Luminous Landscape Forum
The Art of Photography => The Coffee Corner => Topic started by: Schewe on July 18, 2018, 04:03:09 am
-
So, this just happened...
NRA and some other nonprofits will no longer need to identify their donors to the IRS (https://www.cnn.com/2018/07/17/politics/treasury-irs-donor-lists/index.html)
Some nonprofit groups will no longer have to give the IRS the names of donors who give them $5,000 or more.
Among the groups that will no longer have to report donors are the National Rifle Association, various chambers of commerce, and groups focused on particular issues, such as Americans for Prosperity, which has been closely associated with the Koch brothers. But the ruling also applies to groups like the NAACP, labor unions and volunteer fire departments.
It was a long-sought goal of some of those groups -- particularly on the right.
Is this change happening because:
FBI ‘investigating whether Russian money went to NRA’s campaign to help elect Donald Trump’ (https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/fbi-russia-nra-donald-trump-campaign-election-investigation-mueller-banker-money-a8225581.html)
Activists are demanding the National Rifle Association (NRA) reveal if it received donations from Russia, after it was reported the FBI is investigating whether a Kremlin-linked Moscow businessman channelled money to the group’s campaign to help Donald Trump win the election.
With the influence of the NRA under mounting scrutiny following a school shooting in Florida and the campaign led by students to change the country’s gun laws, campaigners say it is vital that investigators uncover if the powerful lobbying group group used any Russian money to help elect Republican members of Congress and Mr Trump during the 2016 race. It is against the law to use foreign money in federal election campaigns.
It was recently reported the FBI was focusing its attention on Alexander Torshin, a former member of the upper house of Russia’s parliament and currently deputy governor of Russia’s central bank, who is said to have a close relationship with Russian President Vladimir Putin. The 64-year-old gun enthusiast is also said to be a Life Member of the NRA.
Ironically, this Treasury Department regulatory change happened on the same day that Mariia Butina was indicted...
Russian Accused of Infiltrating NRA on Mission From Kremlin (https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-07-16/russian-gun-rights-advocate-arrested-by-u-s-for-conspiracy)
U.S. authorities accused a Russian national of trying to establish a back channel to American politicians during the last election cycle, announcing the charges just hours after President Donald Trump accepted Russian President Vladimir Putin’s assurance his country hadn’t interfered.
The woman, Mariia Butina, tried to create a quiet line of communication between U.S. and Russian officials and attempted to infiltrate the National Rifle Association on behalf of the Russian government in a long-running scheme that traces its origins to at least 2013, prosecutors said. Butina, who appeared in federal court in Washington on Monday, is accused of failing to register as a foreign agent.
Butina is the latest Russian to be charged in an expanding investigation that on Friday led to the indictment of 12 Russian military intelligence officers who allegedly stole and disseminated emails from Democratic groups. Special counsel Robert Mueller previously charged Russian social-media trolls and their backers with trying to sow discord in the U.S. political system and help elect Trump. The Justice Department’s national security unit brought the charges against Butina and is handling the continuing investigation stemming from the computer intrusions.
Butina served as a special assistant to the deputy governor of Russia’s central bank, Alexander Torshin, a former Russian senator belonging to Vladimir Putin’s political party who is allegedly tied to the Russian mob world. Torshin, who isn’t named in the complaint but is identifiable by title, is now under sanctions by the U.S. government.
So, how much money did the NRA donate to politicians (like Trump):
Which lawmakers got the most NRA money? (https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/lawmakers-nra-money/story?id=53230001)
But the NRA’s real power shows up in independent expenditures. It can raise and spend unlimited amounts of money supporting or opposing candidates - as long as it doesn't coordinate with the candidates.
During just the 2016 election cycle, the NRA spent $54 million in the presidential and congressional races, nearly $20 million of which went to attacking Democrat Hillary Clinton and more than $11 million to support Republican Donald Trump. In 2008 and 2012, the group had spent $18 million opposing Democrat Barack Obama and $10 million supporting Republicans John McCain and Mitt Romney.
Hum....exactly where did the NRA get that money? Well, going forward, I guess nobody will know (even if the money comes from foreign sources?)
