Yesterday morning, while stopping at the deli I go to when I'm walking our family's dog, I was greeted with very disturbing news. There had been a shooting in Arlington, Virginia, at a baseball practice. Those practicing were members of the House of Representatives, getting ready for a charity baseball game at National's Stadium in D.C., set for tonight. This game, which has been an annual event since 1909, features the House Democrats one one team & House Republicans on the other team. I immediately felt like I understood the motivation of the person who had been shooting and I immediately felt the weight of what our country is going through.
I have written about my thoughts on this before and feel that I must again. Our country, let me say those words again so my meaning can be understood, our country is deeply divided. This divide is not a result of donald trump, he is a result of the division. Therefore I will not place my focus on trump in this post, although I will have some comments that involve him.
A dear friend of mine, pointed out to me after the jeff sessions hearing , that we are watching and are part of a major period of our country's history. I strongly agree. I believe what we are watching, living through, part of, is as important to our country as the Revolution that created our country and the Civil War which kept our country together. The Emancipation Proclamation, the two World Wars, the Great Depression, the Civil Rights movement and protests in the 1960s, the anti Vietnam War protests in the 1960s, Watergate's challenge to our Constitution and the events of September 11th, 2001 to our country's sense of security. These have been the major events that our country has faced in the past and found its way through while remaining one country. I hope and pray that we will be able to do the same with the schism we must work our way through.
The Civil War is also known as the War between the States, but even more to the point, it was a war of philosophies. It was a war that pitted, literally, brother against brother and father against son. Just as the Civil War was the resolution of the neglect of the framers of our Constitution to address the legal and moral status of every human's value, so the times we are in now will hopefully be the resolution of the deep scar that was left by the brutality of the Civil War.
When I was a young boy, I lived in Maryland, just outside of D.C. Although there are many who would dispute it, Maryland is a southern state. The feelings of the 1960s, where I lived were clear to me. I could feel the tension. The Civil War was not quite 100 years past. People still had memories of relatives that had been alive in that time period, who lived past the war and communicated the despair that they experienced. I could feel it. One hundred years is not really a long time. Just think about it. My son will be alive in the 2060s and will have clear memories of me, stories I told him, feelings I communicated to him. That's just one generation.
We have a schism in our country. There are many ways to look at it, but I believe that all of the view points lead to the same divide. Those that are intelligent view others a dumb. Those that are not intelligent resent being seen as dumb, they feel that they are being looked down on. Those that are financially poor resent those that are wealthy and feel neglected. Those that are wealthy are reticent to part with their money and see the poor as those that just haven't worked hard enough. Less fortunate Caucasians view people of other ethnic backgrounds as usurpers of what they think should belong to them; jobs, prosperity, the 1950s if you will. People of other ethnicities fear Caucasians and and people from other ethnic backgrounds because they feel threatened. There are people who claim to be righteous, who feel very strongly about unborn fetuses, unborn children, but at the same time believe to their core that it is not only their Constitutional right to own guns which have the capability of ending a person's life, but their God given right. There are others who clearly see that women are held hostage by not having control over their own bodies, and are alarmed by gun violence in our country.
This will be my last post for this blog. I am deeply disappointed in the tenor of our country and I am also much too focused on trying to affect change. The dearest person to me on this planet, pointed out to me yesterday that my reactions and responses to what is hapening in our country are extreme, from his perspective. I strongly believe that extremism of any sort is dangerous. It does not matter whether it is political extremism, religious extremism, racial extremism, Muslim extremism, Jewish extremism (as is the case of ultra orthodox sects of Judaism) or the extremism expressed by many Christian groups in our country. All extremism is dangerous.
I cannot afford to be an extremist. I cannot afford to be addicted to anything and extremism is an addiction, of that I am convinced. In light of this, this will be my last post.
I do plan to turn this 'journal' of these past two hundred and some odd days into a book, and submit the result to literary agents in the hope that my experience as a single blade of grass in what is a grass roots attempt to right our country may be available for others to read more widely.
Lastly and ultimately I want to make note that the schism I have described is nothing more or less than the nature of being a human and as such, animals. At our base, our behaviors stem from primitive animal behavior that is hard wired into all species on this planet. To that end, I have come to the conclusion that my best effort to affect change is for me to behave in ways that are peaceful and moral,, as I believe morality to be.
Thank those of you that have read this blog. My fervent hope is that all of us find peace within ourselves. Each person that comes to peace with themselves will be one more step towards all humans being at peace with each other.
Thursday, June 15, 2017
Tuesday, June 13, 2017
The trump Monster Movie (it's a 'B' movie)
As promised .......... the door by the grandfather clock (eerie music plays). The trump monster tells all of his minions to leave the main chamber of the castle. The head monster prefers to work alone. The only one left with the monster is his prey, James Comey (more eerie music). But wait, the monster's bumbling minion boobs are just outside the main chamber in the ante-room lined up and anxious to know what is happening. They're drooling. They're rubbing their hands together, waiting for the kill, waiting for some fresh meat, waiting for victim Comey to become one of them. Vampire Priebus is a little too over anxious and opens the door to see what is going on, but the monster orders him to close the door, that the task won't take too much longer. Victim Comey sees the other minions behind vamp Prieb. What a strange scene.
Ladies and gentlemen, this sounds like a trailer for a 'B' movie thriller, eh? Nope, unfortunately, this is real life. Not fake. Yes, I've applied poetic license to have some fun, but the story line is allegedly factual, according to the testimony of James Comey in front of the Senate Intelligence Committee.
I have pointed out in previous posts that Comey's assertion that trump cleared the Oval Office, on February 14th, save for Comey, was certainly shady. But I failed to recognize that there is a rich mine of information that needs to be tapped by all of those that are investigating all of the various angles of all things trump. That mine contains the White House staff that was lined up behind Reince Priebus on the other side of that door, next to the grandfather clock, which opens into the Oval Office.
