Red_Dragon wrote: 

SEEKING LEAD ATTORNEY FOR DIFFICULT CLIENT (1600 Pennsylvania Ave NW)

Give him some more rope.

drainin' that swamp... MAGA!

A hoax like climate change...

President Trump has privately told several people that Stormy Daniels’s allegations of an affair with him are a “hoax” and that Daniels isn’t the type of woman he finds attractive, The Washington Post reported on Monday.

The president has publicly been silent about the Stormy Daniels controversy, but after she appeared on “60 Minutes” on Sunday night and shared the details of her alleged affair, Trump privately attacked her and her media tour among administration staffers.

He also asked people close to him if the whole issue is affecting his poll numbers, sources told the Post.

At the White House, Trump reportedly asked staff members if they had seen Daniels on “60 Minutes” and requested their thoughts.

The president did not think Daniels appeared credible, according to a source who spoke with the Post.

Over the weekend at his Florida resort Mar-a-Lago, Trump also questioned friends and guests about their thoughts on the Daniels controversy.

His friends and advisers reportedly warned him that he had little to gain from engaging with Daniels.

Trump has reportedly come to the conclusion that the details of the alleged affair will not significantly damage his political support and that the issue will eventually pass. (...)

 VV wrote: 
Probably already has, and the real question is when it happens.

Boy, after the Stormy Daniels 60 Minutes story I would have thought we would have seen 20-30 tweets from Trump today beginning with "Lyin' Stormy Daniels...".
 
Heck, he never misses a chance to lash out at those that he feels are against him. He's leaving it up to others to respond on his behalf?
 
His silence speaks volumes.
 

 
Is there a Vegas line on how long after he leaves office that Melania demands a divorce?

Heh. Headline: "What does Melania have in common with Hillary...?"

True. 

 Steely_D wrote: 
right.

 Red_Dragon wrote: 
FTFY
counting the minutes until "but her emails/Benghazi"

Richard Nixon ~ 76 indictments, 55 convictions, 15 sent to prison.

Gerald Ford ~ 1 indictment, 1 conviction, 1 sent to prison.

Jimmy Carter ~ 1 indictment, no convictions, nobody sent to prison.

Ronald Reagan ~ 26 indictments, 16 convictions, 8 sent to prison.

George H.W. Bush ~ 1 indictment, 1 conviction, 1 sent to prison.

Bill Clinton ~ 2 indictments, 1 conviction, 1 sent to prison.

George W. Bush ~ 16 indictments, 16 convictions, 9 sent to prison.

Barack Obama ~ ZERO indictments, ZERO convictions, ZERO sent to prison.

Donald Trump ~ pending

 kurtster wrote: 
It doesn't have to be 50/50. I watch Trump without commentary and I understand why the coverage of his administration is so negative. Some of it is his style (making fun of the handicapped) and some of it is substance (his "I won't have time to play golf" juxtaposed with his extraordinary amount of time on the course).

I try to give credit where it's due but, objectively, he's abandoning and insulting the countries with which we'd had a good relationship and intentionally trying to cozy up to Russia/NK. He's poking China with his trade war rhetoric, which is clunky and ham-handed. He refused to divest from Trump Inc and continues to directly profit from his Presidency. So far, there's no evidence of anything but using his office as a pay-for-play opportunity for a guy who was the CEO of a relatively small family business.

Great deal maker? Only for himself. If he would actually do something that would help the nation (education, infrastructure, health care, etc...) then I think we'd have a bit more to work with. The truth is, as Stevland Morris once sang, "you haven't done nothin." He deserves the predominantly negative review that he's getting, and telling his critics that they're liars is someone who's too thin skinned and reactive to be in that office.

 Lazy8 wrote: 

 R_P wrote:
From today's LP FB post: "I'm already against John Bolton's next war".

Some things never change...
Here’s John Bolton Promising Regime Change in Iran by the End of 2018

(...) Bolton has not only demanded that the Trump administration withdraw from the nuclear deal, he also previously advocated bombing Iran instead. Bolton has spent the better part of a decade calling for the United States to help overthrow the theocratic government in Tehran and hand power to a cult-like group of Iranian exiles with no real support inside the country.

Just eight months ago, at a Paris gathering, Bolton told members of the Iranian exile group, known as the Mujahedeen Khalq, MEK, or People’s Mujahedeen, that the Trump administration should embrace their goal of immediate regime change in Iran and recognize their group as a “viable” alternative.

