I know this will be outdated within five minutes of my having posted it, but HOLY SHIT… Not only did Trump invite Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov and Putin’s Ambassador to the United States Sergei Kislyak into the White House the day after firing James Comey, the man responsible for directing the FBI’s investigation into possible collusion between members of the Trump campaign and the Russians to sway the outcome of our last presidential election, but, now, according to the Washington Post, we’re learning that, during that meeting, Trump passed “highly classified information” along to the Lavrov and Kislyak that could jeopardize both our international intelligence relationships and our campaign against ISIS. Here, if you’ve yet to read it, is a clip from the Washington Post.
…In his meeting with Lavrov, Trump seemed to be boasting about his inside knowledge of the looming threat. “I get great intel. I have people brief me on great intel every day,” the president said, according to an official with knowledge of the exchange.
Trump went on to discuss aspects of the threat that the United States learned only through the espionage capabilities of a key partner. He did not reveal the specific intelligence-gathering method, but he described how the Islamic State was pursuing elements of a specific plot and how much harm such an attack could cause under varying circumstances. Most alarmingly, officials said, Trump revealed the city in the Islamic State’s territory where the U.S. intelligence partner detected the threat…
The identification of the location was seen as particularly problematic, officials said, because Russia could use that detail to help identify the U.S. ally or intelligence capability involved. Officials said the capability could be useful for other purposes, possibly providing intelligence on Russia’s presence in Syria. Moscow would be keenly interested in identifying that source and perhaps disrupting it.
Russia and the United States both regard the Islamic State as an enemy and share limited information about terrorist threats. But the two nations have competing agendas in Syria, where Moscow has deployed military assets and personnel to support President Bashar al-Assad.
“Russia could identify our sources or techniques,” the senior U.S. official said.
A former intelligence official who handled high-level intelligence on Russia said that given the clues Trump provided, “I don’t think that it would be that hard [for Russian spy services] to figure this out.”
At a more fundamental level, the information wasn’t the United States’ to provide to others. Under the rules of espionage, governments — and even individual agencies — are given significant control over whether and how the information they gather is disseminated, even after it has been shared. Violating that practice undercuts trust considered essential to sharing secrets.
The officials declined to identify the ally but said it has previously voiced frustration with Washington’s inability to safeguard sensitive information related to Iraq and Syria.
“If that partner learned we’d given this to Russia without their knowledge or asking first, that is a blow to that relationship,” the U.S. official said.
Trump also described measures the United States has taken or is contemplating to counter the threat, including military operations in Iraq and Syria, as well as other steps to tighten security, officials said…
So, if you thought that things couldn’t possibly get any worse for the administration, you were wrong. Tonight, as I post this, not only has the White House staff apparently gone into hiding, but members of the GOP are finally beginning to acknowledge “the downward spiral,” as talk of impeachment intensifies in Washington.
So here’s the question of the day… How can a party that took the White Hosue by railing against the email security of Secretary Clinton, suggesting that her lax server oversight could result in sensitive intelligence falling into the hands of our enemies, possibly withstand the news, which, by the way, has now been corroborated by Reuters, that Trump straight-up passed along classified information to Lavrov and Kislyak, jeopardizing our campaign against ISIS, as well as our relationship with a valued ally. [Is it any wonder why, as the Wall Street Journal reported back in February, that intelligence professionals have been keeping sensitive information from the Trump administration?] And, to make maters even worse, it would appear that Trump didn’t even share the information in the context of a meaningful conversation about ISIS. If the news accounts are to be believed, he just threw this piece of sensitive intelligence data out as an illustration of how awesome our intelligence gathering capabilities are. “I get great intel. I have people brief me on great intel every day,” he reportedly said to the Russian delegation right before launching into the specifics about the ISIS plot uncovered by a foreign intelligence partner. He essentially gave up the identity of a foreign asset in or to impress the Russians… It’s like he’s becoming Alec Baldwin’s comically braggadocious representation of him.
So, given all of this, what do we do now that we know our President is leaking sensitive intelligence to our adversaries?
I’m inclined to say Pau Ryan was right when he said not too long ago, “Individuals who are ‘extremely careless’ with classified information should be denied further access to such info“… but maybe that just applies to Democrats… What do you think?
