Trump 17: James Comey and the Goblin of "You're Fired"

[GreyhoundFan]

"The federal appeals court that Trump hates the most will now hear arguments on his travel ban"

Spoiler

A federal appeals court that President Trump has frequently criticized is to hear arguments Monday on whether to restore his controversial travel ban — a significant step in the legal battle that has prevented Trump from implementing one of his signature initiatives on immigration.

A three-judge panel with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit will join the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit in deciding whether Trump ran afoul of the Constitution when he tried to temporarily shut down the U.S. refu­gee program and suspend the issuance of new visas to residents of six Muslim-majority countries.

The 9th Circuit blocked Trump’s first travel ban, and now a different set of judges on the panel will weigh a revised version.

The 4th Circuit, which is based in Richmond, heard arguments on the matter last week.

...

Last week, a federal judge in Michigan ordered the Trump administration to turn over communications from former New York mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani and other advisers — whose comments judges nationwide have pointed to as they have ordered to freeze the ban. That case is separate from the two that have put Trump’s latest ban on hold.

U.S. district judges in Hawaii and Maryland have ordered key sections of the president’s order frozen, and to fully reinstate the measure, the Justice Department would have to win in both the 4th and 9th circuits — or escalate the dispute to the Supreme Court.

The three judges considering the matter in the 9th Circuit — Michael Daly Hawkins, Ronald M. Gould and Richard A. Paez — were appointed by President Bill Clinton. The 4th Circuit heard the case with all its judges, a step the 9th Circuit declined to take.

Trump has not been shy about criticizing judges who rule against him, but he seems to have particular ire for the 9th Circuit. When U.S. District Judge William Orrick blocked his executive order on stripping federal funding from sanctuary cities, Trump incorrectly attributed the decision to the 9th Circuit as he wrote on Twitter, “First the Ninth Circuit rules against the ban & now it hits again on sanctuary cities — both ridiculous rulings. See you in the Supreme Court!” Orrick is a ­lower-court judge whose rulings would be reviewed by the 9th Circuit.

...

The arguments are scheduled to begin at 12:30 p.m. Eastern time (9:30 a.m. in Seattle).

I'm sure the twitter storm will be fierce.

[sawasdee]

I'm really enjoying Jennifer Rubin in the WaPo nowadays - a Republican columnist who hasn't drunk the Kool Aid!

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/wp/2017/05/15/day-by-day-trump-becomes-more-dishonest-and-disliked

I don't know how to quote an article from another source - can someone enlighten me? That's why I only post links...and I know WaPo has a limit on the number of free articles.

[GreyhoundFan]

This is interesting: "Political chaos in Washington is a return on investment for Moscow"

Spoiler

Russia has yet to collect much of what it hoped for from the Trump administration, including the lifting of U.S. sanctions and recognition of its annexation of Crimea.

But the Kremlin has collected a different return on its effort to help elect Trump in last year’s election: chaos in Washington.

The president’s decision to fire FBI Director James B. Comey last week was the latest destabilizing jolt to a core institution of the U.S. government. The nation’s top law enforcement agency joined a list of entities that Trump has targeted, including federal judges, U.S. spy services, news organizations and military alliances.

The instability, although driven by Trump, has in some ways extended and amplified the effect Russia sought to achieve with its unprecedented campaign to undermine the 2016 presidential race.

In a declassified report released this year, U.S. spy agencies described destabilization as one of Russian President Vladi­mir Putin’s objectives.

“The Kremlin sought to advance its longstanding desire to undermine the U.S.-led liberal democratic order,” it said.

Russia’s “active measures” campaign ended with the election last year. But Comey’s firing on Tuesday triggered a new wave of ­Russia-related turbulence.

His removal was perceived as a blow to the independence of the bureau’s ongoing investigation of possible collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia. Current and former U.S. officials said that even if that probe remains on track, Comey’s ouster serves broader Russian interests.

