Trump 25: Stephen King’s Next Horror Story

[Destiny]

In shocking news, our president still doesn't know what the fuck words mean, and golfs all the time. Bright side, he's not twe ... oh. Wait. Fuck. 

Continued from here:

 

 

[fraurosena]

Yup. He's tweeting alright.

I wonder which dossier he's referring to. It can't be the Steele dossier after all, as that has been mostly verified and nothing in it has been discredited up to date...

 

@Destiny, love the title! I hope it made you feel better!

[GrumpyGran]

13 minutes ago, fraurosena said:

It can't be the Steele dossier after all, as that has been mostly verified and nothing in it has been discredited up to date...

Yeah, @fraurosena, that's reality, but in his world... And of course somebody paid for it because in his world nothing is done for free.

[Destiny]

56 minutes ago, fraurosena said:

@Destiny, love the title! I hope it made you feel better!

It totally did, I'm not gonna lie to you. 

[GreyhoundFan]

"I don’t care about ‘Merry Christmas’"

Spoiler

President Trump went before a Values Voter Summit audience here in Washington last week and declared, “We’re saying ‘Merry Christmas’ again.”

There is no warrant in law that directs Americans to say “Merry Christmas,” “Happy Holidays” or anything at all. How we greet one another during the holiday season, Mr. President, is our business. Americans have a right to do as we please.

As if we don’t already have enough trouble across the length and breadth of the land with Trump’s forays into cultural wars, the last thing the United States needs is combat over use of the words “Merry Christmas.” But here we are.

Telling a revved-up Values Voter audience that he is “stopping cold the attacks on Judeo-Christian values,” Trump suggested to the crowd, which already thinks a “war on Christianity” is being waged, that invoking “Merry Christmas” is a way of fighting back.

He set it up this way: “You know,” he exclaimed, “we’re getting near that beautiful Christmas season that people don’t talk about anymore.” (Laughter from the audience.) “They don’t use the word ‘Christmas,’ because it’s not politically correct. You go to department stores, and they’ll say, ‘Happy New Year,’ and they’ll say other things. And it will be red, they’ll have it painted, but they don’t say it. Well, guess what?” he asked.

For Trump and those who see this as an issue, wishing fellow Americans a “Merry Christmas” clearly is a way to thumb their noses at America’s left and to strike a blow for Christianity.

Speaking only for myself, I fully expect to celebrate Christmas even if I never hear a “Merry Christmas,” because nothing in my faith tradition teaches that the celebration of Christmas depends upon the salutations I receive on the street, in the newsroom and at the grocery store.

Candidate Trump pledged at Liberty University in Virginia in January 2016, “If I’m president, you will see ‘Merry Christmas’ in department stores, believe me, believe me.” Well, believe me, my Christmas observance does not depend upon a department store’s season’s greetings whether secular, sacred or if they even obliquely allude to Christmas.

Besides, “Merry Christmas” as a seasonal salute is nowhere to be found in the Holy Bible, was never used by the early Christians and probably dates, at the earliest, to the 16th century.

It has become a tradition of a religious nature that is observed during a national holiday. But it now competes with “Happy Holidays” and other secular greetings because some people have come to realize that not everyone they meet is Christian. “Politically correct,” as Trump calls it? Or respect for the sensibilities of others?

What makes this whole dust-up over “Merry Christmas” so off-putting is the cynically manufactured nature of Trump’s advocacy. He’s doing nothing but pandering to a religiously conservative base, which he plays for adulation and smothered laughs.

Regardless of the greetings we encounter, the King household intends to observe the Advent season with time carved out for reflection and preparation for Christmas. The help of “Merry Christmas” proponents is neither needed nor wanted.

If the utterance “Happy Holidays” can ruin your celebration of the birth of Jesus, you may wish to set aside a little time for serious examination of your beliefs. And if hearing fewer expressions of “Merry Christmas” is causing some Christians to fall by the wayside, then their faith, indeed, rests on shaky ground.

I don’t believe that is the case.

Christianity, Christmas trees, chimney stockings and gift-giving aren’t going anywhere. Neither are the classics: “It’s a Wonderful Life,” Irving Berlin’s “White Christmas,” Judy Garland’s “Have Yourself a Merry Little Christmas” and Nat King Cole’s “The Christmas Song.” Oh, they might have to share space with Mariah Carey’s “All I Want for Christmas Is You,” but fear not, that secular, leftist element that scares the life out of the religious right can’t take those things, including “Merry Christmas,” out of the season.

For one simple reason, and this goes for Judaism, Islam and all the other great spiritual traditions, as well: Religion doesn’t depend upon secular society to keep going.

Something else is at work, and it’s deeper and more enduring than a holiday greeting.

It is beyond the reach of public discourse and can withstand anything secularism can throw its way.

Believers may wish to say it in unison: “Faith.”

It’s not to be played with, Mr. Trump. “Merry Christmas” cannot and should not be used as a wedge or crass political tool.

I couldn't agree more.

[GreyhoundFan]

"‘My pain is everyday’: After Weinstein’s fall, Trump accusers wonder: Why not him?"

Spoiler

Almost a year after New Yorker Jessica Leeds and other women stepped forward with harrowing accounts of being sexually assaulted by a powerful man, another scandal with similar elements exploded.

Only this time, the punishment was swift and devastating.

“It is hard to reconcile that Harvey Weinstein could be brought down with this, and [President] Trump just continues to be the Teflon Don,” said Leeds, who claims she was groped 30 years ago on a plane by the man whose presence she cannot escape now that he sits in the Oval Office.

In Florida, Melinda McGillivray, was having much the same reaction.

“What pisses me off is that the guy is president,” McGillivray, who a year ago went public with allegations that Trump grabbed her at Mar-a-Lago in 2003 when she was 23. “It’s that simple.”

Leeds and McGillivray were among the 11 women who came forward in the 2016 campaign to accuse the then-Republican presidential candidate of unwanted touching or kissing. Trump called the charges “pure fiction” and referred to the women as “horrible, horrible liars.”

Their claims did not stop the celebrity real estate titan on his climb to the most powerful office in the world.

Since then, numerous men in high places have been felled by charges of sexual misconduct. Most notable among them were Bill O’Reilly, the star Fox News anchor ousted less than a year after Roger Ailes, the network’s co-founder; and Weinstein, once regarded as one of the most influential figures in the entertainment business.

The Weinstein scandal, which has featured graphic accounts of assault from a string of celebrity accusers, has sparked a national debate about sexual harassment. Many women, inspired by a #MeToo campaign, have taken to social media to tell their own stories, and calls to the National Sexual Assault Hotline have risen sharply.

But for Trump’s accusers, the renewed debate offers a reminder that their allegations did not have the same effect.

Trump, unlike Weinstein, was able to deflect their claims — despite the disclosure of a video in which he was heard bragging about the kind of behavior some of the women had alleged. Trump has never followed through with his vow to sue his accusers or produce the “substantial evidence” he said would refute their claims.

So far, the allegations against the president have led to a single new lawsuit filed by a Trump accuser who argues that the president defamed her when he denied her allegations — a case that Trump’s lawyer Marc Kasowitz called a “completely contrived, totally meritless lawsuit, which we expect to be summarily dismissed.”

Kasowitz did not respond to questions from The Washington Post about the other women’s claims and why Trump has not produced the evidence he said would to disprove them.