Individuals who are "extremely careless" with classified information should be denied further access to such info. pic.twitter.com/0C76Ae95LD
— Paul Ryan (@SpeakerRyan) July 7, 2016
Oh, and for what it’s worth, as some Republicans see it, the problem isn’t that our President gave sensitive information to the Russians, but that someone told the press… Here’s the frontage story on Breitbart News tonight.
update: OK, things have changed a little while we were sleeping. Last night, amid all the excitement, the administration put White House national security adviser H.R. McMaster in front of reporters to say, that the story as reported was false, and that “the President did not disclose any military operations that were not already publicly known.” Early this morning, though, Trump, as is his custom, contradicted that statement, essentially saying that he was within his rights as President to declassify and share sensitive data on the fly, even if it endangered operatives in the field. Here’s his tweet.
As President I wanted to share with Russia (at an openly scheduled W.H. meeting) which I have the absolute right to do, facts pertaining….
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) May 16, 2017
52 Comments
Right now at the Trump hotel in DC.
According to sources, the intel Trump gave the Russians was so sensitive we didn’t even share it with our allies.
I heard the morning that even Ann Coulter is runningvawsy from Trump. It’s hard to imagine he’d become even too “grotesque” (her word) for Coulter.
NPR’s Up First covered it this morning and essentially said what he did wasn’t illegal in any way, as the President can de-classify and classify things at will, but was basically reckless/stupid.
Impeachment isn’t happening anytime soon.
You left out on salient fact. The only reason we know Sergei Kislyak was in the White House is because the Russians released photos. He was snuck into the White House and his name doesn’t appear on any White House log.
If Clinton had done the same thing, we’d be debating her form of execution in Congress right now.
Just to recap, as Fox News was defending Trump this morning, saying that he hadn’t released “code word” intel to the Russians, Trump was on Twitter saying that he had.
https://twitter.com/jacksnowknows/status/864457545384984578/photo/1
At what point do people on the right get tired of lying for him, only to have him eventually confirm what we’d known all along, making them look like the lying assholes that they are?
Adam SchiffVerified account @RepAdamSchiff
Mr. President, this isn’t about your “rights,” but your responsibilities. You could jeopardize our sources, relationships and security.
McMaster denying it was sad. He has to go along to stay in his position. And he HAS to stay in position and is under tthreat. He and Mattis are the only people preventing Trump from creating a Holy War on multiple fronts.
GOP are expecting to be killed in the midterms. Are trying to pass some crap before they impeach Trump but right now none of this is impeachable. None of it. We are finding out via Trump just how much power the President has. Best chance for impeachment is the emoluments clause– and it still requires the House to file the articles. And they won’t do that until their political calculus tells them they will benefit more by taking him down than by keeping him in.
I talked to my very establishment (venture capital) GOP brother in law about this (No he didn’t vote for Trump) and he says Trump is their worst nightmare. All of them. I’m not crying any tears for them, but I think it’s interesting that the GOP thinks he is destroying their party. They see themselves as mortally wounded by him– and possibly the country.
They don’t say so publicly, because they want to stay in power, because they still believe they have the answers. They really believe that free market, smaller government, states rights shit. They really do. It’s good to be reminded that they are only cynical about the machinations. Otherwise, true believers in core conservative principles. Dems are not so different– whether left or center left, we accept many strategic compromises of principle in pursuit of our solutions.
Washington Post: “Opinion: McMaster and Tillerson are complicit in Trump’s dishonesty, so must they resign?”
Read more:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/wp/2017/05/16/mcmaster-and-tillerson-are-complicit-in-trumps-dishonesty-so-must-they-resign/
This isn’t quite related, but I thought you’d enjoy it.
http://imgur.com/a/Ds4xK
Lock him up.
Interesting reactions to a topic of interest to many within the United States.
If McMaster resigns, that only serves the Bannon faction and Trump. McMaster appointment was a concession to the establishment GOP. Nothing would please Trumpists more than to be rid of him because Trump fucked up.
What is the function of scapegoats?
To divert attention from the core issue or a systemic problem.