Each one of those people, each one of them with no exceptions, must be identified. After a complete list is known, they each need to be interviewed and/or testify under oath. What I want answers to, are the following questions:
- Why were they waiting outside of that door, along with Reince Priebus?
- Could they hear what was being said in the Oval Office between trump and Comey?
- If they could hear, then what did they hear?
- Prior to being asked to leave the Oval Office, did they know that they were going to be asked to leave?
- Did they know why Comey was asked to stay?
- Where they "asked" to leave the Oval office, or where they "directed" to leave the Oval Office
- Was James Comey "asked" to stay, or was he "directed" to stay
- If, in either case, it was a request and not a directive, did they believe they had an option or did they believe that even though it was a request, that they had to comply. In other words, if it was a request, did they believe they had the option to stay? And if Comey was "asked" to stay, did they believe that he had the option of not staying?
Please note that these last three questions are in direct response to Idaho's Senator Risch's line of questioning in reference to the word "hope". If these people were "asked" to leave, or if Comey was "asked" to stay, did these people believe the request was just that, a request, that left them with options, or did they believe it was a directive? If they believed that they had been directed to leave or that Comey had been directed to stay, even though it was a request, then it follows that when trump said the word "hope" to Comey, that what trump was saying could easily be seen as a directive as well. I think the line of questioning would need to be as follows:
- Did trump ask you to leave the Oval Office?
- Yes (for the sake of this presentation I'll assume that 'yes' will be the answer)
- So, trump asked you to leave the office?
- Yes
- When trump asked you to leave the Oval office, did you think that you had the option to stay?
- No
- Then even though you were asked to leave the Oval Office, you took it as a directive. (note - this is a statement, not a question, this is the only conclusion that can be drawn from the above questions and answers and therefore no other questions need to be asked to establish this point)
Upon writing this post, it occurs to me that these questions should not be asked in an open session of any sort. If they were to be asked of one of these people in an open session, then the remaining interviewees would know what questions they would be asked, which makes the possibility of lying more probable. Asking these questions in a private session would not guarantee that those that come after the first person interviewed would not have been tipped off ahead of time. A way to mitigate that concern would be to have all staffers that were outside of that door, report to the interview venue at the same time and be interviewed one at a time, one right after the other and each released through a different exit so they would have no contact with those remaining to be interviewed. A request to not use cell phones would need to be made of those in the waiting room. Someone would need to be in the room with those waiting to be interviewed and if they did use their cell phones, then those cell phones would need to be subpoenaed for examination.
It's a lot to coordinate, but these are unprecedented and extraordinary times in our country. Within the law, unprecedented and extraordinary steps need to be taken to determine the truth.
p.s. - Check out the Off The Cuff podcast tonight:
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCaT5D55DKts7p4QnuDJGeSA
Ladies and gentlemen, this sounds like a trailer for a 'B' movie thriller, eh? Nope, unfortunately, this is real life. Not fake. Yes, I've applied poetic license to have some fun, but the story line is allegedly factual, according to the testimony of James Comey in front of the Senate Intelligence Committee.
I have pointed out in previous posts that Comey's assertion that trump cleared the Oval Office, on February 14th, save for Comey, was certainly shady. But I failed to recognize that there is a rich mine of information that needs to be tapped by all of those that are investigating all of the various angles of all things trump. That mine contains the White House staff that was lined up behind Reince Priebus on the other side of that door, next to the grandfather clock, which opens into the Oval Office.
Each one of those people, each one of them with no exceptions, must be identified. After a complete list is known, they each need to be interviewed and/or testify under oath. What I want answers to, are the following questions:
- Why were they waiting outside of that door, along with Reince Priebus?
- Could they hear what was being said in the Oval Office between trump and Comey?
- If they could hear, then what did they hear?
- Prior to being asked to leave the Oval Office, did they know that they were going to be asked to leave?
- Did they know why Comey was asked to stay?
- Where they "asked" to leave the Oval office, or where they "directed" to leave the Oval Office
- Was James Comey "asked" to stay, or was he "directed" to stay
- If, in either case, it was a request and not a directive, did they believe they had an option or did they believe that even though it was a request, that they had to comply. In other words, if it was a request, did they believe they had the option to stay? And if Comey was "asked" to stay, did they believe that he had the option of not staying?
Please note that these last three questions are in direct response to Idaho's Senator Risch's line of questioning in reference to the word "hope". If these people were "asked" to leave, or if Comey was "asked" to stay, did these people believe the request was just that, a request, that left them with options, or did they believe it was a directive? If they believed that they had been directed to leave or that Comey had been directed to stay, even though it was a request, then it follows that when trump said the word "hope" to Comey, that what trump was saying could easily be seen as a directive as well. I think the line of questioning would need to be as follows:
- Did trump ask you to leave the Oval Office?
- Yes (for the sake of this presentation I'll assume that 'yes' will be the answer)
- So, trump asked you to leave the office?
- Yes
- When trump asked you to leave the Oval office, did you think that you had the option to stay?
- No
- Then even though you were asked to leave the Oval Office, you took it as a directive. (note - this is a statement, not a question, this is the only conclusion that can be drawn from the above questions and answers and therefore no other questions need to be asked to establish this point)
Upon writing this post, it occurs to me that these questions should not be asked in an open session of any sort. If they were to be asked of one of these people in an open session, then the remaining interviewees would know what questions they would be asked, which makes the possibility of lying more probable. Asking these questions in a private session would not guarantee that those that come after the first person interviewed would not have been tipped off ahead of time. A way to mitigate that concern would be to have all staffers that were outside of that door, report to the interview venue at the same time and be interviewed one at a time, one right after the other and each released through a different exit so they would have no contact with those remaining to be interviewed. A request to not use cell phones would need to be made of those in the waiting room. Someone would need to be in the room with those waiting to be interviewed and if they did use their cell phones, then those cell phones would need to be subpoenaed for examination.
