"I was just doing my job, though" says the man who shoveled Jews into furnaces.

All of these ****ers lying for this piece of **** do not deserve our "Coming around on them" or any type of adoration. They hide their contemptableness behind a veneer of loyalty to the cause, and history will see them the same way we see any of those who wound up on the wrong side of history shouting "BUT I WAS DOING MY JOB!"

your pony needs to be prayed for

Ha, fair enough. I lost track of this thread when pages and pages of internal debate appeared ....

But that picture makes me feel more and more nauseous whenever I look at it. It's hideous beyond words.

Saw someone at reddit speculate that kushner might already have a deal with mueller, possibly as a witness with immunity or even as an informant. They claim that its very strange that he has not been called to congress to testify yet given how central his figure seems to be in everyting going on that is shady. Also it is known that Trumps lawyers have a big distrust in Kushner and want Trump to get him out of the way. They might understand whats going on but Trump is too stupid.

Kushners father did some insane plots to his family members btw and went to jail for it.

Trump: "I will be very angry" if GOP senators don’t pass a health-care bill


you wouldn't like him when he's angry

Its a very tight shot, but that picture doesn't really look like run-of-the-mill praying. It looks like a "laying on of hands" which has various interpretations in churches.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christ...ng_on_of_hands

He set his brother in law up with a prostitute, had it recorded, and sent the video to his wife (Kushner's dad's sister).

i just acquired an official transcript for trump's team's response to any questions about don jr in the 2+2 in france today:

Faith healing. My Trumpist mother has participated in that cultist nonsense before. She also listens to Catholic radio whenever we're in the car. It's pathetic.

The things they say on that radio station are bat**** ****ing insane too. I've heard a bunch of over the top rhetoric from very influential priests and bishops, cardinals, whoever, about how it's a religious duty for their followers to support Trump by all means because he's going to soon start talking more about getting religion involved in politics and targeting abortion providers.

Of course, they don't support this same thing for other religions. Those are fake and their supporters are either misled or dishonest.

I really hope Macron is laying a trap to snub Trump at every opportunity. Like when Trump made fun of Obama's respect level because nobody showed up to receive Air Force One in Cuba.

C'mon France. One time!

1. So the Kremlin lawyer flew all the way to meet with the 3 stooges just to say "Gotcha! I don't really have anything interesting to tell you at all"... then flew home? #believable

2. Since Fredo has lied so many times in the last few days about every aspect of what happened, does that mean we should be skeptical of #1?

Jefferson Disregard Sessions is on a roll lately with what the WH calls transparency.

https://twitter.com/kylegriffin1/sta...79183132053507 https://twitter.com/kylegriffin1/sta...84991832104960

Will Republicans Turn on Trump?

I read an article (somewhere) or maybe heard this on radio or television, but it's something to the effect that Vice President Pence has invited lobbyists close to the Koch brothers to have dinner with him and his wife in the Vice President's residence. Pence, in a move that is regarded as a bit unusual for a "loyal" Vice President, has also established his own fundraising PAC. (He's also hired a lawyer solely to represent his interests.) These are the kinds of moves - especially setting up the PAC - usually undertaken by a politician with ambitions for higher office.

The speculation seems to center around the Koch brothers and other "economic conservatives" fearing that a precious once-in-a-lifetime opportunity, (i.e. Republicans having control of all three wings of the legislative branch of Government), is being squandered. The opportunity to achieve tax reform and other items high up on the Republican agenda is slipping away due to Trump's never ending obsession with Russia and Robert Mueller. According to this theory, the Kochs - and other (so called) "establishment" type Republicans - either have reached (or are in the process of reaching) the conclusion that nothing good is going to get accomplished as long as Trump is in the White House. So the Koch brothers are starting to think in terms of: "How do we ease Trump out -and move Pence in - before it's too late and the Democrats regain power?"

For Trump to go before his term of office expires - or before the 2018 mid-term elections - is going to require two things. First, special counsel Robert Mueller delivering a "smoking gun" report to Congress that simply can't be ignored or pushed aside. (Current estimates are that Mueller's investigation will take [at least] a year.) Second, Trump is not only impeached (in the House) but also convicted in the Senate. To be convicted and removed from office will require the votes of 67 senators - a substantial number of which will have to be Republican senators. (I figure it will take somewhere in the neighborhood of 17-20 Republican senators voting to convict.) Even if Trump gets impeached, I'm not sure there are enough Republican senators who would vote to convict, especially senators from deep red states that voted heavily for Trump - like my state of Alabama. This is a bit hyperbolic, but in states where Trump is popular I sense that his "supporters" would continue to support him - and demand that their senators support him - even if Mueller produces compelling evidence that Trump is a crook. (Trump himself thinks he is untouchable as evidenced by his comment about shooting somebody in the middle of Fifth Avenue and getting away with it.)