“They feel pretty good overall because that’s a further sign that our political system is in a real crisis,” said Eugene Rumer, a former State Department official who served as the top intelligence officer on Russia issues from 2010 to 2014. “The firing of Comey only aggravates this crisis. It’s now certain to be more protracted and more painful, and that’s okay with them.”

James R. Clapper Jr., the former director of national intelligence, offered a similar assessment in Senate testimony last week, even before Comey was dismissed, saying that Moscow must look on the election and its aftermath with a great deal of satisfaction.

“The Russians have to be celebrating the success of . . . what they set out do with rather minimal resource expenditure,” Clapper said. “The first objective was to sow discord and dissension, which they certainly did.”

Clapper went further in interviews on Sunday, saying that U.S. institutions are “under assault” from Trump and that Russia must see the firing of Comey as “another victory on the scoreboard for them.”

Even Trump alluded to Russia’s presumed glee at the post-Comey turmoil, although he blamed Democrats. “Russia must be laughing up their sleeves watching as the U.S. tears itself apart over a Democrat EXCUSE for losing the election,” Trump said in Twitter post on Thursday.

If Russia’s most specific priorities have proved elusive, it may be partly because Moscow overachieved in its effort to cultivate ties to Trump.

Former national security adviser Michael Flynn, who shared many of Trump’s pro-Russia positions, was forced to resign in February after it was revealed that he had misled other White House officials about his post-election conversations with Sergey Kislyak, the Russian ambassador to the United States.

In a late December phone call that was intercepted by U.S. intelligence, Flynn assured Kislyak that Trump planned to revisit the sanctions issue shortly after taking office. Trump has so far not followed through on that front, largely because the Flynn controversy and multiple Russia probes have made it politically unfeasible.

Trump’s policies toward Russia have also taken a harder line in part because of the rising influence of senior members of his administration, including Defense Secretary Jim Mattis and CIA Director Mike Pompeo, who are critics of Moscow.

Even so, Trump himself continues to send pro-Russia signals, sometimes at the expense of agencies that report to him. Trump recently signaled, again, that he remains unconvinced that Russia was behind the hack of the 2016 election and release of tens of thousands of emails that damaged Hillary Clinton’s campaign. His position is a rejection of the consensus view of U.S. intelligence agencies.

Trump has provided a steady stream of material for Russian propaganda platforms.

One day after firing Comey, Trump welcomed Russia’s foreign minister, Sergei Lavrov, to the White House. U.S. news agencies were barred from attending, but a photographer for Russia’s state-run Tass news agency was granted access to the Oval Office.

Photos released later in the day showed Trump warmly welcoming his guests, including a shot that showed Trump smiling and shaking hands with Kislyak, the ambassador embroiled in the controversy with Flynn.

Russian officials have denied the country meddled in the U.S. election. In brief public appearances last week, Lavrov joked about Comey’s dismissal — “Was he fired? You’re kidding!” — and mocked claims of Moscow interference.

“We are monitoring what is going on here concerning Russia and its alleged ‘decisive role’ in your domestic policy,” Lavrov said in a quote reported by Tass.

Trump’s defenders acknowledge that he seeks improved relations with Moscow but insist that his goals are designed entirely to advance U.S. interests.

They point to sharp criticism of Moscow by senior administration officials, strained diplomatic relations on key issues and Trump’s decision to order a missile strike on an air base in Syria where Russian military operatives were based as part of Moscow’s support to Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.

The assertion that the Trump administration has been advantageous to Moscow “is laughable,” said James Carafano, the vice president of foreign and defense policy at the Heritage Foundation, who served as an adviser to the Trump transition team. “The president has actually stiff-armed them on a number of occasions.”

But critics argue that many of Trump’s foreign policy positions undercut U.S. influence overseas and, as a result, strengthen Moscow — his effective endorsement of nationalist candidates including Marine Le Pen in France; his effort to impose an immigration ban on Muslim-majority countries; and his threats, since softened, to restructure NATO.

Trump has repeatedly dismissed allegations of ties between his campaign and Russia as “fake news.” The White House insisted that Comey’s firing was based solely on his handling of the investigation of Clinton’s emails.