The frustrations of some Trump accusers surfaced publicly in the days after the New York Times revealed the allegations against Weinstein.

“My pain is everyday with bastard Trump as President,” tweeted Jill Harth, who once worked with Trump on organizing beauty pageants and sued him in 1997, claiming he had repeatedly groped her breasts, tried to touch her genitals and kissed her against her will. “No one gets it unless it happens to them. NO one!”

Harth, who is now a makeup artist in New York and declined to be interviewed, also accused Trump of getting into bed, uninvited, with one of the 22-year-old contestants in the early 1990s, according to allegations detailed in the Boston Globe.

Cathy Heller, who last year told the Guardian that Trump forcibly kissed the side of her mouth during a brunch at Mar-a-Lago in 1997, expressed dismay that “nothing stuck” against him.

Heller said she wondered whether the fame of Weinstein’s accusers — who include Oscar winners such as Gwyneth Paltrow — played a role in how their claims were received.

“A lot of them were actresses we’ve all heard of,” said Heller, 64. “When it’s a celebrity, it has more weight than just someone who he met at Mar-a-Lago or a beauty pageant contestant. They’re not people we’ve heard of. And that, in our society, has much more weight because they’re famous.”

Heller said Weinstein’s removal from his production company made her glad that “finally something was really done and a guy finally got his dues, his just deserts,” she said. “We’ll see about Trump. It’s never too late.”

McGillivray, now 37, said she was initially afraid to speak out, calling it “petrifying.” But she said she felt driven by a patriotic duty — as well as a desire to do right by her teenage daughter.

“I wanted to be heard,” said McGillivray, who lives in Palm Springs, Fla., not far from Mar-a-Lago, the president’s private club.

Allegations about Trump’s behavior toward women became an issue early in his candidacy and lingered for months, exploding in early October when The Washington Post published the 2005 “Access Hollywood” video in which he boasted in vulgar terms about kissing women and grabbing them by the genitals. The then-GOP nominee saidthe remarks “locker-room banter,” adding: “I apologize if anyone was offended.”

That disclosure was followed by a string of accusations concerning incidents alleged to have occurred over several decades, starting in the early 1980s and continuing until at least 2007. The accusers included several women whose careers depended on Trump, in addition to women he encountered by happenstance.

Polls showed that a clear majority of voters came to believe that Trump had committed the kind of behavior described by his accusers.

A Washington Post poll three weeks before the election found that more than two-thirds of registered voters — including almost half of Republicans — thought that Trump probably had made unwanted sexual advances toward women.

But the specific allegations did little to budge an electorate that had become almost tribal in its divisions.

“Sexual abuse should not be a partisan issue, but it frequently is,” said conservative commentator Amanda Carpenter. “That to me is maddening, just to watch women become fodder, to watch women become cannon fodder for these men. It’s gut-wrenching.”

After the allegations against Weinstein were made public, Republican National Committee Chairwoman Ronna McDaniel argued on CNN that Trump’s alleged offenses were “not even comparable” to Weinstein’s, adding that “to even make that comparison is disrespectful to the president.”

McDaniel tried to turn the Weinstein case on the Democrats whose campaigns he had helped finance, tweeting on Oct. 7: “Whose side is Hillary Clinton on: Harvey Weinstein’s or his victims?”

Unlike Weinstein, Trump responded to the accusations against him with vehement denials and fierce counterpunching. Although he apologized for his comments heard on the “Access Hollywood” tape, he attacked the credibility of the women making specific claims.

Trump deemed their accounts a “total fabrication,” “totally and absolutely false” and “pure fiction.” In the cases of two of the women, he urged the public to judge whether they were attractive enough for him to have assaulted them.

“Believe me: She would not be my first choice. That I can tell you,” he said of Leeds.

Trump’s pushback led one of his accusers, Summer Zervos, a former contestant on Trump’s reality television show, “The Apprentice,” to file a defamation lawsuit against him three days before he took the oath of office.

Zervos first appeared weeks before the election at a news conference with her attorney, Gloria Allred, and accused Trump of aggressively kissing her and groping her breasts during a 2007 meeting that took place when she was seeking a job at his company.

In court documents, Zervos’s attorneys said Trump defamed her by labeling his accusers liars. They have sought to subpoena documents from Trump’s campaign related to any of the women accusing him of inappropriate sexual contact. “Summer has really suffered, and she deserves to have her reputation restored,” said Allred, who also represents other women who have accused Trump.

Asked this week about the case, Trump called it “totally fake news.”

“It’s just fake,” he said during a Rose Garden news conference. “It’s fake. It’s made-up stuff, and it’s disgraceful, what happens, but that happens in the — that happens in the world of politics.”

Trump’s lawyers are seeking to have the case dismissed.

The next brief is due on Oct. 31, and sometime after that, a judge in New York state, where the suit was filed, is expected to rule on whether the case will proceed.

History suggests that an ongoing court case could be perilous for a sitting president. The last deposition of one was in another sexual harassment case, when Bill Clinton was questioned for six hours in January 1998 by lawyers for former Arkansas state employee Paula Jones. She claimed that Clinton, while governor in 1991, had exposed his genitals to her in a Little Rock hotel room.

Clinton ultimately paid Jones $800,000 to settle the case without admitting guilt, but during that deposition, he was asked about his relationship with White House intern Monica Lewinsky and gave false statements that led to his impeachment.

The same factor that helped Clinton survive impeachment and remain in office helped Trump overcome the accusations of misconduct against him, said Elaine Kamarck, a former Clinton White House official who is now a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution.

“The fact is, there were bigger issues at play,” she said. “Nobody expected him to be a good guy. People knew what kind of guy he was.”

Leeds, now 75, said the furor over her decision to come forward last year in the New York Times lasted several months, “longer than I imagined.” In the aftermath, she said, younger women approached her to thank her for her bravery. Many told her they have agonized over whether to do the same.

“I thought things were better in that area, with more women in the workplace,” Leeds said. But she has come to the conclusion that the culture that fostered experiences like the one she claims to have had with Trump “is still very strong and very prevalent, and that was discouraging.”

 

[Cartmann99]

You know there's going to be some craptastic meltdowns between now and Christmas when the nutbags do not receive their preferred holiday greeting. 

 

[GrumpyGran]

1 hour ago, GreyhoundFan said:

"I don’t care about ‘Merry Christmas’"

  Reveal hidden contents

President Trump went before a Values Voter Summit audience here in Washington last week and declared, “We’re saying ‘Merry Christmas’ again.”

There is no warrant in law that directs Americans to say “Merry Christmas,” “Happy Holidays” or anything at all. How we greet one another during the holiday season, Mr. President, is our business. Americans have a right to do as we please.

As if we don’t already have enough trouble across the length and breadth of the land with Trump’s forays into cultural wars, the last thing the United States needs is combat over use of the words “Merry Christmas.” But here we are.

Telling a revved-up Values Voter audience that he is “stopping cold the attacks on Judeo-Christian values,” Trump suggested to the crowd, which already thinks a “war on Christianity” is being waged, that invoking “Merry Christmas” is a way of fighting back.

He set it up this way: “You know,” he exclaimed, “we’re getting near that beautiful Christmas season that people don’t talk about anymore.” (Laughter from the audience.) “They don’t use the word ‘Christmas,’ because it’s not politically correct. You go to department stores, and they’ll say, ‘Happy New Year,’ and they’ll say other things. And it will be red, they’ll have it painted, but they don’t say it. Well, guess what?” he asked.