The quickest way I see for Trump getting booted out of office is a GOP disaster in the mid-term elections. If Republicans lose both the House and the Senate to Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi, that will be the final straw for Donald Trump. Since Republicans and Democrats are roughly balanced, I suppose it will be decided by which way independent voters go. (I'm no political clairvoyant, but I sense that a majority of independents may be leaning more toward the Democrats than the GOP - mostly due to all the chaos and paralysis being caused by Trump.)

https://twitter.com/AGSchneiderman/s...15201688240128

This is definitely a normal government just doing its job. Nothing fake at all.

Upon reflection, you're right. There is a difference between a skilled political spin master and a pathological liar with a personality disorder.

If the Trump team were to say "Once it became clear the information was going to be quid pro quo we declined and walked away" would they be admitting to a crime by not reporting it?

I tend to disagree. I worked in journalism back in the day and in my opinion there's nothing wrong with anonymous sourcing for an article provided it's been properly corroborated. Sure tabloid papers use similar wording to describe their 'sources' when they're probably just made up, but they got that habit from copying legitimate journalists, not the other way around.

As for whether the article should be published at all, I think I'm in disagreement there too. Provided it's true why shouldn't it be published? First of all these people are the ones running the most powerful nation on earth, and reports like this may provide important context into their later actions, and second of all it's still always up to the reader to discern whether the info is relevant in the first place.

It's like TV. Sure it's depressing that shows like the Real Housewives are on the air all the time, and it probably says something about the degradation of society or whatever, but we're still always left with the option of changing the channel.

At least for now anyways

I didn't know this when I posted yesterday, but the person who disregarded the Russian "adoptions" lawyer's $230MM lawsuit was AG Jefferson Disregard Sessions.

And what a coincidence that Sessions not only had a hand in firing Comey, but he also had a hand in firing Preet Bharara.

Fox News has quite the appetite for bull****. I for one am stuffed from all the nothingburgers.

One problem is that virtually anyone below Trump in the executive can be fired at any time for any reason. If that's the case, then you'd expect a lot of anonymous sourcing when it comes to portraying Trump as a narcissistic toddler even if it's all about his personal habits during the day when dealing with the Russia crisis. It's not like Sessions is going openly to call Trump as incompetent buffoon who likes to golf all day and then walk into a meeting with him and expect Trump to ignore all that even if it is just how Trump is in the office instead of undermining policy. That's not how it works in the business world where real assessments get whispered through the office on a plausible deniability basis too because subordinates can be fired and real open assessment only happen between people who don't have the ability to effect each other or from above. The problem is, of course, it opens it up to manipulation by those who push propaganda.

How do people here react if they were the cheating brother in law? Take it on the chin as punishment for cheating on your spouse? Or blow up Kushner's car/house for the insolence? I'm torn.

Carter Page getting the campaign to send him to Russia after this don jr meeting sounds very not suspicious, shut down investigation rn, witch hunt

Aren't SAT scores only in multiples of 10?

But you're assuming the conclusion. 'Provided it's true, it's important context.' OK, fine. But take the following statements:

- "Sources say Trump is frustrated"
- "Officials are worried the Trump's don't recognize the legal trouble they're in"
- "Priebus feels aggrieved but is soldiering on, sources say"

These are clearly just perspectives and opinions. That CNN article (just an example; click around CNN, Politico, WaPo, NYT) for much reporting is just that: a series of anonymously sourced statements of dubious veracity veering toward opinion or perspective. Their truth is highly dependent on the source. Give the reader the source and they can draw their own conclusion. If you don't, they can't.

Besides, the media can publish opinions and perspectives; I'm not suggesting they have to self-censor. Stick them on the editorial page as anonymously collected opinions. Presenting them as news gives officialdom and the veneer of authority to what might be propaganda. This isn't just like some exercise in lambasting reporters for covering Trump gossip, it's frankly dangerous for democracy:

http://www.globalmediajournal.com/op...ading-iraq.pdf

Second, regarding: "it's still always up to the reader to discern whether the info is relevant in the first place."

...consumers of information don't have the resources or reach that journalists do. Editors make a choice to cover these kinds of things, to print them, to give them important page space or time slots on TV. That's an editorial choice made by reporters to determine what's relevant. "Well you can always do something else and go do your own reporting" is a complete defense of dereliction; the "well I dunno, we publish gossip with anonymous sources, if you want actual sourced news you can go do your own interviews" or whatever the glib argument here is hardly a sterling defense of the industry and its practices.

I mean I can make your argument for you: reporting is inevitably placing a lot of trust in the reporter as a custodian of fact. But remember these people are often simply repeating what they are being told. Call it laziness, call it difficult in an era of dwindling resources, call it fealty to power, but if an official tells you something and wants to be anonymously sourced, again, the reporter owes it to the reader how the thing got verified and why they granted anonymity.