But Trump’s own later statements made clear the decision was linked to his frustration that the Russia inquiry was expanding under Comey, a director whom Trump viewed as disloyal.

Trump had telegraphed the move a day earlier on Twitter, saying: “The Russia-Trump collusion story is a total hoax, when will this taxpayer funded charade end?”

The implication that the FBI would perpetuate an unwarranted investigation out of political animus echoes other instances in which Trump has disparaged U.S. institutions or principles.

U.S. intelligence officials said such comments bolster the case that Putin makes against Western democracies.

“It plays into the idea that we are as corrupt as anybody else, that what the United States is exporting isn’t something you want,” said a former senior U.S. intelligence official involved in tracking the Russian election hack and its aftermath. The official spoke on the condition of anonymity, citing the sensitivity of the issue.

With sanctions still in place, Russia may think that the election interference “didn’t pan out the way they expected,” the official said. “But what they’re getting now is more positive than what they had under [President Barack] Obama and what they feared under Clinton. It’s not pro-Russia, but it’s certainly not anti-Russia. It’s more a kind of chaos. And that does benefit them.”

It's scary that they are getting what they want at the expense of our way of life.

[sawasdee]

The more I read how Faux News is presenting the present situation, the more I believe that it is essential that  the reinstatement of  the 'Fairness Doctrine' from 1949, which was eliminated in 1987, becomes a priority.

From Wikipedia - yes, I know not the greatest source, but it's a good summary -
 

Quote

 

The Fairness Doctrine was a policy of the United States Federal Communications Commission (FCC), introduced in 1949, that required the holders of broadcast licenses both to present controversial issues of public importance and to do so in a manner that was — in the Commission's view — honest, equitable, and balanced. The FCC, which was believed to have been under pressure from then President Ronald Reagan, eliminated the Doctrine in 1987. The FCC formally removed the language that implemented the Doctrine, in August of 2011.[1]

The Fairness Doctrine had two basic elements: It required broadcasters to devote some of their airtime to discussing controversial matters of public interest, and to air contrasting views regarding those matters. Stations were given wide latitude as to how to provide contrasting views: It could be done through news segments, public affairs shows, or editorials. The doctrine did not require equal time for opposing views but required that contrasting viewpoints be presented. The demise of this FCC rule has been considered by some to be a contributing factor for the rising level of party polarization in the United States.

 

I think the election would have had a very different result if the doctrine had still been in play. I believe its elimination facilitated not just the rise of Faux News, but also Right wing talk radio , which has been enormously effective in its propaganda.

[sawasdee]

https://redirect.viglink.com/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fpbs.twimg.com%2Fmedia%2FC_rDW-vVYAE1U55.jpg&key=cfdfcf52dffd0a702a61bad27507376d

My favourite characters of all time  - and it made me laugh out loud!

[laPapessaGiovanna]

 

1 hour ago, sawasdee said:

I'm really enjoying Jennifer Rubin in the WaPo nowadays - a Republican columnist who hasn't drunk the Kool Aid!

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/wp/2017/05/15/day-by-day-trump-becomes-more-dishonest-and-disliked

I don't know how to quote an article from another source - can someone enlighten me? That's why I only post links...and I know WaPo has a limit on the number of free articles.

Spoiler

Supporters of President Trump, who is already uniquely unpopular, keep promising a comeback. Less than two weeks after Trump pushed his health-care bill through the House and slightly more than a month after Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch was sworn in, Trump’s favorability numbers are getting worse.