McMaster needs to stay in place. The left is idiotic to call for his resignation. Do we care more about political points or about defeating Trumpism and avoiding holy war.
Pete– people elsewhere care too. This was the lead story just about everywhere in the world. What happens in America matters elsewhere. Which is deeply unfortunate for all of us right now.
If any of us were in a government position that could prevent the escalation of damage under Trumpism, it would be more honorable to do what was necessary to keep that job than worry about how it looks when required to repeat talking points of the State.
Grandstanding against the State serves nothing. The state wins. Honor is more complicated than waving the right political flag.
Time to re-read all those Soviet era Eastern European novels…
His admission also makes his staff look like jackasses, again. McMaster and senior staff are now caught in a lie saying the Post story was fake news and no intelligence was shared. What a diaper fire.
In in defense (kind of) McMaster parsed his words in such a way at to technically correct, as I understand it. He also told reporters: “This is the last place in the world I wanted to be.” Still was asked to cover for Trump, and he did it.
http://hill.cm/3tnh5qS
Jean, I thought that Congress needs to initiate impeachment proceedings based on findings of…” According to the US Constitution, “Treason, Bribery, or other High Crimes and Misdemeanors” justify impeachment, although the exact definition of “High Crimes and Misdemeanors” is often the subject of debate.” from Legal Zoom.
So I think that there’s plenty that he’s done in the past week that could be deemed impeachable offenses, but Congress needs to start the process, which they don’t seem to want to do. I really don’t understand clearly how the process works. Does a majority in Congress need to vote for it for it to go to the Senate for a trial? Can one member request a vote for impeachment?
BREAKING: European official to AP: Country might stop sharing intel with US if Trump gave classified info to Russian diplomats.
https://twitter.com/AP/status/864470862141022208
They are not impeachable offenses. What he has done thus far and admitted to is legal. Unacceptable but legal. Firing Comey and declassifying information are all within his rights as president. He is vulnerable on the emoluments clause of the constitution (actively leveraging profit from the presidency) and treason if they show collusion and his fore knowledge. They can’t impeach now. But if it was Clinton, I’m sure they would. And yes the house must bring articles of impeachment with a full vote. Strategically for Dems, it’s better to wait for the midterms, win congress, then impeach both Trump and Pence (if possible) , making the Speaker president.
If we survive. Unless tapes showing treasonous condensation appears sooner, that’s the most we can expect. We should be focusing down ticket to defeat Trumpism. Oh and we have to resist every shorty piece of legislation and executive order one by one meanwhile too,..
Collusion not condensation* ha.
Who are we to quarrel with Laurence Tribe when he says these qualify as “high crimes and misdemeanors”.
http://thehill.com/homenews/news/333080-lawrence-tribe-high-crimes-in-trumps-firing-of-comey
I think Mark is collecting treasonous condensation in that hole in his back yard …
Even if Trump does something ‘impeachable’ they still need the majority of the House and 67 Senators to agree. They don’t have that now – not even close.
Trump would have to become truly radioactive for the Republicans to go that route. I don’t buy it happening anytime soon. Maybe after the 2018 elections.
People on the left need to learn when speech is political v actionable. They need to wake up to the fact that they are pandered to– especially by those politicos the farthest on the left. Now maybe it’s effective for them to speak truth to power but that doesn’t mean they can change the status quo any way but incrementally.
The right has always been more strategic than the left. Less righteous and more strategic. That’s how they got gerrymandering through. Right under our noses while we were protesting the war we could not stop, they were consolidating power for a decade plus. They no longer need to win the popular vote to win. And also more than 70% of races are now decided in primaries, so only the most extreme candidates obligated to their base win office.
Good thing we were for peace. That worked.
President Trump asked James Comey in February to close the Michael Flynn investigation, Mr. Comey said in a memo at the time
Tuesday, May 16, 2017 5:26 PM EDT
President Trump asked the F.B.I. director, James B. Comey, to shut down the federal investigation into Mr. Trump’s former national security adviser, Michael T. Flynn, in an Oval Office meeting in February, according to a memo that Mr. Comey wrote shortly after the meeting.
