense came as intelligence officials expressed deep concerns about Trump's handling of sensitive information, as well as the risks it posed to Israel, the source of the intel and a key US ally.

Though the national security adviser is a political appointee — in that he is chosen by the president — the role has historically been relatively apolitical when compared to that of other White House staff. This is because the national security adviser has "enormous influence" over issues of war and peace, and presidents of both parties have tried to keep political concerns away from that area, according to Robert Deitz, a former top lawyer for the National Security Agency and the CIA.

ref: http://www.businessinsider.com/mcmaster-trump-white-house-credibility-crisis-2017-5

Screen Shot 2017-05-27 at 6.00.33 PM.png

Those talks would take place in Russian diplomatic facilities in the US, the Post said, creating a secure line that would essentially conceal the administration's interactions with Russian officials from US government scrutiny.


Kislyak reportedly passed along that request to Moscow, in a phone call that was promptly intercepted by US intelligence agencies during their routine eavesdropping of foreign agents on US soil. Kislyak's call, which apparently described an attempt to bypass the US' national security and intelligence apparatus, would have gone into an intelligence report and been distributed among top government officials like Rice.

It also would have raised a big red flag, experts say. And it could have led Rice — who obtained reports containing summaries of monitored communications between foreign officials discussing the Trump transition, according to Bloomberg — to try to identify who on Trump's transition team was trying to set up this kind of backchannel.

The names of the US persons mentioned in the conversations would have been redacted in those reports. But high-level government officials like Rice can request from the appropriate agency — in this case, the National Security Agency — that the US person's identity be revealed.

Hayden told CNN that it makes sense that Rice would have tried to determine who Kislyak and his superiors in Moscow were talking about when they said someone on the Trump transition team wanted to set up a secret backchannel line of communication.

"This is off the map," Hayden said. "I know of no other experience like this in our history, and certainly not within my life experience."

Hayden told Business Insider in March that the NSA "is notoriously conservative in revealing US identities in its reporting."

"Obviously, a request from the national security adviser to unmask an identity would be given great weight," Hayden said. "That said, it is not automatic and goes through a carefully documented process at the NSA before an identity is unmasked."

There is another reason why Rice may have wanted to unmask Kushner, said Paul Pillar, a 28-year veteran of the CIA and former executive assistant to the CIA's deputy director for intelligence.

ref: http://www.businessinsider.com/michael-hayden-kushner-meeting-trump-russia-unmasked-2017-5

Screen Shot 2017-05-27 at 6.06.49 PM.png

FUK FAKE /FOX NEWS

Trump claimed in his letter axing Comey that the latter had informed him "on three separate occasions" that Trump was not under investigation, which if true would have violated FBI protocol. Trump's White House sought to justify the firing, implausibly, as a response to Comey's handling of the Hillary Clinton email investigation—for which Trump had previously praised him.


Comey learned of his dismissal when he saw it on TV, and he thought at first it was a prank. White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer hid in the bushes—no, among bushes—to dodge questions from reporters. The night unfolded as if scripted by a screenwriter with a gift for dark humor.

And indeed, to anyone watching the news on CNN or MSNBC, here was a real-life, high-stakes drama wrapped in layers of deception and absurdity, unfolding minute by minute, one jaw-dropping development after the next.
screen%20shot%202017-05-09%20at%2092938%20pm.png
CNN

On Fox News, however, it was an altogether different story. Viewers of the nation's most-watched cable network were told first that Comey had "resigned," then that he had been fired and that the move was controversial.

But on show after show, from late afternoon into the night, the reasons for Comey's dismissal and the nature of the controversy were glossed over, and the juicy details that followed went unmentioned. The network's hosts almost unanimously treated Comey's firing as a fully justified and unsurprising development and accepted wholesale the White House's official explanation that Comey had been fired for cause. (Trump and his administration later changed their story multiple times.)

The widespread shock and criticism of the move from Democrats, pundits, and even some Republicans was explained away as a symptom of the Washington establishment's deep-seated enmity toward Trump even as the basis for it was never fully elucidated. The word "Russia" was studiously avoided.

On his 10 p.m. Eastern show, star opinion host Sean Hannity framed Comey's firing not in terms of its implications for Trump's White House but as an opportunity to reopen the investigation of Hillary Clinton's emails and put her behind bars at last.

