Trump 29: Divider In Chief or Liar In Chief? WHY NOT BOTH?

[fraurosena]

So now he's not only attacking the FBI and DOJ, it's the State Department too? There is no end to the conspiracy theories spewed by Faux, and their official mouthpiece, Trump.

 

[Howl]

So bizarre when SCROTUS refers to himself in the 3rd person.  

Got to credit him, though, with referencing both Clinton AND Obama in his tweet thread. 

[fraurosena]

55 minutes ago, Howl said:

So bizarre when SCROTUS refers to himself in the 3rd person.  

Got to credit him, though, with referencing both Clinton AND Obama in his tweet thread. 

I thought he was referring to himself in the third too, until I read the second post and noticed the quotation marks. He's actually quoting Tom Fitton in his tweet. There's nothing original about it, and the credit belongs not to him, but to Fitton... although I believe the presidunce would readily argue that point. 

As as I said in my earlier post, the presidunce is now nothing more than a mouthpiece for Faux, announcing and whipping up excitement for programs.

[GrumpyGran]

1 hour ago, fraurosena said:

I thought he was referring to himself in the third too, until I read the second post and noticed the quotation marks. He's actually quoting Tom Fitton in his tweet. There's nothing original about it, and the credit belongs not to him, but to Fitton... although I believe the presidunce would readily argue that point. 

As as I said in my earlier post, the presidunce is now nothing more than a mouthpiece for Faux, announcing and whipping up excitement for programs.

Do you think the second tweet was also a direct steal from someone on Faux? Or was it sad little Hopeless, crying in her Red Bull? Because that tweet is absolutely not him. I could do a better job of faking a tweet for the Pope.

[fraurosena]

40 minutes ago, GrumpyGran said:

Do you think the second tweet was also a direct steal from someone on Faux? Or was it sad little Hopeless, crying in her Red Bull? Because that tweet is absolutely not him. I could do a better job of faking a tweet for the Pope.

Both tweets are parts of a quote, with the dots at the end of the first and the beginning of the second connecting them into a single quote. Nothing is originally his, except maybe the 'Tom Fitton of Judicial Watch' part. As it's not his words, I don't know if he tweeted it, or some other twit pressed the buttons on his phone.

Usually, when two tweets belong together, they are numbered, like these from Mark Hamill:

 

Not only is he wonderful as Luke Skywalker and the Joker, not only is he wonderful to all his followers on twitter, not only does he post wonderful doggie pics and vids, but he also is wonderful at dissing the presidunce like this.  

[GreyhoundFan]

"Does Trump believe the women? Depends if he likes the man."

Spoiler

As a seemingly endless string of sexual misconduct and domestic abuse allegations bring down people near the center of U.S. politics and culture, some have noticed an apparent pattern in President Trump's responses to selected scandals.

We could even state it as a hypothesis:

Whether Donald Trump believes a woman's claim of sexual misconduct depends on his relationship to the accused man.

So let's test it.

Case 1: Trump's aide Rob Porter

Trump's White House staff secretary was accused of assaulting two ex-wives, which he denies. Porter resigned after the accusations and photos became public this week, but not before the White House press secretary and chief of staff both praised his character. The White House statements then spoke of shock and spousal abuse being intolerable, but Trump on Friday still praised Porter for his work, while reasserting that Porter said he was innocent. And on Saturday, Trump wrote what appeared to be a defense of his former aide:

... < the due process tweet >

Supports hypothesis.

Case 2: GOP Senate candidate Roy Moore

In December's Senate election in Alabama, Trump endorsed the Republican candidate, despite him being accused of sexual misconduct with teenage girls. Many Republicans abandoned Moore after the scandal broke, but Trump campaigned for and defended him, recognizing that Moore represented a key 52nd GOP vote in the Senate. “He totally denies it,” he  said. “He says it didn’t happen.” Trump urged Alabamians to vote for Moore for political reasons. Only after Moore lost the election did Trump rescind his support.

 Supports hypothesis.

Case 3: Trump critic Al Franken

While the Moore scandal was still playing out, the Democratic senator from Minnesota was accused of groping women. Both men denied the worst of the accusations, but as CNN noted, Trump blasted Franken and stood by Moore. “Where do his hands go?” the president wrote of the former "Saturday Night Live” cast member who often used the president as a punchline.

Supports hypothesis.