Jean Henry, the right is where they are at because the Democrats became republican light.”Good thing we were for peace. That worked.” Obama’s policies never benefited the vast majority of working folks, he failed to end the war or stop the steady erosion of our civil liberties. Identity politics only works if you are prosperous. Enough people were tired of the bromides offered to us by compromising gutless principle less democrats , (Clinton and new way Democrats gutted Aid for Families with Dependent Children). Obama was ready to throw Social Security under the bus (would have if the Republican would have worked with him). It was the Kennedy Progressive wing of the Democratic Party that gave Obama his first nomination and subsequent election. It was the Clintoites kicking them in the teeth that sent many to vote for Jill Stein (I am proudly one).
Republicans always go for blood. Engler was a master of it, and many learned from him. First, go after the democrats funding, (ie. the war on organized labor) at all cost control the legislature during the redistricting years. Mean while Democrats are always looking to compromise with the blood suckers.
The most leftist “main street” candidate this last election cycle, Bernie Sanders, was slightly to the right of the Eisenhower Republican campaign of the 1950’s. The Democrats have been bought and paid for, even if they take back congress in 2018 there will be no impeachment, they will be too busy compromising with the Trumpites.
The only resistance that is meaningful is the collective action taken in the streets. Until those in power fear the people, they will continue to abuse us.
Don’t blame me, I voted for the tooth fairy.
Wobbile– The fantasy that the Dems were ever true leftists is absurd. They were never as far left as you think. And the working class was never united. The Dem party and labor were openly racist, and when they started to not be, working class whites abandoned ship to vote Reagan. FDR and Kennedy were very much like Obama. None of them were anti-war. Every bit of their progressive agendas were compromises against a left that was asking for much more (Social Security was a hedge against demands for UBI) . Obama could never have implemented the agenda you call for. He could barely get the ACA through.
I actually think it’s great to call for a more progressive agenda– necessary. It works. BUT progressive agendas have never ever been passed in the way the left imagines it will happen. And the Dem party has never been as far left as you imagine– ever. The right has moved, and the GOP with it, but the Dems have always been a coalition party of multiple perspectives and interests. And frankly, I prefer we form our uneasy coalition with corporate interests (with more balance) than racists, but you know, pick your poison. Should the Dems move their rhetoric more to the left? Yes. Can we expect that the democratic process in our very divided nation will then produce a leftist revolutionary agenda? No. Because most of the country doesn’t want it yet.
PS Jill Stein is an idiot. And a dangerous one. That’s a stupid vote on all counts. I’m for progress. I know what the word ‘progressive’ means. I understand how progress takes place in this country. Jill Stein does not. She is a radical, and an ill informed one, willing to say anything other uninformed leftists want to hear. So she’s an ignorant radical populist propagandist. You should be very proud. PS Righteousness correlates to ignorance. It’s a tell. Moral certainty is the seat of all human failing.
Jean’s right. Just listen to Wobblie, calling people dem light, such partisan bullshit and that is exactly what brought us to where we are today. And into the future…?
WSJ: Russian state-run bank secretly financed deal involving Trump’s hotel partner at a key moment for the project
https://twitter.com/kylegriffin1/status/864854989889556480
Very passionate responses.
Jill Stein was (is) a complete moron. Trump level stupid, really, just with bigger words.
I actually sometimes wonder if Jill Stein isn’t a plant by the right and/or Russians. I mean, come on! The way she campaigned against Clinton and hardly said anything bad about Trump. The crazy quantitative easing stuff. The ties to Russia. The far left got played and hard but they won’t see it. Granted, I have no way of knowing if Stein is a nut or if she is an evil genius working for the right but whatever, she is part of the reason we are stuck with Trump now and I will never forgive her for it.
The best part is when the far left say that the Democrats lost because they weren’t to the left enough. Ok, maybe, but you tell me how you plan to move the party so much further to the left without losing the center. If being far left is what it takes, the Green Party would be something other than a complete joke. It seems to me that from a strategic POV, it would make as much sense to move the party to the right as the left so as to pick up disillusioned moderate Republicans.
I will also point out that Clinton lost running on the most progressive platform the Democrats have ever had so again, not so sure that moving the left is the answer. The Democrats *did* move to the left and they lost.