It's a lot to coordinate, but these are unprecedented and extraordinary times in our country. Within the law, unprecedented and extraordinary steps need to be taken to determine the truth.
p.s. - Check out the Off The Cuff podcast tonight:
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCaT5D55DKts7p4QnuDJGeSA
Monday, June 12, 2017
D.C. and Maryland File Suite Against trump in Federal Court
I was prepared, this morning, to write about further evidence of obstruction of justice on the part of trump. The area that I have been remiss in seeing is that Reince Priebus's pressence just outside the door to the Oval office (you know, the door next to the grandfather clock), along with many other staff members, raises the question for me of why were they all hanging around on the other side of that door? But alas, I will need to address this question tomorrow, because today I have some really great news that I want to write about.
This morning, while driving to work, I heard, on NPR, that the Attorneys General of Maryland and The District of Columbia are filing a joint suite against trump. The suite "allege[s] that trump has violated anti-corruption clauses in the Constitution" per an article in the Washington Post. A signed copy of the law suite, being filed by D.C Attorney General Karl A. Racine and Maryland Attorney General Brian E. Frosh, was provided to the Washington Post last night, just ahead of the filing in Federal Court today.
First of all ................ YES!
Okay, now I want to look at what this is all about. It is important to note that a suite of this sort has never been filed against a President of the United States (and in keeping with my strong feelings, tongue firmly planted in cheek, is not being filed against a President today either). My feelings aside, I now find myself in the position of having to associate trump with the word President, to recognize this unprecedented event.
The suite 'alleges' that trump has "accept[ed] millions in payments and benefits from foreign governments since moving into the White House." Simply by looking at the guest registry of the illegally leased property, trump International Hotel, will clearly show that he has financially benefited from foreign dignitaries booking rooms and events at this hotel. In fact, I'm willing to bet that he has profited at various properties around the world by foreign governments paying to use trump properties, world wide. The oft quoted emoluments clause of our Constitution (Article I, Section 9, Clause 8) prohibits members of the government from receiving emoluments.
That's a funny word Bill, what does it mean?
It's really simple folks, it means making money, compensation, profit, moola, mean green, lettuce, cabbage, you get the picture. But don't believe me, below are definitions from two respected sources:
Definition of emolument (per the Merriam-Webster Dictionary)
1: the returns arising from office or employment usually in the form of compensation or perquisites
e·mol·u·ment (definition per Google when looking for the definition of the word 'emolument')
əˈmälyəmənt/
noun
formal
plural noun: emoluments
a salary, fee, or profit from employment or office.
"the directors' emoluments"
synonyms: salary, pay, payment, wage(s), earnings, allowance, stipend, honorarium, reward, premium;More
https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/dc-politics/dc-and-maryland-to-sue-president-trump-alleging-breach-of-constitutional-oath/2017/06/11/0059e1f0-4f19-11e7-91eb-9611861a988f_story.html?utm_term=.32a408737738
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/emolument
https://www.google.com/search?q=define+emolument&oq=define+emolument&aqs=chrome..69i59j69i57j69i59j0l3.9586j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-
This morning, while driving to work, I heard, on NPR, that the Attorneys General of Maryland and The District of Columbia are filing a joint suite against trump. The suite "allege[s] that trump has violated anti-corruption clauses in the Constitution" per an article in the Washington Post. A signed copy of the law suite, being filed by D.C Attorney General Karl A. Racine and Maryland Attorney General Brian E. Frosh, was provided to the Washington Post last night, just ahead of the filing in Federal Court today.
First of all ................ YES!
Okay, now I want to look at what this is all about. It is important to note that a suite of this sort has never been filed against a President of the United States (and in keeping with my strong feelings, tongue firmly planted in cheek, is not being filed against a President today either). My feelings aside, I now find myself in the position of having to associate trump with the word President, to recognize this unprecedented event.
The suite 'alleges' that trump has "accept[ed] millions in payments and benefits from foreign governments since moving into the White House." Simply by looking at the guest registry of the illegally leased property, trump International Hotel, will clearly show that he has financially benefited from foreign dignitaries booking rooms and events at this hotel. In fact, I'm willing to bet that he has profited at various properties around the world by foreign governments paying to use trump properties, world wide. The oft quoted emoluments clause of our Constitution (Article I, Section 9, Clause 8) prohibits members of the government from receiving emoluments.
That's a funny word Bill, what does it mean?
It's really simple folks, it means making money, compensation, profit, moola, mean green, lettuce, cabbage, you get the picture. But don't believe me, below are definitions from two respected sources:
Definition of emolument (per the Merriam-Webster Dictionary)
1: the returns arising from office or employment usually in the form of compensation or perquisites
e·mol·u·ment (definition per Google when looking for the definition of the word 'emolument')
əˈmälyəmənt/
noun
formal
plural noun: emoluments
a salary, fee, or profit from employment or office.
"the directors' emoluments"
synonyms: salary, pay, payment, wage(s), earnings, allowance, stipend, honorarium, reward, premium;More
“deeply enmeshed with a legion of foreign and domestic government actors”
“Fundamental to a President’s fidelity to [faithfully execute his oath of office] is the Constitution’s demand that the President ... disentangle his private finances from those of domestic and foreign powers. Never before has a President acted with such disregard for this constitutional prescription.”
If a Federal judge allows the case to go forward, Frosh & Racine say that one of the first actions they will take, as part of the initial discovery process, will be to demand trump's personal tax returns. Of course, this will educate us as to just how entangled trump is with foreign governments. The two Attorneys General would expect that skirmish to end up in the hands of The Supreme Court. In The Supreme Court, trump's attorneys would need to defend why trump's tax returns should remain private.
This my friends is some good shit (if shit can be good, this is it). Bravo to these two men for standing up for all Americans. Bravo for standing up for our Constitution. Bravo for standing up for integrity. This law suite places another distraction in front of trump. This will continue to make it difficult for trump to move forward with his agenda, because it will further usurp his attention and slow him down. This suite continues the persistent & constant drum beat that will lead to trump being impeached and removed from office.