For Trump and those who see this as an issue, wishing fellow Americans a “Merry Christmas” clearly is a way to thumb their noses at America’s left and to strike a blow for Christianity.

Speaking only for myself, I fully expect to celebrate Christmas even if I never hear a “Merry Christmas,” because nothing in my faith tradition teaches that the celebration of Christmas depends upon the salutations I receive on the street, in the newsroom and at the grocery store.

Candidate Trump pledged at Liberty University in Virginia in January 2016, “If I’m president, you will see ‘Merry Christmas’ in department stores, believe me, believe me.” Well, believe me, my Christmas observance does not depend upon a department store’s season’s greetings whether secular, sacred or if they even obliquely allude to Christmas.

Besides, “Merry Christmas” as a seasonal salute is nowhere to be found in the Holy Bible, was never used by the early Christians and probably dates, at the earliest, to the 16th century.

It has become a tradition of a religious nature that is observed during a national holiday. But it now competes with “Happy Holidays” and other secular greetings because some people have come to realize that not everyone they meet is Christian. “Politically correct,” as Trump calls it? Or respect for the sensibilities of others?

What makes this whole dust-up over “Merry Christmas” so off-putting is the cynically manufactured nature of Trump’s advocacy. He’s doing nothing but pandering to a religiously conservative base, which he plays for adulation and smothered laughs.

Regardless of the greetings we encounter, the King household intends to observe the Advent season with time carved out for reflection and preparation for Christmas. The help of “Merry Christmas” proponents is neither needed nor wanted.

If the utterance “Happy Holidays” can ruin your celebration of the birth of Jesus, you may wish to set aside a little time for serious examination of your beliefs. And if hearing fewer expressions of “Merry Christmas” is causing some Christians to fall by the wayside, then their faith, indeed, rests on shaky ground.

I don’t believe that is the case.

Christianity, Christmas trees, chimney stockings and gift-giving aren’t going anywhere. Neither are the classics: “It’s a Wonderful Life,” Irving Berlin’s “White Christmas,” Judy Garland’s “Have Yourself a Merry Little Christmas” and Nat King Cole’s “The Christmas Song.” Oh, they might have to share space with Mariah Carey’s “All I Want for Christmas Is You,” but fear not, that secular, leftist element that scares the life out of the religious right can’t take those things, including “Merry Christmas,” out of the season.

For one simple reason, and this goes for Judaism, Islam and all the other great spiritual traditions, as well: Religion doesn’t depend upon secular society to keep going.

Something else is at work, and it’s deeper and more enduring than a holiday greeting.

It is beyond the reach of public discourse and can withstand anything secularism can throw its way.

Believers may wish to say it in unison: “Faith.”

It’s not to be played with, Mr. Trump. “Merry Christmas” cannot and should not be used as a wedge or crass political tool.

I couldn't agree more.

I'm so sick of this ridiculous false flag. What the hell does 'Merry Christmas' have to do with religion? If you want to remind someone that they should be thinking of the birth of Jesus during the Christmas season then say something that actually conveys that, like 'Blessed Christmas' , 'Enjoy the season of Christmas', or 'Have a wonderful celebration of the birth.' But these asses have to use everything as a weapon for their supposed war. If you insist that everyone acknowledge Christmas then let's just all run around yelling "Christmas! Christmas, fucker, Christmas! You better Christmas!" If someone doesn't wish me a Happy New Year, can I confront them and ask why they don't wish me well in the New Year?

Just another way the extreme right hijacks a group of mindless sheep and uses them to further their agenda for dominance. I'm sure the baby Jesus would approve.

[Cartmann99]

4 minutes ago, GrumpyGran said:

If you insist that everyone acknowledge Christmas then let's just all run around yelling "Christmas! Christmas, fucker, Christmas! You better Christmas!" If someone doesn't wish me a Happy New Year, can I confront them and ask why they don't wish me well in the New Year?

We wish you a fucking Christmas
We wish you a fucking Christmas
We wish you a fucking Christmas
And a fucking New Year

[Refrain:]
Good tidings we bring to you and your kin,
We wish you a fucking Christmas and a fucking New Year.

Now bring us some fucking pudding
Now bring us some fucking pudding
Now bring us some fucking pudding
And bring some out here.

 

[47of74]

1 hour ago, GreyhoundFan said:

"I don’t care about ‘Merry Christmas’"

  Hide contents

President Trump went before a Values Voter Summit audience here in Washington last week and declared, “We’re saying ‘Merry Christmas’ again.”

There is no warrant in law that directs Americans to say “Merry Christmas,” “Happy Holidays” or anything at all. How we greet one another during the holiday season, Mr. President, is our business. Americans have a right to do as we please.

As if we don’t already have enough trouble across the length and breadth of the land with Trump’s forays into cultural wars, the last thing the United States needs is combat over use of the words “Merry Christmas.” But here we are.

Telling a revved-up Values Voter audience that he is “stopping cold the attacks on Judeo-Christian values,” Trump suggested to the crowd, which already thinks a “war on Christianity” is being waged, that invoking “Merry Christmas” is a way of fighting back.

He set it up this way: “You know,” he exclaimed, “we’re getting near that beautiful Christmas season that people don’t talk about anymore.” (Laughter from the audience.) “They don’t use the word ‘Christmas,’ because it’s not politically correct. You go to department stores, and they’ll say, ‘Happy New Year,’ and they’ll say other things. And it will be red, they’ll have it painted, but they don’t say it. Well, guess what?” he asked.

For Trump and those who see this as an issue, wishing fellow Americans a “Merry Christmas” clearly is a way to thumb their noses at America’s left and to strike a blow for Christianity.

Speaking only for myself, I fully expect to celebrate Christmas even if I never hear a “Merry Christmas,” because nothing in my faith tradition teaches that the celebration of Christmas depends upon the salutations I receive on the street, in the newsroom and at the grocery store.

Candidate Trump pledged at Liberty University in Virginia in January 2016, “If I’m president, you will see ‘Merry Christmas’ in department stores, believe me, believe me.” Well, believe me, my Christmas observance does not depend upon a department store’s season’s greetings whether secular, sacred or if they even obliquely allude to Christmas.

Besides, “Merry Christmas” as a seasonal salute is nowhere to be found in the Holy Bible, was never used by the early Christians and probably dates, at the earliest, to the 16th century.

It has become a tradition of a religious nature that is observed during a national holiday. But it now competes with “Happy Holidays” and other secular greetings because some people have come to realize that not everyone they meet is Christian. “Politically correct,” as Trump calls it? Or respect for the sensibilities of others?

What makes this whole dust-up over “Merry Christmas” so off-putting is the cynically manufactured nature of Trump’s advocacy. He’s doing nothing but pandering to a religiously conservative base, which he plays for adulation and smothered laughs.

Regardless of the greetings we encounter, the King household intends to observe the Advent season with time carved out for reflection and preparation for Christmas. The help of “Merry Christmas” proponents is neither needed nor wanted.

If the utterance “Happy Holidays” can ruin your celebration of the birth of Jesus, you may wish to set aside a little time for serious examination of your beliefs. And if hearing fewer expressions of “Merry Christmas” is causing some Christians to fall by the wayside, then their faith, indeed, rests on shaky ground.