Case 4: Trump's frenemy Matt Lauer

It's unclear the relationship Trump had with Matt Lauer before the NBC anchor was accused of sexual misbehavior last year. He attacked a 2013 magazine story critical of Lauer, and Lauer had been accused of going soft on Trump when he moderated a 2016 presidential debate. But after appearing on Lauer's show in 2014, Trump appreciatively retweeted someone who called the anchor “an annoying sand gnat.” Similarly, Trump's response to Lauer's firing in November was hard to gauge. “Wow,” he tweeted, and quoted the accusations verbatim without saying if he believed them.

Unclear.

Case 5: Trump's friend Roger Ailes

Trump's relationship with the former Fox News chief is less nuanced. Under Ailes, the network helped turn Trump's candidacy from a fringe sideshow into a national movement, former Washington Post reporter Chris Cillizza wrote for CNN. The two were reportedly old friends, and Ailes was widely reported to be advising Trump's campaign in mid-2016, after he was ousted from Fox in the wake of a sexual harassment scandal. As you might expect by now, Trump defended Ailes and cast suspicion on the women accusing him. “I can tell you that some of the women that are complaining, I know how much he's helped them,” Trump said.

Supports hypothesis.

Case 6: Trump's friend Bill O'Reilly

Without getting too deep in the details, Trump was also friends with Fox News host Bill O'Reilly, who was also ousted from the network in a sexual harassment scandal, and Trump also told reporters that O'Reilly did nothing wrong.

Supports hypothesis.

Case 7: Trump's campaign manager Corey Lewandowski

“How do you know those bruises weren’t there before?” Trump asked in 2016, after a female reporter accused his campaign manager of assaulting her — an incident caught on video. Trump fired Lewandowski a few weeks later. Lewandowski was charged but not convicted of assault, and he reportedly remains in close contact with the president.

Supports hypothesis.

Case 8: Trump's profitable prizefighter, Mike Tyson

The pattern of defending allies goes back well before Trump's political ambitions. In the 1990s, CNN reported, Trump earned millions sponsoring matches with heavyweight champion Mike Tyson. Then Tyson was convicted of rape. Not only did Trump called the conviction a “travesty,” but said one of Tyson's accusers had gone to his hotel room “at her own will” and looked “happy as could be” the next day.

Supports hypothesis.

Case 9: Trump's friend Bill Clinton

Forget the epic Trump-Clinton rivalry of the modern age. Before he became a Republican politician, Trump invited both Bill and Hillary Clinton to his 2005 wedding reception, Politico reported. While it's unclear how far back the friendship went, Trump was notably sympathetic to Clinton during his presidency, when several women accused him of sexual misconduct. “His victims are terrible,” Trump said at the time. He even called Clinton “really a victim himself.”

Supports hypothesis.

Case 10: Trump's enemy Bill Clinton

Okay, now fast forward to the aforementioned epic rivalry. Whatever good will existed between Trump and the Clintons rapidly disintegrated during the 2016, when he ran against Hillary Clinton for president, and Bill Clinton often mocked Trump on the campaign trail. As Trump's friendship with Bill Clinton evaporated, so apparently did his belief in Clinton's innocence.

... < tweet where he whined about Hillary and Bill >

In case that did not sufficiently complete his about-face, Trump later invited several of Clinton's accusers to a presidential debate. Years ago, he had called them an “unattractive group”. Now he called them “courageous.”

Supports hypothesis.

Case 11: The U.S. military (when someone else led it.)

It's been all but forgotten, but Trump was portrayed sexual assault against female soldiers as an epidemic.

... < lots of whiny tweets >

But that was early in Trump's flirtation with politics, which his rival President Barack Obama was in charge of the armed forces. After he declared his candidacy in 2015, Trump awkwardly backed off his opposition to letting women serve in combat.

If Trump still considers sexual assault in the military a “massive problem” now that he's commander in chief, it's hard to find evidence of it.

Supports hypothesis.

Case 12: Donald Trump

Donald Trump is Donald Trump, and accordingly sounds convinced that more than a dozen women who have accused him of molesting or assaulting them are liars.

Supports hypothesis.