For more than a decade, Fox News has dominated the cable news ratings with a potent mix of center-right daytime news shows and hard-right prime-time opinion shows—a menu devoured by the largely older, red-state Americans who make up the network's loyal audience.

The network finished 2016 as the most-watched channel in all of basic cable, and in the first months of 2017 it shattered its own ratings records, posting the most-watched quarter in cable TV history. Its remarkable run continued through the first week of this May when it bested center-left CNN and left-leaning MSNBC in key metrics every night.

But Comey's firing marked a turning point. The previous night, MSNBC had posted a rare win over Fox News in prime-time ratings among viewers age 25–54, the key demographic for advertisers.

The night he was sacked, Fox News plummeted to third in that metric, behind both MSNBC and CNN. Its fortunes have continued to flag since then.

Last week, for the first time since Bill Clinton was president, Fox News came in last of the big three cable news networks in weekly prime-time ratings for the 25–54 demographic. MSNBC beat it in total prime-time viewership, too.

What's behind the sudden shift? An obvious culprit might seem to be the turmoil within Fox News, which has ousted both its chairman and its biggest star in the past year amid sexual harassment scandals that also chased off several other prominent personalities. No doubt that has played a part.

Yet the network appeared to be weathering the storm until quite recently, with Tucker Carlson stepping into the slot long occupied by deposed ratings champion Bill O'Reilly and retaining his enormous viewership.

No, there's a more straightforward explanation for Fox's free fall that has been apparent to habitual channel surfers in recent weeks: that at a time when U.S. political news has never been more interesting, Fox News is becoming boring.

As critical coverage of Trump among the mainstream media and political insiders has reached a crescendo, CNN and especially MSNBC have become appointment viewing for the politically engaged. Each day now seems to bring new plot twists that rival those of any scripted TV drama. Leakers said Trump shared information he shouldn't have with Russians. A memo surfaced suggesting that he fired Comey because of his frustration with the FBI's Russia investigation. He reportedly pushed top intelligence officials to refute charges of Russian collusion. And it has made for nothing if not great TV.

Yet Fox News' prime-time hosts—led by its most prominent remaining personalities, Carlson and Hannity—have presented viewers with an alternate reality in which stories embarrassing to the administration can be waved away as either a figment of the "fake news media" or the product of machinations by leakers and liars embedded in the shadowy anti-Trump "deep state."

screen%20shot%202017-05-16%20at%2014853%20am.png
Tucker Carlson on Fox News. Fox News

By steadfastly pooh-poohing the lies, scandals, outrage, and intrigue that have dominated the first months of Donald Trump's remarkable presidency, the network is all but sitting out the most fascinating domestic political saga of our time. And increasingly, viewers are changing the channel.

Fox News' coverage on the night of Comey's firing is simply one illustrative example of a trend that has persisted since Trump's election across much of Fox News' prime-time lineup.

The discrepancy between its approach and that of its rivals was equally conspicuous on May 15, the night the Washington Post reported that Trump had inappropriately disclosed classified intelligence in a closed meeting with Russian diplomats. While the story drove nearly nonstop analysis on CNN and MSNBC, it registered far lower on Fox News' prime-time agenda, where it was presented as another example of how criminal leakers were conspiring with Trump's critics to concoct baseless attacks against him.

Carlson and Hannity scarcely mentioned the substance of the Post's report, leaving viewers to glean bits and pieces of it through their rants about how it exemplified the perfidiousness of the deep state and mainstream media. And the Fox News website earned late-night punchline status by splashing Clinton's activism efforts across its front page while burying the Trump news under the headline, " ‘It Didn't Happen.' "

Over the years, we've come to expect Fox News' top opinion hosts to aggressively attack liberals and loyally defend the political right. They've built such a loyal audience that MSNBC has cribbed from their formula to present a similarly partisan slate of left-leaning prime-time personalities, with mixed results. (Part of the secret to Fox News' success is that it has succeeded in portraying CNN as hopelessly liberal, too, allowing it to claim the exclusive loyalty of right-leaning viewers while leaving its two rivals to divide the left.)

The playbook worked when the network was stumping for the war on terror alongside George W. Bush or styling itself as the voice of the opposition to Barack Obama. Trump's polarizing Republican primary candidacy threatened to divide the network, but an exodus of several of its more critical voices—most notably Megyn Kelly—left it more or less unified around him as the general election approached. Hannity and O'Reilly greeted his win as a triumph, and the network's ratings soared amid conservatives' initial enthusiasm.