I don’t believe that is the case.

Christianity, Christmas trees, chimney stockings and gift-giving aren’t going anywhere. Neither are the classics: “It’s a Wonderful Life,” Irving Berlin’s “White Christmas,” Judy Garland’s “Have Yourself a Merry Little Christmas” and Nat King Cole’s “The Christmas Song.” Oh, they might have to share space with Mariah Carey’s “All I Want for Christmas Is You,” but fear not, that secular, leftist element that scares the life out of the religious right can’t take those things, including “Merry Christmas,” out of the season.

For one simple reason, and this goes for Judaism, Islam and all the other great spiritual traditions, as well: Religion doesn’t depend upon secular society to keep going.

Something else is at work, and it’s deeper and more enduring than a holiday greeting.

It is beyond the reach of public discourse and can withstand anything secularism can throw its way.

Believers may wish to say it in unison: “Faith.”

It’s not to be played with, Mr. Trump. “Merry Christmas” cannot and should not be used as a wedge or crass political tool.

I couldn't agree more.

Fuckface von Shitgibbon and his groupie Branch Trumpvidians can kiss my ASS if they think they're going to force me into saying Merry Christmas.  

[GrumpyGran]

Let's change that last line to "And get the hell out of here." Just to continue in the spirit of it, ya' know?

2 minutes ago, 47of74 said:

Fuckface von Shitgibbon and his groupie Branch Trumpvidians can kiss my ASS if they think they're going to force me into saying Merry Christmas.  

"...and a Shitgibbon in a pear tree!" Hey, I think we've got a theme going here!

[onekidanddone]

Just as long as you don't make me sing "Grandma got run over by a reindeer".

[VelociRapture]

8 hours ago, onekidanddone said:

Just as long as you don't make me sing "Grandma got run over by a reindeer".

If we’re sticking with a theme, wouldn’t that be, “Ivana got run over by a reindeer”? 

10 hours ago, Cartmann99 said:

We wish you a fucking Christmas
We wish you a fucking Christmas
We wish you a fucking Christmas
And a fucking New Year

[Refrain:]
Good tidings we bring to you and your kin,
We wish you a fucking Christmas and a fucking New Year.

Now bring us some fucking pudding
Now bring us some fucking pudding
Now bring us some fucking pudding
And bring some out here.

 

I don’t care who gets upset. I’m singing this version this year. 

Or how about just bursting into a rousing rendition of “Feliz Navidad” every time a Trump fan insists you say Merry Christmas?

[47of74]

I see Fuckface von Shitgibbon is up to his own twitter antics

Quote

President Donald Trump on Saturday continued lashing out at the Democratic congresswoman who offered a critical account of his conversation with the widow of a fallen US soldier, calling the congresswoman "wacky."

"I hope the Fake News Media keeps talking about Wacky Congresswoman Wilson in that she, as a representative, is killing the Democrat Party!" Trump tweeted just after 8 a.m. ET, referring to Rep. Frederica Wilson, D-Florida.

Trump pressed on with his attacks against Wilson an hour later, re-tweeting posts that suggested without evidence that former President Barack Obama and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton "rolled out" Wilson "as a distraction" from an unrelated, years-old controversyinvolving the Obama administration's approval of Russia's purchase of a controlling stake in a Canadian company with US uranium assets. The company, at one time, included investors who had contributed to the Clinton Foundation.

"The people get what is going on!" Trump tweeted.

Yeah, I get what's going on, you fuck head.  You're more worried about riling up your Nazi/Klanish base than you are about actually doing your goddamn job. 

[fraurosena]

Donald Trump says he would not be President without Twitter

Spoiler

Donald Trump has defended his use of Twitter and admitted he believes he would not have won the presidency without it.

The US leader said social media was a "tremendous platform" that allowed him to bypass what he claimed was unfair media coverage and speak directly to voters.

Mr Trump regularly uses Twitter to mount vigorous attacks on political opponents, news outlets and people who have criticised him, often sending out posts in early-morning or late-evening flurries.

Even leaders of his own Republican Party have urged him to rein in his Twitter usage and Mr Trump admitted some friends have suggested his use of social media could damage him.

But he said: "I doubt I would be here if it weren't for social media, to be honest with you."

In an interview due to air on the Fox Business Network channel, the President added: "Tweeting is like a typewriter - when I put it out, you put it immediately on your show.

"When somebody says something about me, I am able to go bing, bing, bing and I take care of it. The other way, I would never be get the word out."

His comments come after his rival for the presidency, Hillary Clinton, condemned his “dangerous” Twitter tirades.

The defeated Democrat told the Graham Norton Show that she "ignores" most of the President's tweets but added: “The most dangerous thing he does is conduct diplomacy on Twitter. He is trading insults with Kim Jong-un, which is just like catnip for Kim Jong-un."

Mr Trump's tweets about North Korea have been widely seen as raising tensions amid the threat of nuclear war. In August he threatened to unleash "fire and fury" upon the secretive nation before last month warning the North Korean regime "won't be around much longer", comments Pyongyang interpreted as "a clear declaration of war". 

Mr Trump's tweets have also contained factual inaccuracies and personal attacks.

In March, he claimed Barack Obama had ordered Trump Tower in New York to be wiretapped - an allegation the former president denied and for which the Justice Department and FBI later said there was no evidence.

Last month he lambasted NFL players who had kneeled in protest at police brutality and racial inequality.

Just heard Foreign Minister of North Korea speak at U.N. If he echoes thoughts of Little Rocket Man, they won't be around much longer!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) September 24, 2017

Twitter was forced to defend its decision not to take town the later post, which some saw as a violation of its terms of service, on the grounds it was "newsworthy" and in the public interest.

Earlier this month Republic Senator Bob Corker warned Mr Trump's provocative rhetoric risked setting the US "on the path to World War Three”.

Mr Trump had previously used Twitter to wage a personal war of words with Mr Corker.

"Senator Bob Corker 'begged' me to endorse him for re-election in Tennessee. I said 'NO' and he dropped out (said he could not win without my endorsement),“ the President wrote after the senator criticised his response to white supremacist violence in Charlottesville.

Mr Corker said: "It's a shame the White House has become an adult day care centre. Someone obviously missed their shift this morning."

White House Chief of Staff John Kelly said last week he had been criticised for failing to control Trump's tweeting.

"I was not brought to this job to control anything but the flow of information to our president," Mr Kelly added.

In July, Trump was sued in federal court by seven people who he has blocked on Twitter.

The Justice Department said the suit should be dismissed, arguing it "rests on the unsupported and erroneous premise that the President's Twitter account is a public forum for First Amendment purposes."

Well, ok, he's twisting the facts a little bit  - what else is new? Still, everybody will agree that he wouldn't have won the elections without all those Russian bots on Twitter helping him!

Which inspired my take on 'Grandma got run over by a reindeer'.

What about all those Russian bots on Twitter?
They helped elect the presidunce,
You know the one who needs a sitter,
Can't leave him alone, not even once.

And those bots they were on Facebook,
Bashing every Democrat,
Saying Clinton, she is a crook,
Now what do you think of that?

So we're stuck with a procrastinator,
Contoversy? He's the source.
He's the subject of an investigator,
But he's out playing golf, of course.