Hummmm indeed!
-
Careful, Jeff, you'll hurt your lip thumbing it that hard.
-
Careful, Jeff, you'll hurt your lip thumbing it that hard.
Not sure what you are saying, but am I correct in assuming that you don't care if there is Russian involvement in the money flows (in this instance via the NRA) to influence your government?
Cheers,
Bart
-
So, this just happened...
NRA and some other nonprofits will no longer need to identify their donors to the IRS (https://www.cnn.com/2018/07/17/politics/treasury-irs-donor-lists/index.html)
Is this change happening because:
FBI ‘investigating whether Russian money went to NRA’s campaign to help elect Donald Trump’ (https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/fbi-russia-nra-donald-trump-campaign-election-investigation-mueller-banker-money-a8225581.html)
Ironically, this Treasury Department regulatory change happened on the same day that Mariia Butina was indicted...
Russian Accused of Infiltrating NRA on Mission From Kremlin (https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-07-16/russian-gun-rights-advocate-arrested-by-u-s-for-conspiracy)
So, how much money did the NRA donate to politicians (like Trump):
Which lawmakers got the most NRA money? (https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/lawmakers-nra-money/story?id=53230001)
Hum....exactly where did the NRA get that money? Well, going forward, I guess nobody will know (even if the money comes from foreign sources?)
Hummmm indeed!
Maybe I missed it. Was there an explicitly stated reason for the change? What problem are they trying to fix?
-
Maybe I missed it. Was there an explicitly stated reason for the change? What problem are they trying to fix?
It's a somewhat complicated issue related to free speech and the fact that the IRS doesn't need this information to begin with. The organizations in question are exempt from paying taxes to begin with and the so providing information to the IRS up front is not necessary. The IRS can still request information from these organizations if they believe that there is an issue. The Washington Post (https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/dark-money-groups-dont-need-to-disclose-donors-to-irs-treasury-says/2018/07/17/38f5d8aa-89d0-11e8-a345-a1bf7847b375_story.html?utm_term=.29102a4591aa) has a good summary of the issues (providing you have not exceeded the number of free articles this month :))
Personally, I think this is the correct decision under current law but that the policy of not disclosing contributions to these organizations which are effectively political campaign arms is just wrong. This coupled with the Citizen's United Supreme Court ruling that overturned the McCain/Feingold campaign funding law has led to a lot of "dark money" into our campaigns. The only way around this is open disclosure of financing which will require a carefully tailored law from Congress. I don't mind unrestricted campaign contributions as long as there is a threshold for disclosure. There is no reason why contributions over $10K (just as an example, there should be an open debate about the minimum for disclosure) has to be reported to an Internet site within 48 hours of receipt. If I'm running for Congress as a candidate of 'Big Pharmaceutical Industry' and I report huge contributions, my opponent is then free to use this information in attack advertising. It will be very easy to identify those candidates that are receiving 'special interest' money. Some people may not have any problems with that, and others might; sunlight on this whole process is the best disinfectant (assuming one believes the process to be tainted).
The other thing that needs to be done is to correct the current tax code and clarify what constitutes a tax-exempt social welfare organizations. For example, the National Rifle Association falls into this category and there are liberal leaning groups also in this category. This is just another example of loopholes in the US tax code that need to be fixed. I am not optimistic that anything will happen and we will continue to see lots of "dark money" pouring into US election campaigns.