Newsletters & Alerts

Gift Subscriptions

Contact Us

Help Desk

Subscribe

Sign In

Subscribe

Home Page 

U.S. & World | Regional

Politics

 

Opinions

Sports

 

Local

National

 

World

Business

 

Tech

Lifestyle

 

Entertainment

Crosswords

 

Video

Newsletters & Alerts

 

Podcasts

Photography

 

Washington Post Live

Live Chats

 

Real Estate

Cars

 

Jobs

Classifieds

 

Partners

WP BrandStudio

washingtonpost.com

1996-2017 The Washington Post

Terms of Service

Privacy Policy

Submissions and Discussion Policy

RSS Terms of Service

Ad Choices

Right Turn

 Opinion

Day by day, Trump becomes more dishonest and disliked

By Jennifer Rubin May 15 at 11:30 AM

President Trump celebrates with House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.), third from right, and other House representatives after the House pushed through a health-care bill this month at the White House in Washington. (Jabin Botsford/The Washington Post)

Supporters of President Trump, who is already uniquely unpopular, keep promising a comeback. Less than two weeks after Trump pushed his health-care bill through the House and slightly more than a month after Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch was sworn in, Trump’s favorability numbers are getting worse.

Trump has not recovered any ground with voters. His favorability rating has slipped below 40 percent (the NBC News-Wall Street Journal poll shows that 38 percent have a positive view of him, while 52 percent have a negative view; in the Quinnipiac poll, 36 percent approve of the job Trump is doing, while 58 percent disapprove). His signature health-care bill has putrid ratings (only 23 percent in the NBC-WSJ poll like it, while just 21 percent in Quinnipiac do). More voters disapprove (38 percent) of his firing of former FBI director James B. Comey than approve in the NBC-WSJ poll.

Ironically, Trump has the Hillary Clinton problem —  times a thousand. Americans think he is dishonest. Quinnipiac’s poll, for example, shows voters by a margin of 61 percent to 33 percent say he is not honest. (The numbers worsened from a 58 percent/37 percent split in April.) Trump is now in the peculiar situation where he is not believed even when he wanders in the vicinity of the truth. And his own refusal to admit error requires him to double down on indefensible lies. Say, for example, that there are no White House “tapes.” Trump may refuse to admit he was bluffing, thereby forcing Congress to subpoena records and wage a legal battle over nonexistent tapes. (If there are tapes, Trump likely is in deeper trouble, having related many stories as to what people told him in private — stories that are patently ludicrous.)

In a situation like the Comey firing, the unpopular, untrustworthy president argues that the popular FBI (52 percent approve/16 percent disapprove in the NBC-WSJ poll) has engaged in some kind of witch hunt and further claims that he has been exonerated. Whom do we think the public believes? Yup: A strong plurality of Americans in the same poll say they think Trump fired Comey to shut down the Russia investigation and also say the firing raised more doubts about Trump. By large margins, other polls show that the public (not to mention Trump’s entire national security team) thinks that Russia did, in fact, meddle in the election. Majorities consider the investigation to be important enough as to justify an independent prosecutor/counsel.

Put simply, the American people are reaching the conclusion that the president is manifestly dishonest; since Republicans are unwilling to call him out or pursue evidence of wrongdoing (e.g. conflicts of interest, obstruction of justice, violation of the Constitution’s emoluments clause), voters cannot be blamed for figuring that their only choice is to elect Democrats in 2018.

I liked this piece a lot, considering that it comes from a conservative.

[sawasdee]

Can't US MSM air these two documentaries?

http://www.rawstory.com/2017/05/watch-explosive-dutch-documentary-says-trump-has-deep-ties-to-russias-mafia-underworld

The Dutch media are doing a better job of investigating tRump than Congress....

[GreyhoundFan]

Because of course not: "Why Congress will probably never see Trump’s ‘tapes’ of his conversations with James Comey"

Spoiler

Top Democrats and Republicans in Congress may say they want to get their hands on any tapes President Trump may have made of his conversations with FBI Director James B. Comey, which could lend clues as to why Trump fired him.

And if the president won't hand them over, Congress could force him. But almost no one in Congress seems willing to take that step.

First, how Congress could get the tapes: Congress could issue a subpoena requiring Trump to give them the recordings (assuming the tapes actually exist, about which many lawmakers are skeptical). A subpoena would essentially put the president afoul of the law if he doesn't hand them over to Congress. The Senate Intelligence Committee recently issued a subpoena to force Trump's former national security adviser, Michael Flynn, to hand over documents related to the committee's Russia investigation.