There is a sad side to this story. When speaking to various acquaintances, I got signals that people were becoming fatigued, pessimistic, cynical and starting to see trump as normalized. When speaking to four people, I got responses like these:
- "nothin'll happen" (said with resignation)
- "we'll see" (said with an air of disbelief)
- "his sons run his companies" (this is mis-information and indicates to me acceptance of that misinformation, therefore normalization)
- he has divested his interests in his companies and there has to be a time when all of this has to stop (again acceptance of misinformation and fatigue)
These interactions were with people who in the past have been unhappy with trump. We will get through this, and when people see that progress is being made, their energy level will return. I have confidence in the basic morality of most Americans.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/dc-politics/dc-and-maryland-to-sue-president-trump-alleging-breach-of-constitutional-oath/2017/06/11/0059e1f0-4f19-11e7-91eb-9611861a988f_story.html?utm_term=.32a408737738
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/emolument
https://www.google.com/search?q=define+emolument&oq=define+emolument&aqs=chrome..69i59j69i57j69i59j0l3.9586j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-
Sunday, June 11, 2017
Got Tapes?
I found this really great website this morning. It's not great because I believe it is a reliable source of information, but its greatness comes from its name:
Beyond the chuckle that I got from the name of the site, it did have value for me. The site gave a listing, for each day of trump's administration, of headlines and the source of those headlines. This helped me get in touch with what I wanted to write about, today.
What's that Bill?
Recording systems.
What kind of recording systems, Bill?
Recording systems that are hidden from those being recorded.
Where would such a recording system exist Bill?
Well, many places.
Then what got you thinking about recording systems Bill?
trump's tweet, shortly after firing James Comey that read:
Donald J. Trump
✔@realDonaldTrump
James Comey better hope that there are no "tapes" of our conversations before he starts leaking to the press!
8:26 AM - 12 May 2017
What The Fuck Just Happened Today?
Today's essential newsletter. Logging the daily shock and awe in national politics. Read in moderation.
Beyond the chuckle that I got from the name of the site, it did have value for me. The site gave a listing, for each day of trump's administration, of headlines and the source of those headlines. This helped me get in touch with what I wanted to write about, today.
What's that Bill?
Recording systems.
What kind of recording systems, Bill?
Recording systems that are hidden from those being recorded.
Where would such a recording system exist Bill?
Well, many places.
Then what got you thinking about recording systems Bill?
trump's tweet, shortly after firing James Comey that read:
Donald J. Trump
✔@realDonaldTrump
James Comey better hope that there are no "tapes" of our conversations before he starts leaking to the press!
8:26 AM - 12 May 2017
So ......... a typical trump move to muddy the waters. Are there tapes or is the existence of tapes horse shit. Well ladies and gentlemen, there is only one way to know.
Hold it Bill, don't tell us, I know, I know.
Okay, what's your answer?
Let's ask trump if there are tapes.
Nice try, but I don't think so.
How about we subpoena the recordings. How about that Bill?
Naaaaaah, I don't think that'll work either.
I believe trump is a liar (and I thought so before Comey said it), so why would he admit they exist. he continually behaves as though he is above the law, so why would he admit something without material evidence. I think the only way we get to the truth of whether there are recordings or not is to get a search warrant and without notice, search the oval office for microphones and trace them back to the device they are attached to.
Wow Bill, that seems awfully drastic.
Look, I'm not suggesting that we take this drastic step immediately. In order to make sure that trump and those that support him understand that everything is being done in an above board way, we need to climb this ladder of actions step by step, but ............ we must be ready to go absolutely as far as is needed to determine if there are recordings. One problem with this process could be that if we subpoena the recordings, it may tip our hand and trump has the microphones removed before they can be found.
Yes, we need to have sessions testify. Yes we need to have McCabe testify (he was present during the March 30th phone call). Yes we need to have the acting Deputy Attorney General on March 30th, Dana Boente, testify. There are probably a lot more paths that lead to persons who may have information pertinent to trump attempting to obstruct justice, and we need to hear from each one of them in order to piece together the 'story'.
On Friday, the day after James Comey's testimony before the Senate Intel Committee, d. j[ackass] said that "yesterday showed no collusion, no obstruction, we are doing really well.....". I don't know about collusion, but trumpy boy was right when he said "no obstruction". The reason he was right is because James Comey did not act on trump's veiled directive. He continued the FBI's investigation of Michael Flynn and Flynn's possible collusion with Russian officials. Therefore justice was not obstructed, but trump certainly attempted to obstruct justice. And the best way to break this he said versus he said stalemate is to hear what happened on February 14th after trump cleared the Oval Office to speak with Comey alone. Therefore, we must determine if there is a recording and if so, listen to it.
And lastly, I want to note that even if there are recordings and even if we get to hear them and even if they corroborate What Comey reported in his memo, and even if trump's tone of voice clearly indicates that his intent was to direct Comey in some sly way because he knew he was being taped, even if we have all of these items in place, impeachment is a political act not one of criminal justice. It is obvious that at least some Republicans are going to use the word "hope" to attempt to make a case that this was not a directive, but rather a political neophyte making a large faux pas. Look here folks, that's more horse dung than I've ever shoveled in my life time, and when I was young, I groomed horses and mucked a lot of stalls. If trump is the consummate business person that he claims to be, then he knew precisely, precisely what he was doing. I mean after all, this is the author of The Art of the Deal. he's the deal maker. he's the best, the greatest, he's biggley the best. Cut me a frikkin' break. I think trump is dumb in a lot of ways, but when it comes to being a lying S.O.B., i think he knows exactly what he's doing.