But as the policy failures have mounted, the scandals deepened, and Trump's approval plunged to historic lows, it has become not only harder to defend the president with full throat but also, presumably, less popular with viewers.

Fox News' strategy has been two-pronged: Distort and distract.

To the extent the network's prime-time personalities discuss the scandals, they tend to filter them through the prism of media criticism. Thus juicy stories about White House palace intrigue become stories about the impropriety of the anonymous leakers who provided them and the unscrupulous reporters who published them.

screen%20shot%202017-05-27%20at%2093047%20am.png
Screenshot via YouTube

The story about Trump giving state secrets to Russia became, on Hannity, a story about "QUESTIONS OVER ACCURACY OF WAPO TRUMP REPORT," as the chyron for his opening monologue had it. That certainly goes down easier if you're a Trump supporter. But as the day's top "breaking" story, it's hardly gripping stuff. And as consumers of the news, it puts viewers in a position analogous to Plato's cave-dwellers, glimpsing reality dimly and indirectly via the shadows dancing on the wall.

More often, Fox News has responded to stories embarrassing to Trump simply by changing the subject—a tactic that has the virtue of working just as well on its news programs as on the opinion shows. On many days when Trump outrage has dominated the mainstream news, Fox News programs have led instead with the alleged intolerance of liberal activists on college campuses.

While CNN's Jake Tapper was clashing memorably with Trump and Spicer over the president's penchant for fibbing, Fox News treated audiences to endlessly repeated clips of Madonna's profanity-studded anti-Trump rant at the Women's March, which was undoubtedly colorful but not especially important compared to the other blow-ups of Trump's first weekend as president.

On Feb. 16, MSNBC's fiery liberal hosts and CNN's bickery bipartisan panels scrambled to interpret an hourlong presidential press conference in which Trump veered from announcing his labor secretary pick to defending former national security adviser Michael Flynn and repeating falsehoods about his Electoral College margin.

Rather than defend the indefensible, Fox News anchors opted to downplay the press conference in favor of stories such as a dustup between the NFL and the Texas governor over the state's anti-trans "bathroom bill."




All of which seemed to be working well enough, ratings-wise, until the Comey firing. As Trump's troubles approached proportions reminiscent of Watergate, TV audiences increasingly glued their sets to MSNBC and CNN—but especially MSNBC—to follow along.

Fox News' diversion tactics may have reached their shameless apogee in the past week with Hannity's quixotic, reprehensible Seth Rich crusade.

Evidently desperate for an alternate-reality drama half as compelling as Trump's real-life scandals, Hannity latched onto a debunked report from a local Fox affiliate that there was "tangible evidence" the young Democratic National Committee staffer had been in contact with WikiLeaks before he was killed last summer. In Hannity's hands, night after night, the Rich conspiracy became an ongoing "******* mystery" in which the Clinton campaign was surely somehow implicated.

With some of his own Fox News colleagues reportedly "embarrassed" and "disgusted," Fox News retracting its online news story on Rich, and Rich's family pleading with the network to stop exploiting his death, Hannity finally backed down Tuesday, saying he wouldn't discuss the matter further on-air "at this time."

Yet this week brought another major news development that appeared to play to Fox News' traditional strengths, at least momentarily—and this one was tragically real. Monday's grisly terror attack on a Manchester, England, arena left 22 dead and 59 injured, a devastating toll by any standard.

british-pm-may-to-challenge-trump-over-intelligence-leaks-as-police-hunt-bomb-maker.jpg
A woman looks at flowers for the victims of the Manchester Arena attack in central Manchester Thomson Reuters

This time it was CNN and MSNBC whose coverage felt tentative as they juggled the painfully slow drip of news emerging from Manchester with their ongoing reporting on Trump and his trip abroad. Their coverage was complicated by a reluctance to speculate about the nature of the attack, whose motivations and perpetrators were unknown at the time.

But Fox News kept its focus trained on Manchester throughout the night, notably turning over its 9 p.m. and 11 p.m. Eastern slots to news anchor Shepard Smith, one of its most credible and least partisan voices. The network was rewarded in the nightly ratings, where it regained the top spot while MSNBC plunged to last.