But issuing a subpoena is a serious thing, and it requires both Democrats and Republicans to agree to it. There's no indication Republicans are willing to put their president on the spot for his "tapes." In fact, very few Democrats are even talking about a subpoena.

Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.), one of the most vocal Republicans in the Senate to be asking for the tapes, seems interested in forcing Trump to hand them over. “If there are any tapes of this conversation, they need to be turned over,” Graham told NBC’s “Meet the Press,” on Sunday.

But Graham didn't say whether he'd support a subpoena to get the tapes. His office declined to elaborate except to point to the fact that subpoenas are traditionally used for criminal investigations and Trump's firing of his FBI director is not one.

Sen. Mark R. Warner (D-Va.) is the top Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee. He told ABC's “This Week” that he'd “absolutely” support a subpoena for the Trump tapes. But top Democrats on other committees haven't said much, if anything, about it.

A subpoena isn't Congress's only tool to force Trump's hand: It could also vote to hold the president in contempt of Congress or even use a long-dormant power to hold him or people involved in the taping in jail until he complies.

All of this would, obviously, be a significant escalation between Congress and the White House. And no one in Washington is even sure if Trump actually recorded his conversations with Comey. Add that together, and you can see why Republicans seem adverse to entertaining the idea of subpoenaing the president: It could be a huge battle over nothing.

An important caveat: Democrats don't need ALL Republicans in Congress to help them force Trump to hand over tapes/call the president's bluff. They only need a handful of Republicans. Let's look at the Senate, where most of the conversations about the tapes seems to be centered, for how this could work:

1) The chair of a committee that oversees the FBI agrees to issue a subpoena.

The two committees that have jurisdiction over the FBI are the Senate Intelligence and Senate Judiciary committees.

BUT: Since Republicans control Congress, both are controlled by Republicans — Sens. Richard Burr (N.C.) and Charles E. Grassley (Iowa), respectively. And neither has expressed any interest in subpoenaing the president; neither has even indicated they want to see the tapes.

2) A majority of committee members vote to issue a subpoena. In the Senate Intelligence Committee, which is investigating Trump-Russia ties, that would mean all Democrats and at least one Republican would have to vote to issue a subpoena. In the Senate Judiciary Committee, which Graham sits on, Democrats would need at least two Republicans to join them.

BUT: Here, too, Republicans have the upper hand. On the Senate Judiciary Committee, Democrats' most sympathetic ear would probably be Graham, and for now, he doesn't seam supportive of the idea.

The bottom line: Anyone in Congress who wants to see Trump's “tapes” will have to rely on the power of persuasion to get Trump to hand them over, or hope that Republicans suddenly see a political upside to embarrassing their president.

 

 

[GreyhoundFan]

I love me some George Takei. And agree with him...

[Howl]

44 minutes ago, sawasdee said:

Can't US MSM air these two documentaries?

http://www.rawstory.com/2017/05/watch-explosive-dutch-documentary-says-trump-has-deep-ties-to-russias-mafia-underworld

The Dutch media are doing a better job of investigating tRump than Congress....

This has been covered to some degree in TalkingPointsMemo.com

Josh Marshall's point -- when Trump had stiffed so many people on his construction deals, US banks would no longer lend to him.  Trump turned to Russian for money, and all Russian money is murky, dirty money.   And how do you launder huge amounts of murky, dirty money?  Real estate deals do just fine.  Just google "how to launder dirty money through real estate" and a lot of links turn up.  

 

[GreyhoundFan]

"Trump’s Madness Invites Mutiny"

Quote

When people behave as if they have something to hide, it is often because they do. For me, this is a basic law of human behavior.

That’s why President Trump’s baffling, outrageous, unfathomable and just plain bizarre behavior last week strengthened my already strong suspicions that there is something that Trump knows about the investigations into his campaign’s contacts with Russia that he doesn’t want us to know.

That is the only way that I can make sense of what happened: These are either the machinations of concealment, expressions of a burgeoning insanity, or both.