Russian meddling? He denies it,
And mainstream media he calls fake,
Common decency? He defies it,
And your healthcare he will take!

He wants implement a travel ban,
But we all know how well that went,
So now tax reform is his next plan,
To enrich the one percent!

Don't you like it, well that's just tough!
The presidunce you can't rebuke.
He'll cry out 'I've just had enough!'
Any dissenters, he'll just nuke.

What about all those Russian bots on Twitter?
They helped elect the presidunce,
You all know the one who needs a sitter,
Can't leave him alone, not even once.

 

 

[formergothardite]

I think Happy Holidays will be my theme song for this Christmas. 

[GrumpyGran]

Remember, that lawsuit is out there lurking. How will he avoid giving a deposition? You know, it's weird, all the stupid shit he does, lying every time he opens his mouth. And yet he will do anything to avoid testifying under oath. If nothing else, he is very aware that lying under oath is very dangerous.

I suspect he is quite a bit stressed about this, hence slipping out for a quick game of golf without a high-profile member of Congress to use as a prop. Next week could be dizzying. Wonder if SHS has started taking a flask to mass and church services yet. 

[formergothardite]

4 minutes ago, GrumpyGran said:

If nothing else, he is very aware that lying under oath is very dangerous.

And while he seems to delude himself into believing many of his lies, he also seems very aware that he lies a lot. He is going to do everything possible to avoid testifying under oath. H knows that if he does he is screwed because he can't help but lie. 

[fraurosena]

16 minutes ago, formergothardite said:

And while he seems to delude himself into believing many of his lies, he also seems very aware that he lies a lot. He is going to do everything possible to avoid testifying under oath. H knows that if he does he is screwed because he can't help but lie. 

Ah, I think it's a little late in the game for that. There is no way he won't be called to testify at some point. We know quite a bit about all the allegations against him, but I'm willing to bet it is only the tip of the iceberg compared to what Mueller is unearthing.

I wonder what he'll do when the time comes? I believe he might even try to rage-quit by resigning. Except it won't help, as he'll have to testify anyway. As you say, @formergothardite, the only option he really has is to try and lie his way out of it. To be honest, I'm quite looking forward to seeing him squirm uncomfortably under oath, and trying to bluster his way through. So I really, really hope it will be a public testimony, not behind closed doors! 

[apple1]

27 minutes ago, formergothardite said:

And while he seems to delude himself into believing many of his lies, he also seems very aware that he lies a lot. He is going to do everything possible to avoid testifying under oath. H knows that if he does he is screwed because he can't help but lie. 

I guess I have two thoughts on this.

1- I am not at all sure that he even distinguishes between the truth and a lie in his mind (or conscience). He says whatever suits him at the moment. Truth or lie does not come into the equation.

2- In his entire life, he has been able to skate through without feeling any consequences. I think he believes that he will also skate through this.

[fraurosena]

How SAD, that everybody is tripping over themselves in the rush to make amends, and still failing miserably.

Donald Trump Is Rush-Shipping Condolences to Military Families

Quote

The Trump administration is scrambling to defend the president’s characterization of his communications with grieving military families, including rush-delivering letters from the president to the families of servicemembers killed months ago. Donald Trump falsely claimed this week that he had called “virtually” all fallen servicemembers’ families since his time in office.

Timothy Eckels Sr. hadn’t heard anything from President Trump since his son Timothy Eckels Jr. was killed after a collision involving the USS John S. McCain on August 21. But then, on October 20, two days into the controversy over the president’s handling of a condolence call with an American soldier’s widow, Eckels Sr. received a United Parcel Service package dated October 18 with a letter from the White House.

“Honestly, I feel the letter is reactionary to the media storm brewing over how these things have been handled,” Eckels told The Atlantic. “I’ve received letters from McCain, Mattis, and countless other officials before his. I wasn’t sure if the fact that the accident that caused Timothy’s death has still yet to officially have the cause determined played into the timing of our president’s response.”

He added that the letter “seemed genuine and even mentioned Timothy’s siblings.” It was “a respectful letter,” Eckels wrote. The family of Corey Ingram, another Navy systems technician who died in the collision on the USS John McCain, also confirmed to The Atlantic they received a rush-delivered letter from the White House on October 20. A third family, of another sailor who perished in the accident, John M. Hoagland III, said they, too, received a rush-delivery letter this week. It was not immediately clear whether White House condolence letters are typically sent via this expedited shipping. But one former official who served in both Republican and Democratic administrations said that it would be unusual for condolence letters to be sent weeks after the fact, because they were seen as "priority correspondence, to get to the family in a week or two if possible."

The White House declined to address The Atlantic’s specific questions about how Trump has—or has not—comforted grieving military families. “The president and the nation are grateful for the service and sacrifice of our fallen American heroes,” a White House official told The Atlantic.“We have addressed the president’s outreach to the families extensively and out of respect, we are not going to comment further.”

The controversy began with a Rose Garden press conference on Monday, October 16, in which Trump was asked why he had not spoken out about the deaths of four U.S. servicemembers in Niger on October 4. He responded by falsely suggesting that previous presidents hadn’t made personal calls to the families of slain U.S. servicemembers. The next day, he followed up by claiming that he had called “virtually” all fallen servicemembers’ families, which was also false.

In the past week, The Atlantic made contact with 12 families who had been identified as having lost kin serving in the military since January. Along with those contacted by other news outlets like The Washington Post and the Associated Press, about 25 of the 46 families have been reached. Of those 25, a plurality—11 families—said they had received neither a call nor a letter from the president. Nine confirmed that they had received personal calls from the president. Members of four families said they had received a letter, but no call. And members of the remaining family were contacted by the White House, but declined to meet with the president.

According to Roll Call, by 5 p.m. on October 17, the White House had asked and received information from the Pentagon that indicated “senior White House aides were aware on the day the president made the statement that it was not accurate—but that they should try to make it accurate as soon as possible, given the gathering controversy.”

Especially during wartime, presidents are not expected to personally call the surviving family members of every fallen service member. More than 4,000 American servicemembers have died in the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan. Yet the firestorm around Trump’s claims about his contacts with military families set off an effort within his administration to shore up the president’s claims.

On Tuesday, Trump called the families of four men who died in Niger on October 4, after promising to do so in the Monday press briefing. Then, along with the rush-delivered letters to the families of Eckels, Hoagland, and Ingram, Trump also mailed a $25,000 check on Wednesday to a grieving father to whom he had promised money in a June phone call, the father told The Washington Post.

The money, the rush-delivered letters, and the recent phone calls all represent a sharp change for an administration whose outreach to bereaved military families had appeared to slow since June.

Two families of soldiers killed in Afghanistan on August 2, Christopher Harrisand Jonathon Hunter, were told they should expect a call and never received one. The families of Army Specialist Alvin Levi Stigler Jr. and Sergeant Roshain Euvince Brooks, who died in Iraq in August, did not receive calls.

Several other families have talked to other news outlets about their experiences. Jasmin William Bays, the wife of Sergeant William Bays, received a call from Trump, and wrote on Facebook that “the President’s words to me were kind, genuine and sincere. His words helped me heal during my time of grief.” Other recent presidents have not personally called all military families who have lost relatives, but both presidents Obama and Bush occasionally made such calls.