-
It's a somewhat complicated issue related to free speech and the fact that the IRS doesn't need this information to begin with. The organizations in question are exempt from paying taxes to begin with and the so providing information to the IRS up front is not necessary. The IRS can still request information from these organizations if they believe that there is an issue. The Washington Post (https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/dark-money-groups-dont-need-to-disclose-donors-to-irs-treasury-says/2018/07/17/38f5d8aa-89d0-11e8-a345-a1bf7847b375_story.html?utm_term=.29102a4591aa) has a good summary of the issues (providing you have not exceeded the number of free articles this month :))
Personally, I think this is the correct decision under current law but that the policy of not disclosing contributions to these organizations which are effectively political campaign arms is just wrong. This coupled with the Citizen's United Supreme Court ruling that overturned the McCain/Feingold campaign funding law has led to a lot of "dark money" into our campaigns. The only way around this is open disclosure of financing which will require a carefully tailored law from Congress. I don't mind unrestricted campaign contributions as long as there is a threshold for disclosure. There is no reason why contributions over $10K (just as an example, there should be an open debate about the minimum for disclosure) has to be reported to an Internet site within 48 hours of receipt. If I'm running for Congress as a candidate of 'Big Pharmaceutical Industry' and I report huge contributions, my opponent is then free to use this information in attack advertising. It will be very easy to identify those candidates that are receiving 'special interest' money. Some people may not have any problems with that, and others might; sunlight on this whole process is the best disinfectant (assuming one believes the process to be tainted).
The other thing that needs to be done is to correct the current tax code and clarify what constitutes a tax-exempt social welfare organizations. For example, the National Rifle Association falls into this category and there are liberal leaning groups also in this category. This is just another example of loopholes in the US tax code that need to be fixed. I am not optimistic that anything will happen and we will continue to see lots of "dark money" pouring into US election campaigns.
Thanks for this. Election campaigns (Presidential ones anyway, maybe others) in the US seem to be never-ending to me, viewed from Canada. It seems as if no sooner is someone elected that people start speculating about the next election. It goes on in Canada too, elsewhere too I guess, but not nearly to the same extent. Isn't this tiring for everyone?
I read somewhere about how Obama had to spend a significant amount of time each day fund-raising while he was in office. Is it just me, or does this seem nuts to others too?
-
Thanks for this. Election campaigns (Presidential ones anyway, maybe others) in the US seem to be never-ending to me, viewed from Canada. It seems as if no sooner is someone elected that people start speculating about the next election. It goes on in Canada too, elsewhere too I guess, but not nearly to the same extent. Isn't this tiring for everyone?
I read somewhere about how Obama had to spend a significant amount of time each day fund-raising while he was in office. Is it just me, or does this seem nuts to others too?
It's a function of our system which unlike parliamentary systems has a separate executive and legislative body. And of course our legislative body is separated into an upper (Senate) and lower (House) bodies. We also have two year election cycles which means that major legislation these days can only pass in year one of the cycle. Election spending is up way more than while I was growing up in the 1950s and 1960s. I don't know how long your Prime Minister can stay in power before a new election has to be called but I think in Britain it's five years.
-
It's a somewhat complicated issue related to free speech and the fact that the IRS doesn't need this information to begin with. The organizations in question are exempt from paying taxes to begin with and the so providing information to the IRS up front is not necessary. The IRS can still request information from these organizations if they believe that there is an issue. The Washington Post (https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/dark-money-groups-dont-need-to-disclose-donors-to-irs-treasury-says/2018/07/17/38f5d8aa-89d0-11e8-a345-a1bf7847b375_story.html?utm_term=.29102a4591aa) has a good summary of the issues (providing you have not exceeded the number of free articles this month
Personally, I think this is the correct decision under current law but that the policy of not disclosing contributions to these organizations which are effectively political campaign arms is just wrong. This coupled with the Citizen's United Supreme Court ruling that overturned the McCain/Feingold campaign funding law has led to a lot of "dark money" into our campaigns. The only way around this is open disclosure of financing which will require a carefully tailored law from Congress. I don't mind unrestricted campaign contributions as long as there is a threshold for disclosure. There is no reason why contributions over $10K (just as an example, there should be an open debate about the minimum for disclosure) has to be reported to an Internet site within 48 hours of receipt. If I'm running for Congress as a candidate of 'Big Pharmaceutical Industry' and I report huge contributions, my opponent is then free to use this information in attack advertising. It will be very easy to identify those candidates that are receiving 'special interest' money. Some people may not have any problems with that, and others might; sunlight on this whole process is the best disinfectant (assuming one believes the process to be tainted).