Cases 13: The counterexample

Not one of a dozen cases above contradicts the hypothesis that Trump believes women who accuse his rivals of misconduct, and disbelieves those who accuse his friends. That doesn't mean it's true, of course. At best, it's a correlation, and there's no way to be sure our list is exhaustive. We may have missed examples. But the closest thing to a contradictory case we can find is this:

In 2009, the singer Chris Brown was convicted of assaulting his girlfriend, Rihanna. Several years later, Trump heard rumors that she was dating Brown again, and warned her:

... < tweet about Rihanna >

The Washington Post can find no indication that Trump was ever involved in a political, personal or business rivalry with Brown, nor that he had ever previously expressed strong feelings about the star.

This suggests that in at least one case, Trump opinion of a woman's claim that a man abused her was on its merits, and nothing else.

 

[Howl]

3 hours ago, fraurosena said:

I thought he was referring to himself in the third too, until I read the second post and noticed the quotation marks. He's actually quoting Tom Fitton in his tweet.

Ah, got it now.

[Cleopatra7]

6 hours ago, Destiny said:

No, dipshit.  We haven't hexed the Orange Fornicate.  He's doing this all to himself. 

Uh. As a pagan myself: ....WHAT? There’s so much wrong with that I can’t even list it all. Wonder what he would make with the mister who actually considers himself a witch?

Gerald Gardner, the founder of Wicca, and the members of his coven performed a magical ritual called Operation Cone of Power during World War II to protect Britain from German aerial assaults:

http://mentalfloss.com/article/86145/operation-cone-power-when-british-witches-attacked-adolf-hitler

So I guess according to conservative logic, the Allied cause was illegitimate because British witches performed rituals to create the outcome they wanted. Also note that Gardner was a lifelong Tory; there is a long history of the European upper classes having an interest in the occult and ceremonial magic, so identifying as pagan or an occultist doesn’t necessarily correlate to being against the status quo or being politically progressive.

[Rachel333]

Dude, YOU are a perfect refutation of this. You've been accused of sexual harassment, assault, or rape by, what, 16 women and you still won the presidency. (SAD!!!)

[GreyhoundFan]

"Select the Worst Trump Minion"

Spoiler

Does every terrible employee in America work for the Trump White House?

O.K., probably not. Donald Trump didn’t hire the guy who told Hawaiians they were about to be hit by a ballistic missile. Or the airline representative who was accused of pressing a passenger to flush her hamster down the toilet.

But for overall ineptitude and ability to create crises at the highest level, you have to go with the presidential team. Just this week we had a top aide with multiple domestic abuse allegations, plus a chief of staff who never seemed to bother to pursue the matter. And a communications director — third one in a little over a year — who helped write the statement defending said aide, whom she happened to also be dating.

Obviously, the real blame falls on Trump, whose only comment on domestic abuse Friday was to say the departed aide “did a very good job.” But about the underlings — which one do you think is worst?

Besides Omarosa. Let’s think about major officials who are still standing, more or less. And while voting for John Kelly is all right, it’d be interesting to talk about somebody else for a while.

Tenure is irrelevant. Kirstjen Nielsen has only been secretary of homeland security for a couple of months, but we already know her as the woman who tried to support her boss by claiming she wasn’t sure whether Norway was a predominately white country.

Secretary of Health and Human Services Alex Azar just got appointed, so we probably can’t blame him for the fact that the head of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention was investing in tobacco company stock. However, Azar’s mission is supposed to be bringing down prescription prices, and his main qualification is having run the American division of a drug company during the five years when the price of its insulin rose from $122 to $274 a vial.

What about ineptitude? It might be a plus. Last year, when I asked readers to vote on Worst Cabinet Member, Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos won because friends of public schools were worried about her crusade for privatization. She’s still waving the flag, but she can’t seem to do much more than flap. “The bureaucracy is much more formidable and difficult than I had anticipated,” she complained.

Scott Pruitt, head of the Environmental Protection Agency, was one of the runners-up, and he’s been way more effective: Environmental protection regulations are falling left and right. And forget about global warming. (“Do we really know what the ideal surface temperature should be in the year 2100? … That’s fairly arrogant for us to think that we know exactly what it should be in 2100.”) The $25,000 super-secure phone booth is still in his office.

Attorney General Jeff Sessions is busy pushing the federal death penalty and trying to prosecute the marijuana industry in states where grass is legal. His best defense is the pity factor: Trump hates the Justice Department, and Sessions doesn’t even get invited to Camp David with the rest of the gang.