This all comes after a turbulent week, set off by Trump’s claim to have been more involved than previous presidents in contacting military families. The president even involved his chief of staff, John Kelly, himself a retired Marine general who lost a son in the war in Afghanistan, in a feud with Florida Representative Frederica Wilson, who said that the president’s outreach to a slain U.S. servicemember’s family had been gone poorly.

Wilson said a call made to one of families of the four men slain in Niger in early October, Sergeant La David Johnson, ended with the family feeling disrespected. Wilson, a friend of the Johnson family, was present when the call was made. Johnson’s mother, Cowanda Jones-Johnson, confirmed Wilson’s account, telling The Washington Post that the president had  shown “disrespect” for her son and family with statements that her son “must have known what he signed up for.” Many questions remain about how Johnson became separated from the other members of his team.

Some families expressed that they were “disappointed” they had not received a call or letter from Trump, but still others questioned the relevance of the president’s actions in the larger scheme of things.

“If that letter or that phone call could bring my son back, I would run from here on foot to Washington, D.C., to get that letter,” Sheila Murphy, the mother of Army Specialist Etienne Murphy, who was killed in Syria in May, told MSNBC. “But right now it really doesn’t matter who did the greatest thing.”

 

[fraurosena]

Remember that so-called voter fraud commission? Here's an uplifting update on that. It seems compliance of any information other than that which is already publically available is almost non-existant.

More than a dozen states still refuse to release voter data

Quote

These are state-by-state responses to a request for detailed voter data from President Donald Trump’s Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity, which is investigating voter fraud. The information indicates whether a state is willing to comply with, is denying or is undecided on the request for data. Some of the states that are willing to comply have fees or other requirements of the commission.

All states that have agreed to comply are withholding some details the commission sought and are releasing only information considered public under state law. The commission sent one request in late June and another in July after a court said the data collection could move ahead.

___

ALABAMA

Comply

Secretary of State John Merrill, a Republican, said the commission can buy the information at a cost of more than $32,000. And it will exclude information such as Social Security and driver’s license numbers. 

___

ALASKA

Comply

Josie Bahnke, director of the state Division of Elections, said the commission paid the $21 that is standard for these types of request for publicly available voter data. The information was sent to the commission in September.

___

ARIZONA

Undecided

Matt Roberts, spokesman for the Secretary of State’s office, said in early October that the office has yet to receive a formal request from the commission for the data. “In the secretary’s mind, we haven’t responded because we haven’t received anything that remotely resembles a formal public records request, nor the accompanying payment for said voter registration records,” Roberts said. He would not speculate on how the secretary would respond to such a request.

___

ARKANSAS

Comply

Arkansas says it’s received the letter and will provide publicly available information but not Social Security numbers, driver’s license numbers or information about felony convictions or military status. Republican Gov. Asa Hutchinson says he recommended the secretary of state not release all the information, calling the panel’s request too broad.

___

CALIFORNIA

Deny

Secretary of State Alex Padilla, a Democrat, reiterated his refusal to provide information to the commission on July 26. “The commission’s new request does nothing to address the fundamental problems with the commission’s illegitimate origins, questionable mission or the preconceived and harmful views on voting rights that many of its commissioners have advanced,” he said in a statement. “Let me reassure voters: I will not provide this commission with Californians’ personal voter data. I will continue to do everything in my power to protect California citizens’ ability to exercise their rights to register and vote free of barriers and intimidation.”

___

COLORADO

Comply

Secretary of State Wayne Williams, a Republican, is providing all information permitted under state open records law — information available to anyone. What won’t be provided: full dates of birth, driver’s license information, Social Security numbers. He urged the commission to handle the data securely.

___

CONNECTICUT

Deny

Secretary of State Denise Merrill initially said her office planned to partially comply, but in July sent a letter to the commission saying that fulfilling the request “is not in the best interest of Connecticut residents.” The letter said the commission’s request was overly broad and lacked assurances that the personal information gathered would be safeguarded.

___

DELAWARE

Deny

After being inundated with calls from concerned citizens and meeting with her deputy attorney general, Delaware’s election commissioner said she will not provide the requested information. She also said she is drafting a policy stating that voter registration data, which is now available to anyone, will be made available only to candidates and political parties and only for political use, not for commercial purposes. She plans to follow up in January with legislation codifying the new policy. She had previously said she would not comply with the request for sensitive information, including birthdates, Social Security numbers and felony history. State law currently allows the commissioner to give voter registration data including names, addresses, political party, voting history, legislative district information and year of birth to members of the public.

___

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Deny

“The best thing I can do to instill confidence among DC residents in our elections is to protect their personally identifiable information from the Commission on Election Integrity. Its request for voter information, such as Social Security numbers, serves no legitimate purpose and only raises questions on its intent,” Democratic Mayor Muriel Bowser said in a statement. “I will join leaders of states around the country and work with our partners on the Council to protect our residents from this intrusion.”

___

FLORIDA

Comply

Florida on July 28 turned over data that it says is already public record under state law and is made available to other organizations that seek voter registration information. Secretary of State Ken Detzner, a Republican, previously told the commission that Florida law prohibits the state from turning over driver’s license information or Social Security numbers. He also said they would not turn over the names of voters whose information is protected, such as judges or police officers. Sarah Revell, a spokeswoman for Detzner, said, “As we have said all along, we will follow Florida law and will only submit information that is already available and regularly provided to anyone who requests it.” A group of plaintiffs, including the American Civil Liberties Union, filed a lawsuit and requested a temporary restraining order. But a U.S. district judge ruled that Florida could go ahead and deliver information that was publicly available under state law.

___

GEORGIA

Comply

“The Georgia Secretary of State’s Office will provide the publicly available voter list. As specified in Georgia law, the public list does not contain a registered voter’s driver’s license number, Social Security number, month and day of birth, site of voter registration, phone number or email address.” Secretary of State Brian Kemp’s spokeswoman Candice Broce said the state had received the second letter from the commission in late July. The state has not responded yet. Broce said the state didn’t provide any information to the first request and never received the $250 payment that the state charges anyone who wants a copy of the registered voter file.

___

HAWAII

Comply

State elections officials in Hawaii said the issue was up to clerks of the state’s four counties, which maintain voter registries. The clerks said in August that they would comply with the request. But they said that all they could legally provide was the voter’s name, precinct and whether they voted in the last two elections. Party membership isn’t recorded on the rolls. Instead, that information is held by the parties themselves.

___

IDAHO

Comply

The Idaho secretary of state’s office has turned over voters’ names, addresses and other public information. Information about driver’s license numbers, the last four digits of Social Security numbers and date of births are not releasable under the state’s public records law even though that data is collected on registration forms.

___

ILLINOIS

Undecided

The State Board of Elections has not turned over information to the commission, citing concerns that doing so would violate state law. In September, the board voted to send a letter to the commission seeking more information about how the voter data would be used and the legal authority the commission believes it has to keep the voter information confidential.

Ken Menzel, general counsel for the board, said the Illinois attorney general believes federal law would require the information be made public, which would violate state law. He also noted the attorney general’s concern over whether the commission would use the information for “a proper governmental purpose,” as required under Illinois law. The letter also informed the commission that release of the data costs $500.

___

INDIANA

Pending

As of early October, the state had yet to act on the request. Officials said release of the voter list requires approval of both directors of the Indiana Election Division. A lawsuit over the request seeking to block the state from handing over the voter data was still pending in federal court.