Got tapes?
https://whatthefuckjusthappenedtoday.com/
https://www.washingtonpost.com/video/national/no-collusion-no-obstruction-hes-a-leaker-trump-comments-on-comey/2017/06/09/21f15240-4d47-11e7-987c-42ab5745db2e_video.html
On Friday, the day after James Comey's testimony before the Senate Intel Committee, d. j[ackass] said that "yesterday showed no collusion, no obstruction, we are doing really well.....". I don't know about collusion, but trumpy boy was right when he said "no obstruction". The reason he was right is because James Comey did not act on trump's veiled directive. He continued the FBI's investigation of Michael Flynn and Flynn's possible collusion with Russian officials. Therefore justice was not obstructed, but trump certainly attempted to obstruct justice. And the best way to break this he said versus he said stalemate is to hear what happened on February 14th after trump cleared the Oval Office to speak with Comey alone. Therefore, we must determine if there is a recording and if so, listen to it.
And lastly, I want to note that even if there are recordings and even if we get to hear them and even if they corroborate What Comey reported in his memo, and even if trump's tone of voice clearly indicates that his intent was to direct Comey in some sly way because he knew he was being taped, even if we have all of these items in place, impeachment is a political act not one of criminal justice. It is obvious that at least some Republicans are going to use the word "hope" to attempt to make a case that this was not a directive, but rather a political neophyte making a large faux pas. Look here folks, that's more horse dung than I've ever shoveled in my life time, and when I was young, I groomed horses and mucked a lot of stalls. If trump is the consummate business person that he claims to be, then he knew precisely, precisely what he was doing. I mean after all, this is the author of The Art of the Deal. he's the deal maker. he's the best, the greatest, he's biggley the best. Cut me a frikkin' break. I think trump is dumb in a lot of ways, but when it comes to being a lying S.O.B., i think he knows exactly what he's doing.
Got tapes?
https://whatthefuckjusthappenedtoday.com/
https://www.washingtonpost.com/video/national/no-collusion-no-obstruction-hes-a-leaker-trump-comments-on-comey/2017/06/09/21f15240-4d47-11e7-987c-42ab5745db2e_video.html
Saturday, June 10, 2017
Time Warp
Dear Readers,
Please forgive me for not posting yesterday. Another one of those days where I just simply couldn't squeeze my blog in with all the other tasks I had on my plate. I suspect that you understand and that somehow (although I'm not sure how), you made it through your day.
So, today is Saturday and it occurred to me that my perception of time feels odd. It just doesn't match up with reality. Two days ago, James Comey gave sworn testimony in front of the Senate Intelligence Committee. I don't know about you, but to me that event feels like it took place much longer ago than two days ago.
As I was driving to do my grocery shopping this afternoon, is when this 'time warp' hit me. I thought about it and the conclusion I came to was that the immediacy of our access to whatever happens in our world, is overwhelming. It may not be the same for Millennials, but this pace of information is what they grew up with. I, being part of the Baby Boom generation, am a product of news papers, the 6:00 pm local evening news followed at 6:30 pm by the national news. We did have two AM all news radio stations, but they didn't have the access to real time events that we have now, so the pace at which these two stations presented the news wasn't at the same speed as now. So, in juxtaposition to what I grew up with, today's pace of information plays head games with my mind. I can only speak for myself.
I'm going to slow things down a little bit and go back to Thursday. I've already had my say on James Comey's written testimony, which was made public the day before his oral, sworn testimony. I've already written about where I believe the focal point of his testimony is and where it is not. I've already reminded us of the lesson of Watergate; that the 'words' a person speaks are only part of how that person communicates. What I have not written about is my impression of James Comey as a human being.
I'll start by saying that all I know about Comey, is the public face that he presents, but it sure is a damn sight better than the public face trump presents. James Comey came across to me as a straight shooter. What I heard was a man that gave his recollection of events without making judgments. Just as Joe Friday, the detective in the 1950's detective television show Dragnet, was known for saying; "just the facts ma'am, just the facts." What I also saw was something very refreshing. This guy answered questions without defensiveness and to the best of his ability. And when he obviously perceived that questions where being asked to guide him to make a judgement or to validate a partisan point, he spoke clearly and plainly, again, with out a defensive posture. When Senator Risch of Idaho, made an obvious attempt to have Comey agree with him that trump did not attempt to obstruct justice, to stop the investigation into Michael Flynn's possible collusion with Russia, because trump used the word "hope", Comey reminded me of the lesson of the Watergate transcripts versus the actual recordings, without actually making the analogy. He simply pointed out that the word 'hope', was just that ......... a word. He did not attempt to give a lecture on the various forms of communication that also affect what is being communicated. He, with decency and a pleasant tone, answered four variations of the same question without being perturbed or trying trying to deflect.
When Mr. Comey was questioned about how and why the press learned about his memos and the content in some of them, he was honest and above board, and again with no consternation. He was clear that he had asked a friend of his to share this information with the press, in the hopes that a special prosecutor would be assigned to investigate possible obstruction of justice by trump. By the way, it is vital to understand the difference between 'leaking' and sharing. First of all Comey's memos were not classified. Only the sharing of classified documents or information is 'leaking'. Secondly, when Comey asked his friend to share this information, he was no longer a Federal employee. Therefore when you put these two facts together, Comey was well within his First Amendment rights to speak up.
James Comey, was a breath of fresh air on Thursday. I believe that the way he speaks, answers questions, behaves, carries himself, is something that Americans want to see and we appreciated it. I've said it before, Left or Right, we know Wrong. Well in this case we know Right, and Mr. Comey is the right person at a very bad time. In essence, for me at least, James Comey is a time warp, a person that conducts himself with decency. If I am to be taken back in time, this is the way that I want it it to be. Thank you Mr. Comey.
Please forgive me for not posting yesterday. Another one of those days where I just simply couldn't squeeze my blog in with all the other tasks I had on my plate. I suspect that you understand and that somehow (although I'm not sure how), you made it through your day.
So, today is Saturday and it occurred to me that my perception of time feels odd. It just doesn't match up with reality. Two days ago, James Comey gave sworn testimony in front of the Senate Intelligence Committee. I don't know about you, but to me that event feels like it took place much longer ago than two days ago.