With such a depressing group, it’s a relief when you can find diversion in a cheap shot. For instance, serious people are upset at the way U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer is trying to dismember the World Trade Organization. Smaller minds are fascinated by reports that Lighthizer has a life-size portrait of himself hanging on the wall at home.

Secretary of Commerce Wilbur Ross is in charge of the upcoming census, which is underfunded, and rumors are that the chief candidate for deputy director is a highly partisan Texas professor whose book on reapportionment is subtitled “Why Competitive Elections Are Bad for America.” We could either discuss that, or the fact that Ross has allegedly irritated the president by falling asleep at meetings.

How about Secretary of the Treasury Steve Mnuchin? On the somber side you can blame Mnuchin for promoting the new, deeply complicated tax law, and being in charge of the Internal Revenue Service, which is going to be administering said law with a drastically reduced staff and a record of failing to answer 21 percent of its help-line calls. The new Trump nominee to lead the I.R.S. is a tax lawyer who specializes in defending wealthy clients against — yes! — the I.R.S. To cheer things up, we can go back to recalling the time Mnuchin posed with his wife, dressed in black opera gloves and a come-hither hairdo, admiring his signature on bills at the Bureau of Engraving and Printing.

Secretary of the Interior Ryan Zinke is well known for his enthusiasm for fossil fuel drilling. But even some of his fans were a little perplexed when he announced a policy for expanding offshore oil and gas drilling, and then abruptly added that there would be an exception for … Florida. Think it was all about Mar-a-Lago? You can contemplate that, or the fact that taxpayers paid $6,000 to helicopter Zinke to a critical appointment going horseback riding with Mike Pence.

O.K., folks: Vote for who you’d most like to see go away. No fair saying everybody.

Sadly, any one of them would be a valid candidate for "worst".

[47of74]

2 hours ago, fraurosena said:

Both tweets are parts of a quote, with the dots at the end of the first and the beginning of the second connecting them into a single quote. Nothing is originally his, except maybe the 'Tom Fitton of Judicial Watch' part. As it's not his words, I don't know if he tweeted it, or some other twit pressed the buttons on his phone.

Usually, when two tweets belong together, they are numbered, like these from Mark Hamill:

 

Not only is he wonderful as Luke Skywalker and the Joker, not only is he wonderful to all his followers on twitter, not only does he post wonderful doggie pics and vids, but he also is wonderful at dissing the presidunce like this.  

I wish Mark was able to use the Force and would walk up to Trump and say you want to resign from office, you want to give away all your wealth to the poor, and you want to go home and rethink your life.

[HoneyBunny]

1 hour ago, Rachel333 said:

Dude, YOU are a perfect refutation of this. You've been accused of sexual harassment, assault, or rape by, what, 16 women and you still won the presidency. (SAD!!!)

Let’s all remember the due process Cheeto afforded Hillary Clinton (who has been through countless investigations resulting in no criminal charges) when he encouraged thousands at his rallies to “lock her up!”  And how about that due process he granted Obama over...well, just about everything but starting with his outrageous claims that Obama wasn’t a natural born American citizen.  And then there’s the due process the FBI is getting...not!

The hypocrisy hurts. What a joke of a person, not to mention president, he is. It scares me senseless to think that so many American are so. damn. dumb. 

[onekidanddone]

1 hour ago, HoneyBunny said:

Let’s all remember the due process Cheeto afforded Hillary Clinton (who has been through countless investigations resulting in no criminal charges) when he encouraged thousands at his rallies to “lock her up!”  And how about that due process he granted Obama over...well, just about everything but starting with his outrageous claims that Obama wasn’t a natural born American citizen.  And then there’s the due process the FBI is getting...not!

The hypocrisy hurts. What a joke of a person, not to mention president, he is. It scares me senseless to think that so many American are so. damn. dumb. 

This is too dam literate so I don't believe he wrote this.  But on to his fucking His multi million dollar 'my dick is bigger parade'... who in their right mind it has anything do do with supporting the troops?  He and Pravda Fox News just peddle that so anybody who speaks up in opposition can be branded as hating America.

I went to see this woman in concert tonight. Mary Gauthier works with soldiers and their families. She runs workshops on songwriting as therapy. Here is the promo for the album.  Have a look it is only a few minutes long.

 

 

[47of74]

3 hours ago, HoneyBunny said:

The hypocrisy hurts. What a joke of a person, not to mention president, he is. It scares me senseless to think that so many American are so. damn. dumb. 