The other thing that needs to be done is to correct the current tax code and clarify what constitutes a tax-exempt social welfare organizations. For example, the National Rifle Association falls into this category and there are liberal leaning groups also in this category. This is just another example of loopholes in the US tax code that need to be fixed. I am not optimistic that anything will happen and we will continue to see lots of "dark money" pouring into US election campaigns.
With the NSA and other federal security agencies listening in to the private telephones and using their power to influence elections and policy, Americans on both the left and right are very concerned with privacy. They fear government interference with their freedoms. Let's not forget that Obama used the IRS who should be neutral to go after conservative organizations to silence them before the 2012 presidential election.
The idea that there is "dark money" just doesn't convince me it's a problem. For every rich, conservative Koch brother, there's an equally rich liberal Soros. Let everyone spend what they want and get out their beliefs and opinions through paid ads or whatever. That's what freedom of expression and the right to petition the government are all about.
As an aside, what protection does the public have against lobbyists who bend the ears of congressmen, senators and presidents? Do they have to report have much they spend, who's paying their fees and what government officials they talk too. Frankly that's more effective "dark money" as legislation usually is affected more directly.
-
With the NSA and other federal security agencies listening in to the private telephones and using their power to influence elections and policy, Americans on both the left and right are very concerned with privacy. They fear government interference with their freedoms. Let's not forget that Obama used the IRS who should be neutral to go after conservative organizations to silence them before the 2012 presidential election.
This is a misstatement as the IRS was examining liberal 501(c)(4) organizations as well as conservative ones.
The idea that there is "dark money" just doesn't convince me it's a problem. For every rich, conservative Koch brother, there's an equally rich liberal Soros. Let everyone spend what they want and get out their beliefs and opinions through paid ads or whatever. That's what freedom of expression and the right to petition the government are all about.
there is far more money coming from conservative donors than liberal ones. Soros's contributions pale in comparison to that of the Koch's. You misread what I said, I don't care how much they contribute, I just don't want to see phony shell organizations laundering 'dark money.' If they want to spend $1M supporting a candidate, great, just let the voters know so they can decide whether this is acceptable or not.
As an aside, what protection does the public have against lobbyists who bend the ears of congressmen, senators and presidents? Do they have to report have much they spend, who's paying their fees and what government officials they talk too. Frankly that's more effective "dark money" as legislation usually is affected more directly.
All lobbying activities have to be disclosed (I spent over ten years at the pharmaceutical trade association and we had to make quarterly reports on lobbying expenditures). Election contributions are far more opaque.
-
... there is far more money coming from conservative donors than liberal ones. Soros's contributions pale in comparison to that of the Koch's...
Speaking from memory, I'd say that is not true. Maybe true for Koch vs. Soros, but the biggest contributions on the left come from the unions, which seem to be above Koch brothers as single contributors (again, speaking from memory).
... If they want to spend $1M supporting a candidate, great, just let the voters know so they can decide whether this is acceptable or not...
+1
-
This is a misstatement as the IRS was examining liberal 501(c)(4) organizations as well as conservative ones.
...
All lobbying activities have to be disclosed (I spent over ten years at the pharmaceutical trade association and we had to make quarterly reports on lobbying expenditures). Election contributions are far more opaque.
The IRS was examining conservative groups more, with names that had Patriot and Conservative in them. Of course the IRS head Lerner denied there was any political motive. It was just an "error" on their part. But who believes her? Give me a break.
Regarding lobbyists, if election contributions are opaque, then how are they handled and what should be done about them?
Also, how does the public really know that some lobbyist met with the chairman of some committee to urge him to pass some favorable legislation for the lobbyist's client? Where publicly does anyone ever see that? There's wink and a nod and the dirty deed is done.
-
Not sure what you are saying, but am I correct in assuming that you don't care if there is Russian involvement in the money flows (in this instance via the NRA) to influence your government?
Cheers,
Bart
This is such outright bullshit, Bart, that I really can't care. How about the bags of money the Clintons copped from the Russians when Hillary gave them a big chunk of our uranium? Nobody on LuLa seems to want to talk about that or anything like it. We only want to talk about fictional accounts of bad things the right supposedly is doing. I'd rather talk about something closer to reality, like Winnie the Pooh.