The details of the most recent episode in the Trump madness are now well known and yet every new detail that helps add texture to the story also renders it more horrifyingly egregious.

...

"Horrifyingly egregious" could be the motto of this administration.

 

Quote

...

Many of those questions rise not from clandestine sources, but rather from Trump himself. He is talking and tweeting himself into legal jeopardy. He can’t seem to help himself. Something in the man is broken.

He is insecure, paranoid and brittle, jostling between egomania and narcissism, intoxicated with a power beyond his meager comprehension and indulging in it beyond the point of abuse.

Some people are ebulliently optimistic that the abomination is coming undone and may soon be at an end.

But I would caution that this is a moment pregnant with calamity.

The man we see unraveling before our eyes still retains the power of the presidency until such time as he doesn’t, and that time of termination is by no means assured.

Trump is now a wounded animal, desperate and dangerous. Survival is an overwhelming, instinctual impulse, and one should put nothing beyond a being who is bent on ensuring it.

...

Yup, wounded animal. He's like a bear who has a paw in a trap, desperate and lashing out.

 

Quote

Banking on an easy impeachment or resignation or a shiny set of handcuffs is incredibly tempting for those drained and depressed by Trump’s unabated absurdities, perversions of truth and facts and assaults on custom, normalcy and civility.

But banking on this is, at this point, premature. I share the yearning. A case for removal can most definitely be made and has merit. But there remain untold steps between plausibility and probability. Expectations must be managed so that hopes aren’t dashed if the mark isn’t immediately met.

...

I think this is the hardest thing -- we all want him (and the rest of his cronies) out NOW.

 

Quote

There are incredibly encouraging signs that the Comey debacle has crystallized sentiment about the severity of Trump’s abnormality and the urgent need for an independent investigation into the Russia connection.

Last week after Comey was fired, 20 attorneys general sent a letter to the Department of Justice urging it to immediately appoint an independent special counsel to oversee the investigation. The letter read in part:

“As the chief law enforcement officers of our respective states, we view the President’s firing of F.B.I. Director James Comey in the middle of his investigation of Russian interference in the presidential election as a violation of the public trust. As prosecutors committed to the rule of law, we urge you to consider the damage to our democratic system of any attempts by the administration to derail and delegitimize the investigation.”

...

Sadly, I'm sure Donnie DF didn't read even a part of the letter.

 

Quote

Furthermore, according to a poll released on Thursday: “A majority of Americans — 54 percent — think that President Donald Trump’s abrupt dismissal of F.B.I. Director James Comey was not appropriate, while 46 percent think that Comey was fired due to the Russia investigation, according to results from a new NBC News|SurveyMonkey poll.”

This followed a Quinnipiac Poll taken before the Comey firing that found: “American voters, who gave President Donald Trump a slight approval bump after the missile strike in Syria, today give him a near-record negative 36-58 percent job approval rating.”

The report continued: “Critical are big losses among white voters with no college degree, white men and independent voters.”

The army of righteous truth-seekers is gathering; the hordes of sycophants are faltering. The challenge now is to keep the media’s microscope trained on this issue and to keep applying sufficient pressure to elected officials.

...

YES

 

Quote

We may have reached an inflection point at which even partisans grow weary of the barrage of lies and the indefensible behavior, and Republican representatives finally realize that they are constitutional officers who must defend the country even if it damages their party.

Something is happening. It’s in the air. It is an awakening, it is an adjustment, it is a growing up.

The American public, myself included, needs to grow up. There is no hope for the tangerine toddler.

[Destiny]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/trump-revealed-highly-classified-information-to-russian-foreign-minister-and-ambassador/2017/05/15/530c172a-3960-11e7-9e48-c4f199710b69_story.html?utm_term=.a5ff29e5cb87

President Trump revealed highly classified information to the Russian foreign minister and ambassador in a White House meeting last week, according to current and former U.S. officials, who said that Trump’s disclosures jeopardized a critical source of intelligence on the Islamic State.

http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_591a1b39e4b07d5f6ba55159

(HuffPo link gives most of the story and links to WaPo that broke the story, but I thought I'd include the link for those who might not have access to WaPo.)