___

IOWA

Comply

Paul Pate, the Republican secretary of state, said: “There is a formal process for requesting a list of registered voters, as specified in Iowa Code. We will follow that process if a request is made that complies with Iowa law. The official list request form is available on the Iowa Secretary of State’s website, sos.iowa.gov.” Pate said some voter registration information is a matter of public record. However, he said, providing personal voter information, such as Social Security numbers, is forbidden under Iowa Code. “We will only share information that is publicly available and complies with Iowa Code. The commission will have to follow the same process candidates, political parties, media organizations, and everyone else follows when requesting a voter list,” Pate said.”

___

KANSAS

Comply

Secretary of State Kris Kobach, a Republican, is vice chairman of the commission, but even his office does not plan to provide the last four digits of Social Security numbers because that’s not publicly available under Kansas law, spokeswoman Samantha Poetter said. All information that is publicly available will be provided.

___

KENTUCKY

Deny

“As the commonwealth’s secretary of state and chief election official, I do not intend to release Kentuckians’ sensitive personal data to the federal government,” Secretary of State Alison Lundergan Grimes said in a statement. “The president created his election commission based on the false notion that ‘voter fraud’ is a widespread issue. It is not.” On July 26, Grimes again told the commission no. The Democrat said, “The compilation of every American voter’s information would build a national voter registration database, which is unnecessary to improving our elections, opposite our Constitution and state’s rights, and puts voters’ privacy and personal data at risk.”

___

LOUISIANA

Comply

Secretary of State Tom Schedler, a Republican, won’t provide personal voter information, like Social Security numbers or birth dates. He says the commission can have the information that is publicly available — but only if the commission buys it like anyone else. Schedler calls the effort a politically motivated federal overreach. He said: “The release of private information creates a tremendous breach of trust with voters who work hard to protect themselves against identity fraud. That’s why it is protected by six federal laws and two state laws. This Commission needs to understand clearly, disclosure of such sensitive information is more likely to diminish voter participation rather than foster it. I have been fighting this kind of federal intrusion and overreach, and will continue to fight like hell for the people who trust me with the integrity of our election process.”

___

MAINE

Deny

Maine Secretary of State Matthew Dunlap, a member of the voting commission, rejected the request, saying it’s not clear the commission has the authority to keep records confidential. He arrived at that decision after a re-evaluation. He initially rejected the request, then said on July 27 that he’d look at it again after the commission renewed the request.

___

MARYLAND

Deny

Maryland’s election commissioner denied the request after receiving an opinion from Democratic Attorney General Brian Frosh, who said disclosure of the requested information is prohibited by law, and who also called the request for information “repugnant.” Frosh also said it appears to be designed only to intimidate voters and indulge Trump’s “fantasy” that he won the popular vote.

___

MASSACHUSETTS

Deny

A spokesman for Secretary of State William Galvin, a Democrat, said the state’s voter registry is not a public record and information in it will not be shared with the Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity.

___

MICHIGAN

Comply

A spokesman for Republican Secretary of State Ruth Johnson said the department will provide publicly available information but would exclude data including Social Security and driver’s license numbers and full dates of birth. Fred Woodhams also said the commission would have to make a freedom of information request and pay $23 to get the data.

___

MINNESOTA

Deny

Minnesota Secretary of State Steve Simon, a Democrat, announced he would not share the data with Trump’s commission. “I will not hand over personal data on the nearly four million Minnesotans who are registered to vote,” he said in a statement. “I have serious doubts about the commission’s credibility and trustworthiness, and I fear it risks becoming a partisan tool to shut out millions of eligible American voters. In addition, Minnesotans who registered to vote never thought their personal data would end up in some federal database.”

___

MISSISSIPPI

Comply

In a federal court case after a contentious U.S. Senate primary in Mississippi in 2014, a group called True the Vote sued Mississippi seeking similar information about voters. Secretary of State Delbert Hosemann, a Republican, fought that request and won. Hosemann said if he received a request from the Trump commission, “My reply would be: They can go jump in the Gulf of Mexico, and Mississippi is a great state to launch from.” He later said he would give the commission any voter information that is publicly available but he would not provide voters’ dates of birth or partial Social Security numbers.

___

MISSOURI

Comply

In Missouri, Republican Secretary of State Jay Ashcroft said he is happy to “offer our support in the collective effort to enhance the American people’s confidence in the integrity of the system.” Ashcroft’s spokeswoman, Maura Browning, said the state is only providing publicly available information. She said that means no Social Security numbers, no political affiliations and no details on how people voted.

___

MONTANA

Comply

Derek Oestreicher, the director of elections and voter services, said the secretary of state’s office will not release personal or confidential information such as Social Security numbers and birth dates. Information already available publicly in the state’s voter file includes a voter’s name, registration status, voting status and the reason the voter is designated as active or inactive. Voter information does not include party affiliation because Montana has an open primary system and voters do not register under any specific party.

___

NEBRASKA

Comply

Secretary of State John Gale, a Republican, says he’s willing to provide publicly available information but only with assurances that the data won’t be used in a way that runs afoul of state law. State law prohibits the use of data for commercial purposes and does not allow the release of Social Security numbers. Additionally, the law doesn’t allow the release of information such as felony convictions or whether a voter’s registration status is active or inactive, so Gale won’t release that information. Gale said he has concerns about voter privacy and wants assurances that information is protected in any kind of national database.

___

NEVADA

Comply

Republican Secretary of State Barbara Cegavske says her office has not changed its position in the wake of the renewed commission request. It will provide public information but not data kept confidential under state law such as Social Security numbers or how people voted. The state will turn over voter names, addresses, telephone numbers, dates of birth, party affiliation and turnout.

___

NEW HAMPSHIRE

Comply

As a result of a legal challenge regarding the information, New Hampshire is sending the commission millions of scanned and unsearchable images of voter information. Secretary of State Bill Gardner, a member of the commission, said his office will provide public information: names, addresses, party affiliations and voting history dating to 2006. Voting history includes whether someone voted in a general election and which party’s primary they voted in. Gardner spent several hours on Independence Day taking calls from angry residents, and said the next day that he disagrees with critics who say he lacks legal authority to send voter roll information.

___

NEW JERSEY

Comply

New Jersey Elections Director Robert Giles said in August that he had sent data to the commission. The records included the names, addresses and history of which elections voters cast ballots in. It did not include partial Social Security numbers, which are not public records in the state.

___

NEW MEXICO

Deny

Democratic Secretary of State Maggie Toulouse-Oliver has reaffirmed that she will never release personally identifiable information for New Mexico voters that is protected by law, including Social Security numbers and dates of birth. She says that sharing that information with the commission may discourage people from registering to vote. She has declined to provide information such as names and voting histories unless she is convinced the information is secure and will not be used for “nefarious or unlawful purposes.”

___

NEW YORK

Comply

Officials announced Aug. 2 that they would honor a new public information request from the commission but would not supply some details, such as Social Security numbers. This represents a reversal for the state. Democratic Gov. Andrew Cuomo said the state would not comply, in part because the state “refuses to perpetuate the myth voter fraud played a role in our election.”

___

NORTH CAROLINA

Comply

North Carolina’s elections board has provided a link to election data already accessible by the public that leave out voters’ birth dates and Social Security and driver’s license numbers, which are confidential. The public information does include voters’ names, addresses, political affiliations, demographic data and participation in past elections.