As I was driving to do my grocery shopping this afternoon, is when this 'time warp' hit me. I thought about it and the conclusion I came to was that the immediacy of our access to whatever happens in our world, is overwhelming. It may not be the same for Millennials, but this pace of information is what they grew up with. I, being part of the Baby Boom generation, am a product of news papers, the 6:00 pm local evening news followed at 6:30 pm by the national news. We did have two AM all news radio stations, but they didn't have the access to real time events that we have now, so the pace at which these two stations presented the news wasn't at the same speed as now. So, in juxtaposition to what I grew up with, today's pace of information plays head games with my mind. I can only speak for myself.
I'm going to slow things down a little bit and go back to Thursday. I've already had my say on James Comey's written testimony, which was made public the day before his oral, sworn testimony. I've already written about where I believe the focal point of his testimony is and where it is not. I've already reminded us of the lesson of Watergate; that the 'words' a person speaks are only part of how that person communicates. What I have not written about is my impression of James Comey as a human being.
I'll start by saying that all I know about Comey, is the public face that he presents, but it sure is a damn sight better than the public face trump presents. James Comey came across to me as a straight shooter. What I heard was a man that gave his recollection of events without making judgments. Just as Joe Friday, the detective in the 1950's detective television show Dragnet, was known for saying; "just the facts ma'am, just the facts." What I also saw was something very refreshing. This guy answered questions without defensiveness and to the best of his ability. And when he obviously perceived that questions where being asked to guide him to make a judgement or to validate a partisan point, he spoke clearly and plainly, again, with out a defensive posture. When Senator Risch of Idaho, made an obvious attempt to have Comey agree with him that trump did not attempt to obstruct justice, to stop the investigation into Michael Flynn's possible collusion with Russia, because trump used the word "hope", Comey reminded me of the lesson of the Watergate transcripts versus the actual recordings, without actually making the analogy. He simply pointed out that the word 'hope', was just that ......... a word. He did not attempt to give a lecture on the various forms of communication that also affect what is being communicated. He, with decency and a pleasant tone, answered four variations of the same question without being perturbed or trying trying to deflect.
When Mr. Comey was questioned about how and why the press learned about his memos and the content in some of them, he was honest and above board, and again with no consternation. He was clear that he had asked a friend of his to share this information with the press, in the hopes that a special prosecutor would be assigned to investigate possible obstruction of justice by trump. By the way, it is vital to understand the difference between 'leaking' and sharing. First of all Comey's memos were not classified. Only the sharing of classified documents or information is 'leaking'. Secondly, when Comey asked his friend to share this information, he was no longer a Federal employee. Therefore when you put these two facts together, Comey was well within his First Amendment rights to speak up.
James Comey, was a breath of fresh air on Thursday. I believe that the way he speaks, answers questions, behaves, carries himself, is something that Americans want to see and we appreciated it. I've said it before, Left or Right, we know Wrong. Well in this case we know Right, and Mr. Comey is the right person at a very bad time. In essence, for me at least, James Comey is a time warp, a person that conducts himself with decency. If I am to be taken back in time, this is the way that I want it it to be. Thank you Mr. Comey.
Thursday, June 8, 2017
Complete and Total Vindication My Ass
In my best Lewis Black style............ THIS GUY'S A COMPLETE ASSHOLE!!!!!!
trump's lawyer has released a statement that, based on James Comey's prepared notes that were released yesterday by the Senate Intelligence Committee, trump "feels completely and totally vindicated." trump must pay this guy really well for this lawyer to support trump's delusions.
What is being referred to are the three entries in Comey's memos where he notes that he informed trump that d. j[ackass] was not being personally investigated.
January 6th, 2017:
"prior to the January 6 meeting, I discussed with the FBI's leadership team whether I should be prepared to assure [ ] [t]rump that we were not investigating him personally. That was true; we did not have an open counter-intelligence case on him. We agreed I should do so if circumstances warranted. During our one-on-one meeting at [t]rump Tower, based on [t]rump's reaction to the briefing and without him directly asking the question, I offered that assurance."
January 26th, 2017:
"During the dinner, [trump] returned to the salacious material I had briefed him about on January 6, and, as he had done previously, expressed his disgust for the allegations and strongly denied them. [h]e said he was considering ordering me to investigate the alleged incident to prove it didn't happen. I replied that he should give that careful thought because it might create a narrative that we were investigating him personally, which we weren't."
March 30th, 2017 phone call from trump to Director Comey:
"I explained that we had briefed the leadership of Congress on exactly which individuals we were investigating and that we had told those Congressional leaders that we were not personally investigating [t]rump. I reminded him I had previously told him that. [h]e repeatedly told me, "We need to get that fact out." (I did not tell [trump] that the FBI and the Department of Justice had been reluctant to make public statements that we did not have an open case on [t]rump for a number of reasons, most importantly because it would create a duty to correct, should that change.)"
It is important to note the following two clarifications that Comey has included in his written testimony. In his contemporaneous notes on January 6th, Comey wrote:
"I felt compelled to document my first conversation with [trump] in a memo. To ensure accuracy, I began to type it on a laptop in an FBI vehicle outside [t]rump Tower the moment I walked out of the meeting. Creating written records immediately after one-on-one conversations with [t]rump was my practice from that point forward."
And in his notes after trump called Comey on March 30th, Comey writes that "[i]mmediately after that conversation, I called Acting Deputy Attorney General Dana Boente (AG Sessions had by then recused himself on all Russia-related matters), to report the substance of the call from [trump]." I find this reference important, because Dana Boente needs to be called to testify to corroborate this point.
trump and his mouth piece along with the RNC (Republican National Committee) are attempting to pivot our attention away from the evidence that trump clearly tried to stop the investigation into Flynn's possible ties with Russia. But the following is the information that really has meaning with reference to trump keeping his job.
February 14th, 2017:
"After [trump] had spoken for a few minutes about leaks, Reince Priebus leaned in through the door by the grandfather clock and I could see a group of people waiting behind him. The President waved at him to close the door, saying he would be done shortly. The door closed.