Yeah my asshole tolerance is at an all time low.  Especially for hypocrites, liars, willfully ignorant people, and most especially for Branch Trumpvidians (which are usually a combination of all of the above and then some).

I suppose the BTs will all be whining now about how fornicate face is not getting due process while they all ignore the fact that they chanted lock her up like trained goddamn seals at every turn. 

This made me think of a chance encounter I had with a couple young women in recovery over in Italy back in 2010.  They both spoke better English than many native English speakers. (Yeah, I'm looking at you Orange Doofus and Shrub).  It just seemed to me that the general level of intelligence was higher over there than it is here.   Of course I don't know how much higher since they seemed willing to put the "horrible and disgusting Silvio Berlusconi" in office, as one of the guides called him.  

   

[Bethella]

On 2/9/2018 at 3:14 PM, AmazonGrace said:

Uh Trumpster says he "just recently found out about it"

Um, FBI background checks? He doesn't bother with asking about them either?

My understanding is that the information uncovered during the background checks is private. Trump would (or should) know that Porter hadn't gotten his security clearence but not necessarily why.

[Curious]

13 hours ago, Howl said:

Ah, got it now.

If he was talking about himself he would have had his name in scare quotes....

 

[WhatWouldJohnCrichtonDo?]

18 hours ago, 47of74 said:

I wish Mark was able to use the Force and would walk up to Trump and say you want to resign from office, you want to give away all your wealth to the poor, and you want to go home and rethink your life.

I would love this, but, unfortunately I fear that there isn't enough grey matter under that orange ferret for even a Jedi to work with. 

[AmazonGrace]

 

[AnywhereButHere]

Congratulations to the Netherlands women speed skaters and their sense of humor!

 

[GrumpyGran]

2 hours ago, AmazonGrace said:

 

Does a day go by when this fool doesn't show his ignorance? I wonder what got him off on DACA yesterday? Isn't he golfing?

[GreyhoundFan]

From Jennifer Rubin: "Trump wanted to ‘lock her up’ for far less"

Spoiler

Candidate Donald Trump used, more than any other issue, Hillary Clinton’s home email server to argue that she was unfit for office and, moreover, that there were grounds for sending her to jail. The eerie chants, more common in banana republics, to imprison his opponent (“Lock her up!”) would thrill his crowds and reignite the anti-Clinton anger that had gripped Republicans for decades. For less crazed voters, it was an effective reminder of the Clintons’s proclivity to break the rules, to disregard conflicts of interest and to only grudgingly come clean when caught misbehaving. Her offense, in retrospect, seems small and innocuous, in large part because Trump’s defiance of rules, indulgence in massive conflicts of interest and habitual lying in just one year in office dwarf anything (and everything) both Clintons have done in a lifetime in the public eye.

And that brings us to President Trump’s handling and mishandling of classified information. No president has more recklessly exposed the country’s secrets than this one.

Consider that he blabbed code-word intelligence to Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov and then-Russian Ambassador to the U.S. Sergey Kislyak in the Oval Office. According to national security expert Amy Zegart of Stanford University, “On a scale of 1 to 10—and I’m just ball parking here—it’s about a billion. … The president could have jeopardized a critical source of intelligence on the Islamic State. Not America’s source. Somebody else’s. Presumably from an allied intelligence service who now knows that the American president cannot be trusted with sensitive information.”

Fast-forward to House Intelligence Chairman Devin Nunes (R-Calif.), who cooked up a memo falsely accusing the FBI of omitting information on a warrant application to the FISA court to conduct surveillance on longtime suspected spy Carter Page. Nunes has stubbornly refused to say if he drafted the memo in concert with the White House, but his refusal to deny the accusation speaks volumes. The president, contrary to the pleading of FBI Director Christopher A. Wray and Deputy Attorney General Rod J. Rosenstein, released the memo publicly, sending out to everyone on the planet a document originally labeled “top secret.” (Countless national security experts have explained that “top secret” is usually the designation of material whose release would expose sources and methods of intelligence gathering.) Trump, even before the so-called vetting process, told a lawmaker at the State of the Union address that he intended to release the memo. Keeping our nation’s secrets, as well as releasing his tax records, are hindrances to his self-protection. Therefore, top-secret classification (and personal financial transparency) be damned.