I’m sorry Lynn. There was nothing progressive about the Democratic platform last year. No call for single payer (it was part of Democratic platforms before the ACA), no call to end fracking, no call for the elimination of carbon based energy sources, no call to end the wars, no call for an equal rights amendment—if you thought the Clinton campaign was “the most progressive platform the Democrats have ever had” , we clearly live in different realities.
Jean, the Democrats have been in the business of selling out its supporters since FDR died. Henry Wallace, George McGovern, and yes, the Kennedies all supported agendas which would have helped us common folks. After the McGovern loss, the Democrats made sure that no outsider would ever be nominated again. So instead of candidates who embrace popular aspirations of the people, we get Corporate shills.
Jill Stein ran because Ralph is too old. She would have gladly stepped aside if Sanders had had the guts to run, but he is too busy settling into a comfortable old age.
How many Democrats thought Synder (the poisoner) would be fine as Governor? Democrats are more loathsome than Republicans because you think they might help you and do the right thing—and then they (with only a couple of exceptions) vote for the Patriot Act. I worked with the Dems for many years. Was even one of Granholms political appointees. But the absolute craven way they have capitulated to the Corporate oligarchy (I’m sorry enriching health insurance companies while undermining any attempt at creating a universal single payer system is not progress) demonstrates the total lack of principles and opportunism that guides the party apparatus and those who seek to lead it.
Until voters reject the two party options we are presented with, we will continue to be led by war mongers, and corporate shills.
By all means, when has a Democrat run on a platform more progressive than the one Clinton just ran on? It really was the most progressive ever even if it wasn’t progressive enough for you.
Until the far left realizes that something is better than nothing, that demanding perfection at the expense of incremental change is harmful, we will just keep going backwards. The left has to unite but honestly, the far left is so nuts I am not sure if it is possible. For example, single payer is a good goal but getting to it too fast will cause a lot of disruption (i.e. lost jobs) and until we have a proper safety net in place, it would be stupid to go that route. Guess what? The far left set us back on that score by not voting for Clinton. It would have been better to vote for her and work hard to get more progressives elected down ticket and later, a more progressive President.
Yes, a lot of Democrats that I know liked Snyder but it is because they really are conservative Democrats. The question now is how to find a candidate who will appeal to such Democrats while also appealing to the far left. There probably isn’t one but primaries are where that battle needs to take place. Sanders did well and then heavily influenced the Clinton platform but some people still couldn’t compromise even a little and vote for her. I don’t know why. I just can’t put my vagina on it.
Right now, our foremost concern must be removing DJT from the White House, and trying to restore what’s left of our democracy.
If/when that happens, it would really do us well to have some credible, alternative candidates, and a party that is well-prepared to inspire high levels of genuine popular support.
If the Democrats plan on being that party, they need to be able to have some honest conversations about what went wrong in 2016, and what will be required to regain the confidence and trust of voters.
Instead … continuing to scold voters for merely being racist, sexist, or less educated; chastizing voters for not understanding how “qualified, “progressive,” or “electable” Hillary Clinton was – or continuing to blame Jill Stein – just aren’t going to cut it.
If Democrats want to become a majority party again, party leaders need to detox from their addiction to big-money interests, re-engage with real voters – and propose (and fight for) credible policies that will actually help ordinary people in practical tangible ways.
Single-payer healthcare; meaningful student-debt relief; robust support for labor unions; living wages; guaranteed sick and vacation time for all workers; and massive investment in repairing our crumbling infrastructure would all be good places to start … but I don’t have much faith that’s going to happen.
Demetrius, If what you are saying is that we should vote for any Democrat who happens to get the nomination in the midterms, even if we don’t especially like them for the purpose of getting DJT out of office, then I agree.
Going forward, what we need is for those on the left to figure out that battles over policy need to take place during primaries and even before that, when electing party leaders. I have seen some of that happening. Battles over policy after nominations that result in third party voting are harmful. Encouraging people not to vote because the candidate is less than perfect is harmful too.
However, if what you are saying that people should STFU about the racism and sexism that is unfortunately rampant on the far left, then I disagree. The base of the party is not white men and shaming those who point that out only alienates people. In all likelihood the base of the party will continue to nominate people like Clinton who btw, did run on a platform of policies that would be good for people and certainly would have been a step in the right direction even if she is something of a realist in terms of the kinds of policies likely to get past a Republican congress.