Fox News was in its element covering Manchester for two reasons. First, terror attacks stoke many Americans' fears of Islamic extremism, which Trump and other Republican leaders often play upon, and which Fox News stands ready to validate and reinforce. (It's part of why the network thrived in the post-9/11 years.) Second, they make people angry, and they make people want to think in terms of good and evil, which is a lens that conservatives in general and Fox News in particular tend to be more comfortable applying to global affairs.

Major terrorist attacks don't come along every day, thank goodness, and by Tuesday night, Rachel Maddow and MSNBC had already regained the top spot. Not even the late Fox News chief Roger Ailes would root for more innocents to be slaughtered just to buoy his ratings (not openly, anyway).

But the network's success with that story Monday offers an insight into what it might take to revive its fortunes: a new narrative on the world stage, a story potent enough to push Trump's troubles from the top of every newscast. No doubt Trump would benefit from such a change, too.

Fox News' fortunes may mirror Trump's, but their interests aren't quite identical. Having been elected for four years, Trump might manage to muddle through his presidency simply by limiting his misdeeds to sub-impeachment levels.

If that happens, there will probably be lulls during which the furor dies down, fatigue sets in, and some of the viewers who have flocked to Rachel Maddow and Lawrence O'Donnell flip back to ESPN or Netflix. In that scenario, Fox News' new place at the bottom of the cable-news heap is unlikely to be permanent, but it may find itself looking up at MSNBC more often than not.

But muddling through is unlikely to be good enough for Fox News' advertisers or the higher-ups who run its programming. The network was already at a crossroads following its sexual harassment scandal and personnel shake-up. Now that its ratings are suffering, the pressure to move in a new direction is likely to intensify.

Barring earthshaking non-Trump news, a dramatic upswing in his popularity, or (perhaps least plausibly) a fundamental change in Trump's approach to governing, the network at some point will be ****** to confront an option that might seem unthinkable today: turning on the president it helped to elect.

ref: http://www.businessinsider.com/fox-news-avoiding-trump-scandals-hurting-viewership-2017-5

 
Last edited:
stiffBBC I know you like this guy.... but he has done nothing for America....he said he would put out a great health care program.... the current one cuts 24 million off health care
he said he would not touch social security or Medicaid..... Medicaid is paid by workers and a majority for biz....to help give medical care for those that can't afford it.... to give his biz buddies a tax break... cuts Medicaid
pretty hard to go into all the cuts he has made to hurt the needy and to help the greedy

but here is a start just to show you how evil this man is

Trump’s budget would cut off food for poor people if they have too many *******
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...ving-too-many-*******/?utm_term=.2dd0bfde1a67

Trump Budget Cuts Programs for Poor While Sparing Many Older People
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/22/us/politics/budget-food-stamps-poverty.html?_r=0

Donald Trump Hates Poor People:Trump Wants To Slash Food Stamps,Medicaid,& Pensions.

Deep cuts to social safety net programs highlight Trump budget proposal
http://www.cbsnews.com/videos/deep-...net-programs-highlight-trump-budget-proposal/

Trump to Pitch Deep Cuts to Anti-Poverty Programs, Medicaid
https://www.bloomberg.com/politics/...ep-cuts-to-anti-poverty-programs-and-medicaid

Trump's cuts to nutrition programs will put older adults at risk
http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-bl...rition-programs-will-put-older-adults-at-risk

Trump seeks to end program for older jobless Americans
http://www.wsfa.com/story/35513349/trump-seeks-to-end-program-for-older-jobless-americans

Trump’s Cuts to Meals on Wheels Could Hurt Veterans, Raise Health-Care Costs
The program feeds over half a million veterans annually and, it says, helps keep homebound seniors out of the hospital.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...s-could-hurt-veterans-raise-health-care-costs

Trump budget chief defends aid cuts for children, elderly
https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-budget-chief-defends-aid-cuts-children-elderly-033244336.html

Trump's Budget Bites Deeply Into Programs Benefiting His Voters
https://www.bloomberg.com/politics/...illion-in-spending-cuts-to-reshape-government

Trump Cuts 17 Programs
https://www.bing.com/news/search?q=Trump+Cuts+17+Programs&qpvt=trump+cuts+17+programs&FORM=EWRE

under the 'guise" of stopping abortions... which planned parenthood does not do but they do a lot of good for women in general
after all look at Texas they cut it a bunch and at one time lead the nation in baby birth death rate... up there with some of the third world nations!