-
This is such outright bullshit, Bart, that I really can't care. How about the bags of money the Clintons copped from the Russians when Hillary gave them a big chunk of our uranium? Nobody on LuLa seems to want to talk about that or anything like it. We only want to talk about fictional accounts of bad things the right supposedly is doing. I'd rather talk about something closer to reality, like Winnie the Pooh.
How about the ten million Hillary paid the British spy to create the Trump dossier with dis-information gathered from Russian KGB spies? Isn't that collusion with the Russians?
-
This is such outright bullshit, Bart, that I really can't care. How about the bags of money the Clintons copped from the Russians when Hillary gave them a big chunk of our uranium? Nobody on LuLa seems to want to talk about that or anything like it. We only want to talk about fictional accounts of bad things the right supposedly is doing. I'd rather talk about something closer to reality, like Winnie the Pooh.
Then there's this: https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/hillary-clinton-uranium-russia-deal/ (https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/hillary-clinton-uranium-russia-deal/).
-
Ah yes, Snopes. Well, it must be true then. I'm ROTFL. Back to Winnie.
-
Then there's this: https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/hillary-clinton-uranium-russia-deal/ (https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/hillary-clinton-uranium-russia-deal/).
Forget it, Robert. It's Russ town.
-
Ah yes, Snopes. Well, it must be true then. I'm ROTFL. Back to Winnie.
Well, Trump was the one who wanted to "Lock her up", wasn't he? He has been in office for a while now, what's the holdup.
-
Maybe the Russians have compromising info on both Trump and Hillary.
-
The IRS was examining conservative groups more, with names that had Patriot and Conservative in them. Of course the IRS head Lerner denied there was any political motive. It was just an "error" on their part. But who believes her? Give me a break.
See the New York Times article here (https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/05/us/politics/irs-targeting-tea-party-liberals-democrats.html) that covers the Inspector General's report. I think this was a rogue effort within the IRS just as there was a rogue effort within the FBI to go after Clinton during the summer of the election year (Giuliani was making noise about this at the time and he was locked into the FBI group). Neither one of these was appropriate and the IRS people were all hauled up and dealt with unlike the FBI group (do you really think the Republican Congress will do any oversight hearings??).
Regarding lobbyists, if election contributions are opaque, then how are they handled and what should be done about them?
Also, how does the public really know that some lobbyist met with the chairman of some committee to urge him to pass some favorable legislation for the lobbyist's client? Where publicly does anyone ever see that? There's wink and a nod and the dirty deed is done.
All the PhRMA (my employer and yes, I contributed to the association PAC with the full knowledge that some of the money might go to candidates I would not support) disclosed all contributions. All trade associations disclose this and they have to register all lobbyists. I was VP for Scientific and Regulatory Affairs and did not have to register since my job involved no lobbying activities. I did accompany our lobbyists from time to time when they needed technical support on an issues and I testified in front of several Congressional subcommittees on a variety of issues over my working career. If you are so inclined you can watch me (https://www.epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/2008/4/subcommittee-on-transportation-safety-infrastructure-security-and-water-quality-hearing-entitled-pharmaceuticals-in-the-nations-water-assessing-potential-risks-and-actions-to-address-the-issue) at the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee.
-
Ah yes, Snopes. Well, it must be true then. I'm ROTFL. Back to Winnie.
Indeed Russ, it's one of the least biased sources and with high factual reporting.
Cheers,
Bart
-
My problem with fact checkers is twofold:
- they might be high in factual reporting, yet biased. How so? If it reports 100% accurate facts, but only one-sided (i.e., omitting facts that would support the other side), it is biased by definition. This is a general comment, not specifically aimed at Snopes.
- the facts might be there, even on both side, but it is interpretation of those facts, and ultimately labeling them as true of false, that is subject to bias.
For instance, in the uranium case, Snopes crucial argument is that Clinton did not have a veto power, being just one of nine deciding members. Anyone who knows anything about influencing others knows that influence has many forms besides formal power. Even the order in which the nine members speak has impact. Many committee decisions are pre-determined in private consultations prior to an official meeting, so direct physical presence is not needed.