“The outcome of the president’s policy review should be to determine that the Ayatollah Khomeini’s 1979 revolution will not last until its 40th birthday,” Bolton said. (The 40th anniversary of the Iranian revolution will be on February 11, 2019.) “The declared policy of the United States should be the overthrow of the mullahs’ regime in Tehran,” Bolton added. “The behavior and the objectives of the regime are not going to change and, therefore, the only solution is to change the regime itself.”

As the Iranian expatriate journalist Bahman Kalbasi noted, Bolton concluded his address to the exiles with a rousing promise: “And that’s why, before 2019, we here will celebrate in Tehran!”

To understand how extraordinary it is that the man about to become the president’s most senior national security official made this promise to the MEK, it is important to know that, until recently, the Iranian dissidents had spent three decades trying to achieve their aims through violence, including terrorist attacks.

After members of the MEK helped foment the 1979 revolution, in part by killing American civilians working in Tehran, the group then lost a bitter struggle for power to the Islamists led by the revolution’s leader, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini. With its leadership forced to flee Iran in 1981, the MEK’s members set up a government-in-exile in France and established a military base in Iraq, where they were given arms and training by Saddam Hussein, as part of a strategy to destabilize the government in Tehran that he was at war with.

In recent years, as The Intercept has reported, the MEK has poured millions of dollars into reinventing itself as a moderate political group ready to take power in Iran if Western-backed regime change ever takes place. To that end, it lobbied successfully to be removed from the State Department’s list of foreign terrorist organizations in 2012. The Iranian exiles achieved this over the apparent opposition of then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, in part by paying a long list of former U.S. officials hefty speaking fees of between $10,000 to $50,000 for hymns of praise like the one Bolton delivered last July.

But, according to Ariane Tabatabai, a Georgetown University scholar, the “cult-like dissident group” — whose married members were reportedly forced to divorce and take a vow of lifelong celibacy — “has no viable chance of seizing power in Iran.”

If the current government is not Iranians’ first choice for a government, the MEK is not even their last — and for good reason. The MEK supported Saddam Hussein during the Iran-Iraq War. The people’s discontent with the Iranian government at that time did not translate into their supporting an external enemy that was firing Scuds into Tehran, using chemical weapons and killing hundreds of thousands of Iranians, including many civilians. Today, the MEK is viewed negatively by most Iranians, who would prefer to maintain the status quo than rush to the arms of what they consider a corrupt, criminal cult.

Despite such doubts that the MEK’s political wing, the National Council of Resistance of Iran, is any more reliable than Ahmad Chalabi’s Iraqi National Congress proved to be, spending lavishly on paid endorsements has earned the group a bipartisan roster of Washington politicians willing to sign up as supporters. At a previous gala, in 2016, Bolton was joined in singing the group’s praises by another former U.N. ambassador, Bill Richardson; a former attorney general, Michael Mukasey; the former State Department spokesperson P.J. Crowley; the former Homeland Security adviser Frances Townsend; the former Rep. Patrick Kennedy, D-R.I.; and the former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean. That Paris gala was hosted by Linda Chavez, a former Reagan administration official. (...)

It's time to kick the Iran Syndrome/Trauma once and for all...

1. constant liars appealing to the ignorant   /https://www.nytimes.com/search/thomas%20friedman

   OPINION

   What Trump and Putin Have in Common

   They are steadily eroding norms, but they can be stopped.

   By Thomas L. Friedman

   March 20
2. 

 Steely_D wrote: 
Actually, the Press aka formerly known as the Fourth Estate (or the 4th branch of gov) has special provisions for it carved out in the Constitution.

It has turned its back on the Constitution and impartiality. 

I cannot agree that ...  discrediting media that disagrees with you (and most do) is a step towards fascism ... 

To say that the media is above reproach is just as ridiculous.  They dish it out, but they whine when it comes back.  Oh, Brian Ross (ABC)(and from Cleveland) made up a story about Trump and the Dow dropped 300 points within seconds of it airing.  Seen him around much lately ?  He is permanently barred by ABC from covering Trump in any way shape or form as a direct result.

Forgetting print media, I think we can agree that there are only 6 venues for broadcast news that is available to everyone ...

ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, MSNBC and Fox.  Of those 6 only Fox has more positive than negative to say about Trump.  The other 5 average 90% negative.  The impact on public opinion is tremendous considering the size of the population that watches these 5 vs the population that watches Fox.  90% negative is beyond biased, it is pejorative.  That requires blow back and questioning challenge.  Then that these challenging actions are called fascist ?  I don't think so.  I call it necessary.  No wonder Trump tweets so much, duh ......

 Beaker wrote:
 
Sorry, that was metaphorical, referring to it as a branch of government. I think most everyone else understood what I was saying. Spoiler: it's not literally a branch of government.

Yeah, I've obviously been under a rock. That's the ticket.