Trump’s budget proposal aims to cut all federal funds to Planned Parenthood
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...om-planned-parenthood/?utm_term=.71c46f473d6f

I'm not real sure just how all that is going to make America great again

How Trump's tax plan would help the wealthy (and Trump)
http://money.cnn.com/2017/04/26/news/economy/trump-tax-plan-wealthy/index.html

Donald Trump's pending lawsuits and his presidency
http://www.bbc.com/news/election-us-2016-37956018

Lawsuit Charges Donald Trump with ******* a 13-Year-Old Girl
http://www.snopes.com/2016/06/23/donald-trump-*******-lawsuit/

Trump’s Long, Sordid History Of Attacking AND Defending *******
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/donald-trump-sexual-assault-statements

Teen Beauty Queens Say Donald Trump Walked in on Them Changing When They Were as Young as 15
https://www.bing.com/search?q=Teen+...+15&src=IE-SearchBox&FORM=IESR02&pc=EUPP_UE04
 
Last edited:
AND he just made a speech saying what all he was doing for and going to do for veterans


they announced last week the closing of 71 VA facilities to save money.... damn that's got to help the vets!

that kind of help they DON'T need!
 
Look, this is the same 'ole "trickle down" Supply Side Economics BS the Republicans hitched their wagon to 3 decades ago with Ronald Reagan. Cut taxes, which always benefit the richest Americans, and offset the lost revenue from the tax cuts with cuts to services that mainly the poor & middleclass utilize. And all they've managed to do is drive a huge income wealth wedge between the Haves & Have Nots and run up a national debt ... remember the first $10 trillion of our national debt lies mainly with 3 Republican presidents. And then when the Democrats remind everyone of the failure of "Trickle Down" the Republicans start yelling "JOBS, JOBS, JOBS" ... and nothing happens. Ask them what time it is and they yell "JOBS". Obama was ****** to deficit spend in order to keep the country from falling into another 1920's type depression. And if someone doesn't do something really fast with President Chump the country is going to go into yet another GW Bush type economic crash. The stock market's way overdue and running on the Chumpster's promises.
 
Exclusive: NSA Chief Admits Donald Trump Colluded With Russia
When will Admiral Rogers say publicly what he told his agency’s workforce?

President Donald Trump’s firing of FBI director James Comey continues to reverberate in the KremlinGate scandal, which threatens to consume the Trump administration. By abruptly removing Comey, then mangling his excuses for why he did so, Trump created a needless crisis for the White House which shows no signs of abating.

The impartial observer might think that Trump fired Comey because he feared what the FBI’s counterintelligence investigation of the president’s contacts with Russia might reveal—as the commander in chief has essentially admitted. Moreover, Trump’s inappropriate efforts to secure Comey’s personal “loyalty” had fallen flat—the FBI director rightly assured the president of his honesty but abjured any fealty to Trump personally—after which the president is reported to have developed a palpable fear of the incorruptible Bureau boss. To protect Team Trump, Comey had to go.

But cashiering Comey was insufficient. True to form, Trump seemingly took the offensive against the FBI. According to multiple reports, the president approached top intelligence bosses to coax them into joining Trump’s personal war with Comey. In particular, Trump is reported to have asked Dan Coats, the director of national intelligence (DNI), and Admiral Mike Rogers, director of the National Security Agency, to go public in denying that Team Trump had any ties to Russia during the 2016 election campaign.

The president’s take on the FBI investigation is well known, thanks to his frequent tweets castigating it as “fake news,” a “hoax” and even a “witch hunt.” However, asking top intelligence officials to publicly attack the FBI and its director isn’t just unusual—it’s unprecedented. Even President Nixon, in the depths of the Watergate scandal, which ultimately unraveled his administration, never went quite so far as to drag NSA into his public mess.

Admiral Rogers anecdotally flatly denied Trump’s request, which—if true—was inappropriate, unethical and dubiously legal, while Coats, a Trump appointee who’s only been in the DNI job since mid-March, likewise refused to back the president against the FBI. This was a stunning setback for Trump, who seems to view our nation’s top security officials as his personal employees who ought to follow his presidential whim rather than the law and the Constitution, which all of them take an oath to defend.

Last week, when he appeared before the Senate Armed Services Committee, Coats declined to answer questions about the White House’s effort to undermine the FBI investigation of Team Trump, stating, “I don’t feel it’s appropriate to characterize discussions and conversations with the president” in open session. Presumably DNI Coats would be more forthcoming in a closed Congressional session, where classified information can be revealed.