The fact that the $133 million contributor sold his shares in the company means little in the light of the fact that the next biggest contributor, and related directly to the uranium deal, is his closest and long-time friend. Again, most influence is not done formally. Spending $133 million for charities, directly linked to such influential players like the Clintons, is highly suspicious, to say the least. Giving it to the Red Cross or similar is one thing, giving it to the Clintons quite different.
None of what I said above proves the Clintons did something wrong. But it also does not support the "false" label by Snopes.
I wish that fact checkers would provide facts, and leave the interpretation and labeling to readers.
-
I wish that fact checkers would provide facts, and leave the interoperation and labeling to readers.
Glenn Kessler's column in the Washington Post is thorough in this regard and though he does award Pinocchio's, the analysis is always fair. He has gone after both Democrats and Republicans.
BTW, did you mean 'interpretation?'
-
...BTW, did you mean 'interpretation?'
Yes, a typo.
-
My problem with fact checkers is twofold:
- they might be high in factual reporting, yet biased.
They might, but not Snopes.
How so? If it reports 100% accurate facts, but only one-sided (i.e., omitting facts that would support the other side), it is biased by definition.
They explain it on their site. The use of loaded words, and reporting on selective subjects, can cause a bias in the otherwise factual (with reputable sources) reporting.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Indeed Russ, it's one of the least biased sources and with high factual reporting.
The key factor there - they post sources. It's very easy to verify what they've presented as evidence. Russ doesn't really like facts in these matters and always just responds with rhetoric.
-
See the New York Times article here (https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/05/us/politics/irs-targeting-tea-party-liberals-democrats.html) that covers the Inspector General's report. I think this was a rogue effort within the IRS just as there was a rogue effort within the FBI to go after Clinton during the summer of the election year (Giuliani was making noise about this at the time and he was locked into the FBI group). Neither one of these was appropriate and the IRS people were all hauled up and dealt with unlike the FBI group (do you really think the Republican Congress will do any oversight hearings??).
All the PhRMA (my employer and yes, I contributed to the association PAC with the full knowledge that some of the money might go to candidates I would not support) disclosed all contributions. All trade associations disclose this and they have to register all lobbyists. I was VP for Scientific and Regulatory Affairs and did not have to register since my job involved no lobbying activities. I did accompany our lobbyists from time to time when they needed technical support on an issues and I testified in front of several Congressional subcommittees on a variety of issues over my working career. If you are so inclined you can watch me (https://www.epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/2008/4/subcommittee-on-transportation-safety-infrastructure-security-and-water-quality-hearing-entitled-pharmaceuticals-in-the-nations-water-assessing-potential-risks-and-actions-to-address-the-issue) at the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee.
I think there's been a concerted effort and a probably rogue behind the scenes effort to smear Trump since he ran two years ago. The media and establishment Republicans hate him as much as the Democrats because he is an outsider. He wants to overturn their cozy, incestuous relationship in Washington. The Republicans hired the British spy to smear him and only stopped after he won the Republican nomination. It was then that Hillary took over the effort with the dossier using Russian KGB disinformation. His enemies used it to start the campaign and got the special prosecutor to follow up. Even if they find no collusion, they've done enormous damage to the president and the Republican congress. The Russians win no matter what happens. Hopefully Trump will turn it around.
I tried to see the video of you but couldn't find the link. What/where is it?
-
Glenn Kessler's column in the Washington Post is thorough in this regard and though he does award Pinocchio's, the analysis is always fair. He has gone after both Democrats and Republicans.
BTW, did you mean 'interpretation?'
The WP has turned into a rag sheet. It use to be up there like the NY Times even if liberal like them. But it's gotten so political in its news, that it will eventually destroy its reputation. The NY Times also is biased. They put Trumps bad stuff on page 1 and his successes buried on pg 47. Then they claim that they tell both sides. I do admit they're a little more classier, especially the people who write comments to their articles on the internet compared to the WP. The WP commenters are just vile. The paper does nothing to filter them out. They ought to take some lessons from LULA.