Then along comes the 10-page Democratic rebuttal to the Nunes memo. Now, Trump decides he cannot possibly release the document, at least not yet. Citing national security concerns (don’t laugh), he sent the memo back to the committee controlled by Republicans with instructions to make changes and redactions.

Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) declared via tweet, “Refusal to release Democratic response to [the] #NunesMemo [is] evidence of obstruction of justice by Donald Trump happening in real time.” The ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee, Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), declared, “You know, the reality is we have wanted to work with the bureau and the DOJ on this from the beginning. We sent them our memo even before we took it up in committee. But it’s hard to avoid the hypocrisy here of a White House that is now sending this memo back to the same committee that produced the flawed Nunes … memo.” In short, national security has become an excuse to misrepresent events to the public, not a concern that should temper the president’s legal defense strategy. Classification and protection of the nation’s secrets now take a back seat to Trump’s efforts to derail an investigation into his alleged wrongdoing. This, I am confident, Clinton would never have dared try.

To top it all off, we now know that Trump is hiring people who cannot remotely be dubbed “the best,” meaning that a flock of people, including now-former staff secretary and accused spousal abuser Rob Porter and his son-in-law (who repeatedly left out information about his foreign contacts from security clearance paperwork) have operated without permanent security clearances. The Post reports:

Dozens of White House employees, including Kushner, are still waiting for permanent clearances and have been operating for months on a temporary status that allows them to handle sensitive information while the FBI probes their backgrounds, U.S. officials have said. Two U.S. officials said they do not expect Kushner to receive a permanent security clearance in the near future.

It is not uncommon for ­security-clearance investigations to drag on for months, but Kushner’s unique situation has cast a pall over the process in the minds of some, these people said.

The president’s son-in-law and close adviser has been allowed to see materials, including the President’s Daily Brief, that are among the most sensitive in government. He has been afforded that privilege even though he has only an interim clearance and is a focus in the ongoing special counsel investigation into whether the Trump campaign coordinated with Russia to influence the election.

How many of those aides, because of issues in their past — spousal abuse, for example — could be subjected to blackmail? Have untoward connections with a hostile power? We don’t know. (“Why Kushner, along with dozens of others, continues to lack a clearance remains unclear,” The Post reports. “For many, there could be innocuous reasons — for instance, that they are getting checked for the first time, or their extensive business and foreign ties take time to explore.”) In any event, rather than remove these people from their positions, the White House allows people who have not been properly cleared to see documents that contain the intelligence community’s most sensitive information. We can only imagine what candidate Trump would have said had Clinton allowed this to go on at the State Department.

The Clinton-Derangement-Syndrome Republicans, who have tied themselves up in knots decrying the FBI for somehow going easy on Clinton (it wasn’t enough to Bigfoot her campaign 11 days before the election?) and decreed that her cavalier attitude toward national security made her unfit for office, now turn a blind eye toward Trump’s misdeeds. This is par for the course for the Trump enablers in right-wing media and in Congress: Ignore and rationalize Trump’s misconduct that is worse than anything Clinton could have imagined so as to justify support for Trump. Someone as careless and dishonest as Clinton should never have been elected president! Instead, let’s back someone infinitely worse and give him a pass each and every time he endangers national security.

That’s the mentality of Trump’s true believers and even of Republicans who fancy themselves, after a year of Trump’s grotesque abuse of power and rabid racism, as reluctant Trump backers. For the sake of a few judges or corporate tax cuts, they’ll defend with their last breath a president willing to spill our nation’s secrets, to endanger America, to protect his own hide. I cannot think of a better argument for Democrats to claim the upper hand on national security and for the GOP to go out of business.

"Clinton-Derangement-Syndrome Republicans", what a perfect name for them.

[AuntK]

The fact that Jared Kushner with his "interim security clearance," aka no security clearance, has had access for over a year to the MOST SENSITIVE material in our government is completely unacceptable, unbelievable, and imo, shows extremely poor judgment of those allowing this practice. It is reckless and foolish. I think he is as untrustworthy as anybody and I can't help but wonder how many of those briefings are sent straight to the Russian Embassy.   

[candygirl200413]

But of course with this administration they don't play by the rules.

[GreyhoundFan]

I'm still rooting for all of them to be voted off:

 

[onekidanddone]

2 hours ago, GreyhoundFan said:

I'm still rooting for all of them to be voted off:

 

Pruitt?  Where is Pruitt?