Director Rogers, in contrast, has made no public statements about the president’s effort to enlist him in his anti-Comey campaign. This is typical of his famously tight-lipped agency—for decades, NSA was humorously said to stand for Never Say Anything—and why Trump approached Rogers is no mystery. As the nation’s signals intelligence *******, NSA isn’t just the biggest source of intelligence on earth—it’s also the agency possessing the bulk of the classified information which establishes collusion between Trump and the Russians. Although whispers of such SIGINT have reached the media, the lion’s share remains hidden from public view, though it’s all known to the FBI.

If Trump could co-opt NSA in his fight with the Bureau, that would be a big win, protecting the White House from dangerous information, so it’s safe to assume that Rogers’ refusal burned Trump personally. Perhaps that’s why, early this week, Admiral Rogers took the unusual step of addressing the entire NSA workforce to tell them what transpired with the president.

This is not Rogers’ style. Indeed, his tenure as NSA’s director (called DIRNSA by insiders) has been characterized by distance from his employees, which has made things rockier than necessary. To be fair to Rogers—a career intelligence officer well equipped for his current position—when he became DIRNSA in the spring of 2014, he inherited an agency in crisis. NSA was still reeling from the disastrous Ed Snowden affair, the biggest theft of classified information in espionage history.

While Snowden has taunted NSA with tweets sent from his Russian hideaway, more security disasters have followed. The strange case of Harold Martin, yet another rogue defense contractor who stole gigantic amounts of classified information from the agency, constituted another Snowdenesque embarrassment, even though there’s no evidence that Martin was engaged in espionage.

Worse for Rogers was the theft of highly classified hacking tools from NSA by the so-called Shadow Brokers, which is widely believed to be a front for Russian intelligence. The dumping of those top-secret exploits online, after modification by rogue hackers, has resulted in worldwide cyberattacks impacting millions—yet another black mark on Rogers’ tenure as DIRNSA. In response to these very public setbacks, Rogers has seldom addressed the NSA workforce about them or much else.

This week’s town hall event, which was broadcast to agency facilities worldwide, was therefore met with surprise and anticipation by the NSA workforce, and Rogers did not disappoint. I have spoken with several NSA officials who witnessed the director’s talk and I’m reporting their firsthand accounts, which corroborate each other, on condition of anonymity.

In his town hall talk, Rogers reportedly admitted that President Trump asked him to discredit the FBI and James Comey, which the admiral flatly refused to do. As Rogers explained, he informed the commander in chief, “I know you won’t like it, but I have to tell what I have seen”—a probable reference to specific intelligence establishing collusion between the Kremlin and Team Trump.

Rogers then added that such SIGINT exists, and it is damning. He stated, “There is no question that we [meaning NSA] have evidence of election involvement and questionable contacts with the Russians.” Although Rogers did not cite the specific intelligence he was referring to, agency officials with direct knowledge have informed me that DIRNSA was obviously referring to a series of SIGINT reports from 2016 based on intercepts of communications between known Russian intelligence officials and key members of Trump’s campaign, in which they discussed methods of damaging Hillary Clinton.

NSA employees walked out of the town hall impressed by the director’s forthright discussion of his interactions with the Trump administration, particularly with how Rogers insisted that he had no desire to “politicize” the situation beyond what the president has already done. America’s spies are unaccustomed to playing partisan politics as Trump has apparently asked them to do, and it appears that the White House’s ham-fisted effort to get NSA to attack the FBI and its credibility was a serious mistake.

It’s therefore high time for the House and Senate intelligence committees to invite Admiral Rogers to talk to them about what transpired with the White House. It’s evident that DIRNSA has something important to say. Since Mike Rogers is said to have kept notes of the president’s effort to enlist him in Trump’s personal war with the FBI, as any seasoned Beltway bureaucrat would do, his account ought to be impressively detailed.


John Schindler is a security expert and former National Security Agency analyst and counterintelligence officer. A specialist in espionage and terrorism, he’s also been a Navy officer and a War College professor. He’s published four books and is on Twitter at @20committee.
 
Jared Kushner’s Growing Stench of Treason

It’s time to talk about treason.

