Xtra News Community 2
June 29, 2017, 04:55:29 pm
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Welcome to Xtra News Community 2 — please also join our XNC2-BACKUP-GROUP.
 
   Home   Help Arcade Gallery Links BITEBACK! XNC2-BACKUP-GROUP Staff List Login Register  

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 10
 31 
 on: March 26, 2017, 01:43:29 am 
Started by Kiwithrottlejockey - Last post by Kiwithrottlejockey

from The Washington Post....

EDITORIAL: The real way Republicans can deal with Obamacare?
Actually fix it.


Trump and the GOP shouldn't react to their health-care failure by sabotaging the existing system.

By EDITORIAL BOARD | 7:14PM EDT - Friday, March 24, 2017

President Donald J. Trump in the Oval Office on Friday. — Photograph: Olivier Douliery/Bloomberg.
President Donald J. Trump in the Oval Office on Friday. — Photograph: Olivier Douliery/Bloomberg.

THE NEXT TIME someone argues that a businessman would manage the country better than an experienced politician, remember this past week. The attempt by President Trump and House Republicans to force through a health-care bill scorned by experts across the spectrum, projected to be a disaster for aging and low-income people and opposed by a large majority of Americans ended in debacle. Now the danger is that a wounded president and his GOP allies will act on their sore feelings by irresponsibly attacking the existing health-care system in other ways.

The right course for Mr. Trump and congressional Republicans following their decisive defeat would be to ensure that the system created by President Barack Obama is properly overseen, for the sake of the millions who depend on it. That would mean abandoning their unilateral and unpopular legislative push to replace Obamacare with a radically different scheme. None of the major repeal-and-replace proposals they have offered would improve the system — and repealing Obamacare without a replacement would invite disaster in health-care markets.

Unfortunately, there are signs that Mr. Trump will act rashly on his own, without Congress, weakening Obamacare on purpose or by sheer incompetence. Several times in recent weeks, Mr. Trump suggested that it would be savvier for Republicans to let the system persist — and collapse. Independent experts, including the Congressional Budget Office just this month, predict no such crumbling. Yet they may not have satisfactorily considered the likelihood of administrative sabotage: The Trump administration has already undermined federal enrollment efforts and the individual mandate that holds the system together. Health and Human Services Secretary Tom Price, who would lead any executive-branch regulatory overhaul, has shown himself to be a rigid ideologue on health-care policy.

Mr. Trump should not imagine that angry Americans will blame Democrats, who are totally locked out of power, if he presides over an unraveling of the system. Public reaction to the replacement effort, including in polls, showed substantial support for Obamacare and rejection of the Republican effort to destroy it.

A better option would be the one that Republicans have explored least: actually fixing the system's flaws. Mr. Trump could use his executive power to shore it up — enhancing enforcement of the individual mandate and encouraging people to sign up. Then he should approach Democrats to see if there is room for an agreement on a repair bill. This would have to be an authentic deal, not an ultimatum, in which Democrats traded things Republicans want, such as medical liability reform and some limited regulatory reform, in exchange for things they should want, such as enhanced subsidies for vulnerable people.

For the good of the country, Republicans must finally admit two things. First, Obamacare is mostly working and millions will be hurt if it is abruptly repealed. Second, the GOP is incapable of the near-unanimity on health-care policy that is required to act without Democrats.


https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-real-way-republicans-can-deal-with-obamacare-actually-fix-it/2017/03/24/cef5eba6-10c8-11e7-9b0d-d27c98455440_story.html

 32 
 on: March 26, 2017, 01:10:44 am 
Started by Kiwithrottlejockey - Last post by Kiwithrottlejockey

from the Los Angeles Times....

California's vow to reduce auto pollution may
be setting up a full-out war with Trump


From smog to greenhouse gases, state regulators refuse to yield as legal battles loom.

By CHRIS MEGERIAN - reporting from Riverside | Friday, March 24, 2017

August 30th, 1990: An aerial view of the downtown Los Angeles skyline. — Photograph: Robert Durell/Los Angeles Times.
August 30th, 1990: An aerial view of the downtown Los Angeles skyline. — Photograph: Robert Durell/Los Angeles Times.

WIELDING the same authority created decades ago to fight smog, California regulators on Friday moved forward with tough new pollution-reduction requirements for automakers selling cars in the state.

The rules set escalating targets for reducing greenhouse gas emissions from 2022 through 2025, and officials are planning tougher steps after that. There's also a requirement for automakers to sell more zero-emission vehicles and plug-in hybrids in the state, with a goal of more than 1 million on the road by 2025.

The decision to push ahead with cuts to greenhouse gas emissions came even as President Trump has begun rolling back federal rules intended to battle global warming over the next several years.

California has a long history of pushing the envelope to reduce tailpipe pollution, and the latest move signals the state is prepared to do battle with Trump's White House.

“We're going to press on,” Mary Nichols, California's top emissions regulator, said during a meeting of the Air Resources Board in Riverside.