___

NORTH DAKOTA

Deny

Secretary of State Al Jaeger notified the commission in September that North Dakota will not release the information. Jaeger noted that North Dakota does not have voter registration and state law forbids the state from releasing details about voters.

___

OHIO

Comply

Secretary of State Jon Husted, a Republican, issued a statement saying voter registration information is already public and available to the commission but that he will not provide the last four digits of voters’ Social Security numbers or their driver’s license numbers. He also said voter fraud is rare in the state and that bipartisan boards have conducted reviews of credible reports of voter fraud and suppression after the last three federal elections. Those results are in the public domain and available to the commission, he said. Husted added, “In responding to the commission, we will have ideas on how the federal government can better support states in running elections. However, we will make it clear that we do not want any federal intervention in our state’s right and responsibility to conduct elections.”

___

OKLAHOMA

Comply

A spokesman for the Oklahoma State Election Board said the state will not provide the last four digits of voters’ Social Security numbers. “That’s not publicly available under the laws of our state,” Bryan Dean said. He said the commission’s request will be treated like any other from the general public. The election board will tell the panel to fill out a form available online asking for the information. Oklahoma’s voter roll is routinely provided to political campaigns, the press and other groups that ask for it. Dean reaffirmed on July 27 that the agency will provide the same information to the commission that is available to the general public.

___

OREGON

Comply

The state turned over its voter list after the Trump voting commission paid the $500 fee. Secretary of State Dennis Richardson, a Republican, said he is prohibited by law from disclosing Social Security and driver’s license numbers. Made available to the commission were names, addresses, effective registration dates and status, birth year, precinct name, political party affiliation and voter participation history. Two members of Oregon’s congressional delegation and Democratic Gov. Kate Brown had urged Richardson to refuse the commission’s request. Richardson said in a letter to Kobach that there is “very little evidence” of voter fraud or registration fraud in Oregon. “I do not believe the federal government should be involved in dictating how states conduct their elections,” he said.

___

PENNSYLVANIA

Comply

Gov. Tom Wolf, a Democrat, wrote a long letter saying that the state will not cooperate at all but that the state will sell them the same data the public can purchase. It can’t be posted online, however.

___

RHODE ISLAND

Comply

Secretary of State Nellie Gorbea, a Democrat, says she won’t share some of the voter information requested by the presidential commission. Gorbea says she won’t release Social Security information or information regarding felony or military status.

___

SOUTH CAROLINA

Deny

The state’s election commission said in a statement that “release of voter data to anyone who is not a registered South Carolina voter is not permitted by state law.” Voter data (except party affiliation and Social Security numbers) are available to South Carolina residents for $2,500 as long as it is not used for commercial purposes. In mid-August, the state Republican Party purchased both the statewide file and an updated file on voters in the 5th Congressional District — following a June special election — for about $2,900. It sent the information to the national GOP, state director Hope Walker said. The state party will send the information to the Trump administration whenever it’s requested, she said.

___

SOUTH DAKOTA

Comply

Secretary of State Shantel Krebs said the commission can buy South Dakota’s statewide voter registration file for $2,500. Krebs initially declined to share information but said the commission’s second request asked for data that is available to anyone under state law. Driver’s license and Social Security numbers, as well as full birth dates, will be redacted.

___

TENNESSEE

Deny

Secretary of State Tre Hargett, a Republican: “Although I appreciate the commission’s mission to address election-related issues, like voter fraud, Tennessee state law does not allow my office to release the voter information requested to the federal commission.”

___

TEXAS

Pending

Although Texas Secretary of State Rolando Pablos, a Republican, said he would provide publicly available information, a state judge in early October issued a temporary restraining order that prohibited its release. Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton appealed that order, and a hearing was scheduled for Oct. 23.

___

UTAH

Pending

Republican Lt. Gov. Spencer Cox said he will send information classified as public, but voters’ Social Security numbers and dates of birth are protected. However, the data has not been sent because of a pending lawsuit in the state.

___

VERMONT

Deny

Democratic Secretary of State Jim Condos says he is awaiting the outcome of lawsuits filed against the commission. He said there is no evidence of the kind of fraud alleged by Trump. “I believe these unproven claims are an effort to set the stage to weaken our democratic process through a systematic national effort of voter suppression and intimidation,” Condos said.

___

VIRGINIA

Deny

“At best, this commission was set up as a pretext to validate Donald Trump’s alternative election facts, and at worst is a tool to commit large-scale voter suppression,” said Democratic Gov. Terry McAuliffe.

___

WASHINGTON

Comply

Secretary of State Kim Wyman, a Republican, has directed the commission to her office’s website, where it can request a download of the voter registration database. Names, addresses and dates of birth are the only public information. Social Security numbers, driver’s license numbers, phone numbers and email addresses are not public records and will not be released.

___

WEST VIRGINIA

Comply

Republican Secretary of State Mac Warner’s office said in a statement that state law prohibits disclosing Social Security and driver’s license numbers, phone numbers and some other details. The office also notes that it can charge $500 for the voter registration list and another $500 for data that shows elections in which each voter cast a ballot.

___

WISCONSIN

Comply

Administrator Mike Haas issued a statement saying most of the information in the state’s voter registration system is public, including voters’ names, addresses and voting history. The state doesn’t collect any data about a voter’s political preference or gender, he said.

The data is available for purchase and must be release to buyers, Haas said, adding that the commission routinely sells the information to political parties, candidates and researchers. The commission would charge the presidential panel $12,500 for the data, the maximum amount allowed under agency rules, he said. State law doesn’t contain any provisions for waiving the fee, he said.  Wisconsin law allows the commission to share voter birthdates, driver’s license numbers and Social Security numbers only with police and other state agencies, and the presidential commission doesn’t appear to qualify, he said.

___

WYOMING

Deny

Secretary of State Ed Murray, a Republican, said in a statement that he would “safeguard the privacy of Wyoming’s voters because of my strong belief in a citizen’s right to privacy.” Also, he expressed concern the request could lead to “federal overreach.”

 

[WiseGirl]

2 hours ago, fraurosena said:

 To be honest, I'm quite looking forward to seeing him squirm uncomfortably under oath, and trying to bluster his way through. So I really, really hope it will be a public testimony, not behind closed doors! 

Oh, as long as we are talking about Christmas,  what a lovely gift this would be to WiseGirl. Please, please be public testimony.

Love the title @Destiny now if King could only write TT out of office.....

[47of74]

1 hour ago, fraurosena said:

Remember that so-called voter fraud commission? Here's an uplifting update on that. It seems compliance of any information other than that which is already publically available is almost non-existant.

More than a dozen states still refuse to release voter data

 

Well I know here in Iowa Paul Pate would love to release everything der Trumpenführer's voter suppression commission wants to them.  Only thing that's stopping him is state law.  I'm surprised he isn't bugging the legislature to change Iowa law to allow him to do so.

[Dandruff]

19 hours ago, GreyhoundFan said:

Telling a revved-up Values Voter audience that he is “stopping cold the attacks on Judeo-Christian values,” Trump suggested to the crowd, which already thinks a “war on Christianity” is being waged, that invoking “Merry Christmas” is a way of fighting back.

How will saying "Merry Christmas" to a Jewish person stop attacks on Judeo-Christian values?