We now know, according to U.S. officials briefed on intelligence reports cited by the Washington Post, that in early December 2016 Jared Kushner and Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak “discussed the possibility of setting up a secret and secure communications channel between Trump’s transition team and the Kremlin, using Russian diplomatic facilities, in an apparent move to shield their pre-inauguration discussions from monitoring.”

At any time in the Cold War, what Kushner did would certainly have attracted the stigma of treachery. Should the same standard apply today?
Let’s consider Kushner’s best defense. Backchannels are an accepted part of diplomatic relations. A relationship may be too controversial for public consumption, and it is useful to have fora where diplomats and those entrusted with the leadership of states can speak frankly, without the glare of the media.

But this appears to have been no ordinary proposal for a backchannel. First and foremost, the intent was to avoid monitoring by the United States’ own intelligence agencies. And second, Trump’s team weren’t in government yet (unless the intent was for the backchannel to continue, or to start, after the inauguration, and thus provide a means to avoid U.S. intelligence monitoring while in office, which would be even more dubious).

The charitable interpretation here is that the Trump transition team did not want the Obama administration to know what they were discussing with Moscow. But this is unpersuasive as a defense, because if those conversations were within the realm of legality, what difference would it have made if the Obama administration knew about them? One might retort that it was important that the outreach to the Russians be kept out of the public domain, and that the Obama administration could have frustrated that by leaking to the press. But this argument is inane, given how publicly Trump advertised his desire for rapprochement with Russia during the campaign.

A final argument might be that Trump’s team was aware that it is illegal for private citizens to conduct diplomacy with a foreign government, so they needed a secret backchannel. Of course, being illegal, the Trump team would never make that argument. They might say, perhaps not unreasonably, that they were not conducting diplomacy, but merely talking to the Russians as an opposition party might do (call it the Marine le Pen argument). But you can’t have it both ways: either the enterprise was legal, in which case there would have been no need to hide it from U.S. intelligence, or it was not.

Let’s be clear. There would be nothing inherently illegitimate with the Trump transition team pursuing better relations between the United States and Russia. Indeed, it was a major part of the campaign platform Trump used to win the election. Foreign policy debate between Russia doves and hawks has been going back and forth since the deterioration of post-Cold War relations following the West’s intervention in Kosovo 1999, and those who want the West to have warmer relations with Russia have many reasonable arguments.

But it’s the very legitimacy of wanting better relations with Russia, given Trump’s democratic mandate to pursue such a course, that makes Kushner’s desire to hide the Trump transition team’s connections with the Kremlin from U.S. intelligence so dubious, especially if he did intend for the backchannel to continue, or to start, after the inauguration. That is the kernel of the illegitimacy here: not the effort to improve relations through a backchannel, but the extraordinary measures to keep it secret from one’s own side.

In the Cold War, Kushner’s actions would have attracted the stigma of treachery because Russia was an enemy of the United States. But his actions would not have gotten him indicted because there was no ongoing open war in accordance with the legal definition of treason (18 U.S. code § 2381): “Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason”.

Similarly today, what we are talking about is not the legal offense of treason but the stigma of treachery — the broader social meaning of treason.

To understand this broader social meaning it helps to think about the history of the concept. In the Roman Republic, there were two treasonable offenses. One was called perduellio, which basically aligns with our current definition of treason of aiding an enemy in war. The other was called the Crimen majestatis populi romani imminutae, known commonly as maiestas, which was the offense of diminishing the majesty of the Roman people. It was only later, after the Republic collapsed and the emperors took over, that maiestas became the offense against the person of the emperor, given how in this kind of monarchy, there was little difference between the sovereign identity of the state and its ruler. (This is the origin of the offense of “lèse majesté” against monarchs still on the statute books in some states today.)

If Kushner’s actions should come to attract the stigma of treachery, it would be in the old Roman Republican sense of maiestas, when public values and their expression in state institutions still meant something. Thus, in the Roman Republic, maiestas was about punishing individuals for hijacking their state positions for their personal gain. It could be used, for example, to prosecute official maladministration, like corruption by provincial officials or military officers. An apt modern equivalent would be soliciting personal investments by selling political access or expedited visas to rich Chinese people, which Kushner’s family business has already independently been accused of.