I don’t faith that we will ever get to a point where progressive policies are advanced because we on the left can’t figure out that incremental change is better than nothing. Too many on the left still haven’t even figured out that voting is the most important thing either, especially in midterms and downticket races.
It has now been six months since the election, and yet establishment Democrats are still busy explaining to everyone why *we* were wrong – and *they* were right … despite one of the biggest political upsets in American history, and having Donald Trump (!) actually become President of the United States.
I simply don’t understand why some people are so committed to doubling-down on policies, tactics (and candidates) that clearly continue to weaken the Democratic Party.
From the New Republic:
“In November (2016), the (Democratic Party) lost control of state legislatures in Iowa, Minnesota, and Kentucky. The state senate in Connecticut, which had been firmly blue, is now evenly split. Republicans ousted Democratic governors in Missouri, New Hampshire, and Vermont. All told, Democrats surrendered about 30 seats in state legislatures. They now hold majorities in just 31 of the country’s 98 legislative bodies, and only 15 of the nation’s governors are Democrats.
The losses in November are part of a sharp and unprecedented decline for the party at the state level. Since Obama took office eight years ago, Democrats have lost over 800 seats in state legislatures. For the first time in history, they do not control a single legislative chamber in the South. Overall, the party is now at its weakest point at the state level since 1920. ”
https://newrepublic.com/article/138897/democrats-biggest-disaster
I am just curious. How do you white dudes on the far left plan to win over the “establishment democrats” Who are these “establishment democrats” anyways? When I hear that term, I think of all the people I know who have actually been working hard all these years trying to change things. I think of all those women who volunteer for candidates and call and write their reps regularly. I think of the people I know who have run for office and the sacrifices they have made to do so. But really, how do you plan to win over that much larger group? you need them more than they need you.
“you need them more than they need you.” The New Way Democrat program in a nut shell. How did that work for Clinton? You have to look behind the propaganda and look behind the curtain. “establishment democrats” are the problem.
Everyone ready for Joe Lieberman to be FBI director? Never met a war he couldn’t get behind. He is an “establishment democrat” who has spent a life time selling out working folks.
“You need them more than they need you.”
On the contrary – to once again become a powerful, relevant, national party, the Democrats need all the support they can get. Of course this includes women, minorities, liberals, and well-educated coastal and college-town elites. But it also includes working harder to attract more rural folks, blue collar workers, Bernie supporters, and yes, even “white dudes.”
And unlike some others … I don’t think these aims are mutually exclusive.
In short, I think we need much less corporate influence, and less hollow “progressive” rhetoric … and more actual fighting for policies that will promote real economic equality – including single-payer healthcare, student-debt relief, living wages, paid sick-leave and vacation, promoting labor unions, etc.
Yeah, Wobblie, it seems clear to me that Clinton’s listening to guys like you and adopting the most progressive platform the Dems have had in my lifetime really worked out for her. In all seriousness, the reaction of the far left was to campaign against her in order to get a Trump win in order to shake things up but do you really think that is going to help the left? I don’t. I think that in the future the far left should be outright ignored, shunned, and scorned because people like Jill Stein are harmful. The “establishment” does not need the far left. Their sexism and BS are better left outside of the party. Did your not voting for her work out for you? Did Jill Stein and Ralph Nader do anything positive for the far left? Have they made the country go left? Did the country go left when those same ding dongs voted for Nader in 2000 or did we have eight years of policy and wars from which we still have not recovered? Maybe it makes you feel superior and powerful that the election was close enough that your vote mattered more than it otherwise would but can you honestly say that we are in a better place? I think the Democrats need to stop going after the far left and work harder in the center and they need to make themselves the party of minorities and women even if it alienates blue collar rural white men and women.