[trump] then returned to the topic of Mike Flynn, saying, "He is a good guy and has been through a lot." [h]e repeated that Flynn hadn't done anything wrong on his calls with the Russians, but had misled the Vice President. He then said, "[i] hope you can see your way clear to letting this go, to letting Flynn go. He is a good guy. [i] hope you can let this go." I replied only that "he is a good guy." (In fact, I had a positive experience dealing with Mike Flynn when he was a colleague as Director of the Defense Intelligence Agency at the beginning of my term at FBI.) I did not say I would "let this go.""
Whether you call it a Jedi mind trick, magic, slight of hand, smoke and mirrors ....... they just aren't able to hide the truth. They're more obvious than the smell of dog poop after you step in it. Who gives a shit whether trump was or was not under direct investigation by the FBI or any other agency in the Intelligence Community. As soon as trump cleared that room on February 14th, and said to James Comey that he "hop[ed]" Comey would let Flynn go, that was the very moment that he became ineligible to hold the job that he currently has.
The reason I have emphasized the word "hope" is because as I was writing this post, I was watching the first hour of Comey's testimony in front of the Senate Intel Committee. I watched as Senator Risch (a Republican from Idaho) tried to make a case that trump had not attempted to obstruct justice, because he used the word "hope". This pissed me right off. Comey pointed out that trump's "word" was hope, in an obvious attempt to answer an un-asked question. There are many ways to communicate, other than words. The fact that trump isolated the conversation to just himself and Comey, speaks volumes. Who knows what trump's tone of voice was? Who knows what the expression on his face was? Who knows what his body posture was? These four aspects of communication also need to be taken into account. One of the points made during the Watergate investigation was that the words in the transcription of the tapes were not the be all and end all of what Nixon said and meant. We must not ignore that lesson.
One of the basic tenants in boy scouts is called "two deep" . An adult may never be alone with a scout one on one. There must always be at least two adults with a scout, at the minimum. I am not suggesting that Comey is a boy or that trump is an adult. I'm referencing this to point out why this rule came into being. The given reason was to protect the boys. I am not calling this into question, but I am here to tell you that there was a legal reason as well. Liability. Keeping a situation from being a he said versus he said contest. There are flaws in this Boy Scouts policy, but the basic point is to avoid this kind of legal battle. So let's just imagine that an abuser tells all of the other adults and scouts to go away and is then one on one with a scout. Maybe the adult leans in close to the boy and in a menacing, yet quiet way says to the boy, 'I hope you can see your way clear to putting your hand inside my pants'. I think you get the picture. We all understand that the adult in this scenario is clearly directing the boy to put his hands inside the adult's pants.
It is clear, that trump was directing Comey to stop the investigation into Michael Flynn. I know it, you know it, and it's hard for me to believe anything other than that the vast majority of Americans know it as well as the Senators that read and listened to Comey's words.
Let's cut the shit. trump has not been vindicated of anything. He's guilty of an attempt to obstruct justice and that is all that is necessary to be known, in order to impeach his ass and then remove that same ass from the White House.
trump's lawyer has released a statement that, based on James Comey's prepared notes that were released yesterday by the Senate Intelligence Committee, trump "feels completely and totally vindicated." trump must pay this guy really well for this lawyer to support trump's delusions.
What is being referred to are the three entries in Comey's memos where he notes that he informed trump that d. j[ackass] was not being personally investigated.
January 6th, 2017:
"prior to the January 6 meeting, I discussed with the FBI's leadership team whether I should be prepared to assure [ ] [t]rump that we were not investigating him personally. That was true; we did not have an open counter-intelligence case on him. We agreed I should do so if circumstances warranted. During our one-on-one meeting at [t]rump Tower, based on [t]rump's reaction to the briefing and without him directly asking the question, I offered that assurance."
January 26th, 2017:
"During the dinner, [trump] returned to the salacious material I had briefed him about on January 6, and, as he had done previously, expressed his disgust for the allegations and strongly denied them. [h]e said he was considering ordering me to investigate the alleged incident to prove it didn't happen. I replied that he should give that careful thought because it might create a narrative that we were investigating him personally, which we weren't."
March 30th, 2017 phone call from trump to Director Comey:
"I explained that we had briefed the leadership of Congress on exactly which individuals we were investigating and that we had told those Congressional leaders that we were not personally investigating [t]rump. I reminded him I had previously told him that. [h]e repeatedly told me, "We need to get that fact out." (I did not tell [trump] that the FBI and the Department of Justice had been reluctant to make public statements that we did not have an open case on [t]rump for a number of reasons, most importantly because it would create a duty to correct, should that change.)"
It is important to note the following two clarifications that Comey has included in his written testimony. In his contemporaneous notes on January 6th, Comey wrote:
"I felt compelled to document my first conversation with [trump] in a memo. To ensure accuracy, I began to type it on a laptop in an FBI vehicle outside [t]rump Tower the moment I walked out of the meeting. Creating written records immediately after one-on-one conversations with [t]rump was my practice from that point forward."
trump and his mouth piece along with the RNC (Republican National Committee) are attempting to pivot our attention away from the evidence that trump clearly tried to stop the investigation into Flynn's possible ties with Russia. But the following is the information that really has meaning with reference to trump keeping his job.
February 14th, 2017:
"After [trump] had spoken for a few minutes about leaks, Reince Priebus leaned in through the door by the grandfather clock and I could see a group of people waiting behind him. The President waved at him to close the door, saying he would be done shortly. The door closed.
[trump] then returned to the topic of Mike Flynn, saying, "He is a good guy and has been through a lot." [h]e repeated that Flynn hadn't done anything wrong on his calls with the Russians, but had misled the Vice President. He then said, "[i] hope you can see your way clear to letting this go, to letting Flynn go. He is a good guy. [i] hope you can let this go." I replied only that "he is a good guy." (In fact, I had a positive experience dealing with Mike Flynn when he was a colleague as Director of the Defense Intelligence Agency at the beginning of my term at FBI.) I did not say I would "let this go.""