.....can we impeach him now?

 

[sawasdee]

Well, that's one country that won't be sharing intel with the US for much longer.....

The damage this insane toddler is doing is incalculable.

[Penny]

Just when I think the Tangerine Toddler can't do anything else to surprise me, he does. I am ready for him to be taken away in handcuffs now!

[47of74]

Yeah I was just coming here to talk about fuckhead revealing classified stuff to the Russians.  I'm guessing the Republican Congress won't have a fucking word to say about this either.  Of course you know if Mrs. Clinton was in the White House and did something even the slightest bit similar they'd be adding that to the list of things they would want her jailed for. 

[sawasdee]

@47of74 The hypocrisy is breathtaking - if she had done - or been accused of doing -  any one of the things the TT has, she'd be on the road to impeachment. Emoluments, nepotism, obstruction of justice, even - perhaps - treason - are all on TT's plate.

[AnywhereButHere]

MSNBC just played a montage of clips from the campaign where Caligula was castigating Clinton, saying that she was a security threat, leaking classified information, how he would hold everyone accountable for this serious crime, and no one was above the law. 

McMasters, Spicer and crew are all tap dancing and spinning away, and meanwhile some poor source, risking his/her life to get us intel is now in grave danger because the Orange emperor has to prove to his Russian buddies that he has the "best intel, the best words ever". Our country is in the hands of a dangerous child. 

[47of74]

Just now, AnywhereButHere said:

MSNBC just played a montage of clips from the campaign where Caligula was castigating Clinton, saying that she was a security threat, leaking classified information, how he would hold everyone accountable for this serious crime, and no one was above the law. 

McMasters, Spicer and crew are all tap dancing and spinning away, and meanwhile some poor source, risking his/her life to get us intel is now in grave danger because the Orange emperor has to prove to his Russian buddies that he has the "best intel, the best words ever". Our country is in the hands of a dangerous child. 

A child known as Kim Jong Fuckhead, which I have added to the list of names for the current occupant of 1600.

[Rachel333]

We probably can't impeach him for this since it isn't technically illegal, but this is still incredibly serious.

[Destiny]

We probably can't impeach him for this since it isn't technically illegal, but this is still incredibly serious.

Sadly you are right, but at some point some republicans have to care more about country than party, right?

[nvmbr02]

3 minutes ago, Rachel333 said:

We probably can't impeach him for this since it isn't technically illegal, but this is still incredibly serious.

Yes, it doesn't sound like it is impeachable since the president can technically declassify whatever he wishes but hopefully it will serve as a wakeup call to the GOP. I heard on CNN that Senator Corker a republican from TN is in a "downward spiral"

 

Here is a link to his full comment

http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/333507-gop-senator-white-house-in-downward-spiral

[RoseWilder]

6 hours ago, sawasdee said:

I don't know how to quote an article from another source - can someone enlighten me? That's why I only post links...and I know WaPo has a limit on the number of free articles.

When you start writing a comment, a box appears at the top that has B, an I that's in italics, a U that's underlined and so on. Click on the icon that looks like quotation marks (it's the 6th one from the left) and a box will appear. You copy the part of the article you want to quote and then paste it into this box. 

[Bethella]

Is it bad that my first thought on reading about this was to hope that the country that gave us the information raises a big stink about it? I suppose there's a slight chance that international pressure will get the repubs to listen.

[Childless]

If he can't keep his mouth shut, allies are going to stop sharing information with the U.S.  It'll be hard to deal with North Korea or ISIL if others aren't willing to work with us anymore.  I wonder how hard it will be to keep and recruit intelligence agents when it's possible the president will run his pie hole and put their lives in danger.  I certainly wouldn't entertain a career in the CIA/FBI/NSA/etc. while this administration is in office.

[Destiny]

St. Rachel is on FIRE tonight. Watch if you can.