-
I think there's been a concerted effort and a probably rogue behind the scenes effort to smear Trump since he ran two years ago. The media and establishment Republicans hate him as much as the Democrats because he is an outsider. He wants to overturn their cozy, incestuous relationship in Washington. The Republicans hired the British spy to smear him and only stopped after he won the Republican nomination. It was then that Hillary took over the effort with the dossier using Russian KGB disinformation. His enemies used it to start the campaign and got the special prosecutor to follow up. Even if they find no collusion, they've done enormous damage to the president and the Republican congress. The Russians win no matter what happens. Hopefully Trump will turn it around.
I tried to see the video of you but couldn't find the link. What/where is it?
The video link doesn't work and I don't know why. It's supposed to be an archive by the Senate of the hearing as they record all hearings. You can read my "wonderful" testimony by clicking on the pdf link. The damage to the Republican Congress you allude to is self-inflicted. It's not so much the Senate as they are behaving like grown ups but the House is out of control. I think they suffered a lot of damage in the hearing last week with Peter Strzok who came off better than his inquisitors. I doubt the Democrats will be much better if they win in November as Maxine Waters will try to exact a pound of the President's flesh for the way he has been treating her. Trump could do a lot to diffuse the situation but he can't and maybe it is because of his own insecurities. How many times must we hear from his own mouth that he won the election?
-
The video link doesn't work and I don't know why. It's supposed to be an archive by the Senate of the hearing as they record all hearings. You can read my "wonderful" testimony by clicking on the pdf link. The damage to the Republican Congress you allude to is self-inflicted. It's not so much the Senate as they are behaving like grown ups but the House is out of control. I think they suffered a lot of damage in the hearing last week with Peter Strzok who came off better than his inquisitors. I doubt the Democrats will be much better if they win in November as Maxine Waters will try to exact a pound of the President's flesh for the way he has been treating her. Trump could do a lot to diffuse the situation but he can't and maybe it is because of his own insecurities. How many times must we hear from his own mouth that he won the election?
Sorry about the video link. I wanted to see it. It's interesting. Strzok came off better on liberal anti-Trump MSNBC and CNN. They said he was being picked on. It was an inquisition. Fox's pro-Trump attitude played it that he was acting in contempt toward Congress, snooty and had an air of "who are you to ask the FBI questions?" forgetting that Congress funds the FBI, pays his salary and has oversight. So the truth lies somewhere between the two.
The best part was when the Republican congressman questioned Strzok's fidelity to his wife that he cheated on. All the Democrats booed the Republican for getting so personal. Then a black Democrat congresswomen spoke up directing her contempt to the Republican questioner, "Congressman, why haven't you taken your medications today?" The Republican congressman sat the stunned in silence. I laughed hysterically and nearly pissed in my pants.
-
The best part was when the Republican congressman questioned Strzok's fidelity to his wife that he cheated on. All the Democrats booed the Republican for getting so personal. Then a black Democrat congresswomen spoke up directing her contempt to the Republican questioner, "Congressman, why haven't you taken your medications today?" The Republican congressman sat the stunned in silence. I laughed hysterically and nearly pissed in my pants.
Yes, that was Representative Gohmert from the first district in Texas. I wonder what he thinks of Trump's infidelities to his various wives. :)
-
Yes, that was Representative Gohmert from the first district in Texas. I wonder what he thinks of Trump's infidelities to his various wives. :)
What happened to the good old days when the press protected politicians. Eisenhower cheated with his Amrny driver, Kennedy with Marilyn Monroe and a woman from Chicago who also was the girlfriend of a mafioso Don, Clinton with, well we all know that story, and Trump.
Actually it's good that everyone knows Trump cheated. He can't be blackmailed with that at least. I'm surprised the FBI didn't take away Strzok's Top Secret security clearance. He could have been fired. It's a major policy violation to cheat on your spouse. It opens you up to blackmail. He was a counter intelligence manager, just the kind of person foreign governments would love to blackmail. If you're found out cheating, the Agency would usually pull your clearance. Yet no one is talking about that. Congress thinks it's too personal. That shows you how out of the loop they are with how the intelligence world really works.