Whether you call it a Jedi mind trick, magic, slight of hand, smoke and mirrors ....... they just aren't able to hide the truth. They're more obvious than the smell of dog poop after you step in it. Who gives a shit whether trump was or was not under direct investigation by the FBI or any other agency in the Intelligence Community. As soon as trump cleared that room on February 14th, and said to James Comey that he "hop[ed]" Comey would let Flynn go, that was the very moment that he became ineligible to hold the job that he currently has.
The reason I have emphasized the word "hope" is because as I was writing this post, I was watching the first hour of Comey's testimony in front of the Senate Intel Committee. I watched as Senator Risch (a Republican from Idaho) tried to make a case that trump had not attempted to obstruct justice, because he used the word "hope". This pissed me right off. Comey pointed out that trump's "word" was hope, in an obvious attempt to answer an un-asked question. There are many ways to communicate, other than words. The fact that trump isolated the conversation to just himself and Comey, speaks volumes. Who knows what trump's tone of voice was? Who knows what the expression on his face was? Who knows what his body posture was? These four aspects of communication also need to be taken into account. One of the points made during the Watergate investigation was that the words in the transcription of the tapes were not the be all and end all of what Nixon said and meant. We must not ignore that lesson.
One of the basic tenants in boy scouts is called "two deep" . An adult may never be alone with a scout one on one. There must always be at least two adults with a scout, at the minimum. I am not suggesting that Comey is a boy or that trump is an adult. I'm referencing this to point out why this rule came into being. The given reason was to protect the boys. I am not calling this into question, but I am here to tell you that there was a legal reason as well. Liability. Keeping a situation from being a he said versus he said contest. There are flaws in this Boy Scouts policy, but the basic point is to avoid this kind of legal battle. So let's just imagine that an abuser tells all of the other adults and scouts to go away and is then one on one with a scout. Maybe the adult leans in close to the boy and in a menacing, yet quiet way says to the boy, 'I hope you can see your way clear to putting your hand inside my pants'. I think you get the picture. We all understand that the adult in this scenario is clearly directing the boy to put his hands inside the adult's pants.
It is clear, that trump was directing Comey to stop the investigation into Michael Flynn. I know it, you know it, and it's hard for me to believe anything other than that the vast majority of Americans know it as well as the Senators that read and listened to Comey's words.
Let's cut the shit. trump has not been vindicated of anything. He's guilty of an attempt to obstruct justice and that is all that is necessary to be known, in order to impeach his ass and then remove that same ass from the White House.
Wednesday, June 7, 2017
Bull or Bravo
Before I start today's post, I want to introduce you to a new facet of my activism. I have started a podcast on my You Tube channel. I have titled it Off the Cuff. It is a semi-impromptu companion for this blog. I will post on Tuedays. Podcast # 1 is You Can't do That. Enjoy
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCaT5D55DKts7p4QnuDJGeSA
Now, for today's blog post.
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCaT5D55DKts7p4QnuDJGeSA
Now, for today's blog post.
The noise, just two days before James Comey is set to testify in front of the Senate Intelligence Committee, is getting pretty loud. The word out on the street is that trump is planning to give a speech of some sort while Comey is testifying and that he will also be twitting live as Comey testifies
That's a lie.
Lie.
Untrue.
i'm the greatest (no ...... that was Mohammad Ali).
But then I heard the following, trump and sessions are not getting along. I started to look into it and the noise exploded right in front of my eyes. CNN, Fox News, The Wall Street Journal, ABC News, Politico; all reporting that sessions offered to resign just prior to trump's overseas foray. My question (which is unanswerable at this time) is, is this just noise designed to distract or is it true.
Here are some of the blurbs from the various news outlets:
- trump and sessions have had a "series of heated exchanges in the last several week ......a source close to [s]essions told CNN Tuesday." Then, "a senior administration official said that at one point, [s]essions expressed he would be willing to resign."
- "[s]essions recently suggested that he could resign from his post, multiple media reports said on Tuesday." When asked if trump still had confidence in sessions, puppet-spicer replied, "I have not had that discussion with him. If I haven't had a discussion with him about a subject, I tend not to speak about it."
Charles Krauthammer, who is a contributor to FOX News, said on air, “This is really bad. If you can’t absorb this one issue on which he disagrees and you have to get rid of him, no one is safe [in the White House].”
- The wall Street Journal reported that "sessions offered to resign from his post, [but] the offer wasn't a formal one"
https://www.wsj.com/articles/jeff-sessions-offered-to-resign-amid-tensions-with-donald-trump-1496801691
- According to ABC News "sources" have characterized the current relationship between trump and sessions "has become so tense that [s]essions at one point recently even suggested he could resign."
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/attorney-general-jeff-sessions-suggested-resign-amid-rising/story?id=47875090
- A person who regularly communicates with sessions told Politico that "[t]rump ultimately refused [s]essions’ offer" Politico also reports that the two Sarahs (Huckabee-Sanders of the White House and Isgur of the Justice Department) have declined to comment on this issue.
Whewwwwww!! That's a lot of noise! Now is this by design, in an effort to move attention off of the Comey testimony. I believe it is a lame possibility. I say lame, because if that is the purpose of what may be an intentional leak of mis-information, to keep attention off of the hearings on Thursday, then trumpy boy is dumber than I thought for trying to feed Americans this level of bull.
Ohhhhhhh, look how clever I am ....... this'll keep 'em from listening to that showboat Comey.
If it is true, then that's their problem, and I could care less, unless sessions goes away. Then I'll dance a jig and scream bravo.
With positive expectations, I look forward to what James Comey will have to say on Thursday. I'll be focused on his testimony like a laser beam.
With positive expectations, I look forward to what James Comey will have to say on Thursday. I'll be focused on his testimony like a laser beam.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)