Demetrius, I disagree. The main reason white people voted for Trump was not economic anxiety, it was cultural anxiety and frankly, it may be impossible to be the party of minorities and women without stoking the anxieties of white dudes losing privilege. White guys and rural white guys should be welcome but their racist and sexist agenda should not be and I think in the long run, it would be shortsighted to acquiesce to them. I am all for fighting for things like single payer health care, a universal basic income, stronger unions and labor protections, etc etc etc but I think this election has made it clear that it isn’t really about those things. Clinton adopted a platform that would have moved us much closer to those things and still lost. Still got bashed by the likes of Wobblie, thus showing why there is no incentive to listening to guys like him on the far left. Clearly adopting a more progressive position is not the answer to winning elections at least right now.
Think Progress:
OOPS: Trump accidentally confirms source of classified intel he gave to Russians http://thkpr.gs/54b3b9e1fd72
How do you become the party of woman and minorities without promoting a working class agenda. The last I looked most of the people I see working around me our woman and minorities. Eliminating Aid for Families with Dependent Children was Bill Clinton’s doing. That is why we see mothers begging on the side of the street now, we didn’t 20 years ago. Since most of the folks I see work in retail, a $15 dollar min. wage would immediately raise their standards of living, but Hillary was barely on board for a $10 min. wage (a rate that Ann Arbor adopted over a decade ago). Single payer health was the program of the Democratic party for my entire life (till the passage of the ACA) now all we get is hand outs to insurance companies.
16 years of war and we pretend it hasn’t totally warped our politics and our economy. War is the life blood of the system. Was there some thing about ending the wars in the Democratic platform? I missed that.
And the latest news is the sale of visa’s will be what saves Ypsi from the Water Street fiasco. The essence of Trumpism.
Meta,
Sorry, but the article you shared is idiotic.
Why was the article idiotic? The article merely stated the facts. The President announced to the world yesterday that it was Israel’s intel that he had given to the Russians.
wobble– I don’t see any call for a populist protectionist revolution in these latest Gallup results. Looks like the DNC can move safely further to the left but pretty much have things right about the political mood and direction of the country. Please notice results on international trade and immigration post election
https://www.vox.com/the-big-idea/2017/5/22/15672530/opinion-polls-liberal-immigration-trade-role-government-aca
The conclusion of the article does not follow from the facts provided in the article. Trump denied naming Israel as the source of the intel after a reporter accused him of naming “Israel” as the source. In doing so, Trump neither denied nor confirmed the source of the intel.
Opps, he did it again.
Read more:
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-northkorea-missiles-submarines-idUSKBN18K15Y
5 Trackbacks
[…] Yup, as we discussed might happen yesterday, now that it’s been announced that former FBI Director Mueller will be heading an independent Russia investigation on behalf of the Justice Department, the Republicans are attempting to scurry away from the whole mess as fast as humanly possible. And, I guess, as Graham sees it, going back after Clinton will not only give the impression of equivalency, which as we know, is absolute bullshit, but also allow him the opportunity to look like a badass investigator looking out for the welfare of the nation, instead of as a bootlicking coward who doesn’t have the courage to stand up to what is likely a criminal conspiracy that extends all the way to the Oval Office… So, yes, while Mueller looks into the real threats facing our country, it looks as though Graham and company will be delving into Clinton’s server security, and theorizing as to how, hypothetically, a handful of marginally classified documents could have fallen into the hands of our enemies… completely ignoring the fact that, just a few days ago, in the real world, our sitting President snuck a Russian agent into the White House and gave him the identity of an Isr…. […]
[…] according to a senior aide who subsequently spoke with Obama.” In the bottom photo, Donald Trump entertains Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov and Putin’s Ambassador to the Unite…, the man heading the investigation into the Russian hacking of our election. This meeting was not […]
[…] And, the day after firing Comey, in a secret meeting that the press wasn’t made aware of, Trump pretty much said the same thing to the Russian ambassador. Then, of course, there was the time when he pretty much admitted to not coming forward and telling […]
[…] And, the day after firing Comey, in a secret meeting that the press wasn’t made aware of, Trump pretty much said the same thing to the Russian ambassador at the White House. Then, of course, there was the time when he pretty much admitted to not coming forward and telling […]
[…] And, the day after firing Comey, in a secret meeting that the press wasn’t made aware of, Trump pretty much said the same thing to the Russian ambassador at the White House. Then, of course, there was the time when he pretty much admitted to not coming forward and telling […]