We’ll have to wait for the facts to see what Kushner may have been trying to hide from U.S. intelligence. But my hunch is that far from the “Manchurian Candidate” theories, this will turn out to be a sorry case of operating in the grey areas of the law to enrich oneself whilst in office. Not as bad as aiding the enemy, but still rancid. It is exactly what treachery as maiestas meant in Republican Rome: An offense against the dignity of the state understood as a community bound by its public values.

In Rome, the punishment for maiestas was normally exile. Kushner’s fate is still to be determined. But the public response to it will tell us much about whether the American people, under their new monarch, still have the dignity to protect their ancient majesty.
 
Shadow government has always been here. And The Obama administration set the Tone For Trump. Both the same team. This country has always been communist And ruled by facism
 
Very sad How they all Americans brain washed
Shadow government has always been here. And The Obama administration set the Tone For Trump. Both the same team. This country has always been communist And ruled by facism

@Orion Pax - Not everyone is brainwashed my man as many many more people are against Trump than for him and it will be reflected next election as a vote to remove his insane clown ass if he doesn't get impeached, or resigns first. This is a FACT, I know alot of people have seen enough - hopefully he doesn't get us into an unnecessary war first to try and hold power. Alot of Republicans are even vocally expressing he is a disaster.

- The Shadow Government deep state narrative being set by Obama is a false one and don't buy into that. 50% of the Federal Government employees especially in the INTEL community have been there since George Bush Jr. was in office and many of them are old school conservative Fox News watching Repubs who don't like Trump's bizzarre behavior and know he is a RINO (REPUB In Name Only). Trump wears a mask as a Repub but he is some weird fringe high-jacked faction of the weirdo far right with Bannon and those birthers/ White Nationalist crowd he retweets their idiotic BS.

The old School Repub guard like the Bush family don't buy into that BS either.

I love this video, had me dying laughing especially the Trump visit with the Pope part.. chick from that horror film the ring appears and it doesn't even look unnatural. Also whats up with Melania swatting away Trump's hand all the time - even she can't stand that Prick .... hahaha.


Great Photo, anyone recognize a bad Omen here....?
Screen Shot 2017-05-30 at 12.18.20 AM.png
Watch the video below:


SOME WIN FOR TRUMP'S FOREIGN TRIP - GERMANY GOES ALL-IN AND REBUKES HIM AND THE VIDEO MONTAGE MAKES HIM LOOK MORE LIKE THE BIGGEST IDIOT ON THE WORLD STAGE THAN ANYTHING OBAMA DID IN HIS 8YRS OF OFFICE. WAY TO GO TRUMP- THX FOR REPPING' THE GOOD OL USA - NOT.
Screen Shot 2017-05-29 at 1.53.30 PM.png
Berlin (AFP) — Germany unleashed a volley of criticism Monday against US President Donald Trump, slamming his "short-sighted" policies that have "weakened the West" and hurt European interests.

The sharp words from Foreign Minister Sigmar Gabriel came after Trump concluded his first official tour abroad which took him to Saudi Arabia, Israel, Brussels and then Italy for a G7 summit.

They followed Chancellor Angela Merkel's warning on Sunday that the United States and Britain may no longer be completely reliable partners.


Germany's exasperation was laid bare after the G7 summit which wrapped up on Saturday with the US refusing so far to sign up to upholding the 2015 Paris climate accord.

Days earlier, in Saudi Arabia, Trump had presided over the single largest US arms deal in American history, worth $110 billion over the next decade and including ships, tanks and anti-missile systems.


Gabriel said Monday that "anyone who accelerates climate change by weakening environmental protection, who sells more weapons in conflict zones and who does not want to politically resolve religious conflicts is putting peace in Europe at risk".


"The short-sighted policies of the American government stand against the interests of the European Union," he said, judging that "the West has become smaller, at least it has become weaker".

ref: http://www.businessinsider.com/afp-trump-has-weakened-the-west-hurt-eu-interests-german-fm-2017-5

Screen Shot 2017-05-29 at 1.58.27 PM.png
ref: http://www.businessinsider.com/r-co...el-being-honest-with-us-spokesman-says-2017-5

POPE HAD ALREADY CALLED-OUT TRUMP ON HIS WAY OF THINKING, THE ANTI-CHRIST IS HERE.
Screen Shot 2017-05-29 at 2.01.34 PM.png
 
Last edited:
President are selected not Elected. Through their *******. Voting... Lol. Just something to make people feel good about living in this new Babylon. Bloodlines our how the Zionist put their puppets in the white house.
 
Back
Top