Mary Nichols chairs the Air Resources Board meeting held in Riverside. — Photograph: Irfan Khan/Los Angeles Times.
Mary Nichols chairs the Air Resources Board meeting held in Riverside. — Photograph: Irfan Khan/Los Angeles Times.

The state's rules on greenhouse gases were written in partnership with former President Obama's administration, creating a single national standard for new vehicles.

But with Trump in the White House and conservatives in charge of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, state and federal regulators have started drifting in separate directions. The divergence could reignite historic conflicts that once raged in Sacramento, Washington and Detroit.

Automakers have chafed at the rules imposed by the Obama administration. However, they fear returning to an era where they needed to build two versions of their vehicles — a cleaner, more expensive one for sale in California and a standard model available everywhere else.

“We should all be getting back to work on this,” John Bozzella, who advocates for international car companies at the Assn. of Global Automakers, said at Friday's hearing.

Trump's Environmental Protection Agency has until next year to decide whether to loosen federal regulations, which would require passenger cars to average about 54 miles per gallon by 2025, up from 36 miles per gallon today.


February 1953: City Hall, merely across the street, is dim as Marion E. Lent gropes her way to work. — Photograph: R.L. Oliver/Los Angeles Times.
February 1953: City Hall, merely across the street, is dim as Marion E. Lent gropes her way to work.
 — Photograph: R.L. Oliver/Los Angeles Times.


But California has the unique ability to set tougher rules than federal standards under a waiver program that recognizes the state's long struggle with pollution. In addition, a dozen other states have adopted California rules as their own, giving regulators here an outsize influence on the national marketplace.

Over the years they've shown little hesitance about setting higher benchmarks for emissions, steps that often eventually become federal requirements. The rules approved Friday could force automakers to build more efficient engines, use increasingly lightweight materials and develop more electric vehicles.

Ann Carlson, an environmental law professor at UCLA, said negotiations still could resolve disagreements and preserve a single national standard.

And if they don't?

“The other possibility is it's full-out war,” Carlson said.


WAR over vehicle rules would not be new for California, where thick smog decades ago made tougher regulations a necessity. In Los Angeles, motorcycle riders wore gas masks and children were kept inside during school recess.

“My eyes would sting. Sometimes you couldn't see a block,” said Tom Quinn, who was appointed to lead the Air Resources Board when Governor Jerry Brown took office for his first term in 1975. One of his fellow board members was Nichols, who returned to the agency in 2007 and remains in charge today.

The board quickly ran into opposition from automakers, who said higher standards would be impossible to meet. Quinn remembers turning to Bob Sawyer, another board member and a mechanical engineering professor, during a break in a meeting.

“I said, ‘Bob, what’s going to happen? They insist they can't sell cars’,” Quinn recalled. “Bob said, ‘They're lying’.”

The board passed the rules, Quinn said, and “of course they sold cars.”


September 13th, 1955: Buildings in Los Angeles Civic Center are barely visible in a picture looking east at 1st and Olive streets. — Photograph: John Malmin/Los Angeles Times.
September 13th, 1955: Buildings in Los Angeles Civic Center are barely visible in a picture looking east at 1st and Olive streets.
 — Photograph: John Malmin/Los Angeles Times.


September 14th, 1955: Motorcycle messenger Frank Stone uses a gas mask while making deliveries. This photo was published on Page One of the Los Angeles Times on September 15th, 1955. — Photograph: Los Angeles Times Archive/UCLA.
September 14th, 1955: Motorcycle messenger Frank Stone uses a gas mask while making deliveries. This photo was published
on Page One of the Los Angeles Times on September 15th, 1955. — Photograph: Los Angeles Times Archive/UCLA.


December 19th, 1958: Downtown Los Angeles, seen from the top of the Angels Flight funicular in 1958, is shrouded in smog. — Photograph: Don Cormier/Los Angeles Times.
December 19th, 1958: Downtown Los Angeles, seen from the top of the Angels Flight funicular in 1958, is shrouded in smog.
 — Photograph: Don Cormier/Los Angeles Times.


November 12th, 1959: Visibility is limited on Broadway, looking south from First Street, during a smog attack in 1959. — Photograph: Edward Gamer/Los Angeles Times.
November 12th, 1959: Visibility is limited on Broadway, looking south from First Street, during a smog attack in 1959.
 — Photograph: Edward Gamer/Los Angeles Times.


Sometimes regulators clamped down on individual manufacturers, barring sales of certain cars or instituting financial penalties. Regulators issued a $328,400 fine, the largest at the time, against Chrysler for violating smog rules. A company representative dropped off a check at Quinn's house on a weekend.

The state's clout has only grown since then. An update to federal law in 1990 allowed other states to adopt California's higher standards; New York and Massachusetts are among the dozen that have taken that step.

“California has set itself as an example, and other states are following behind,” said Michael Harley, an Irvine-based automotive analyst at Kelley Blue Book. “We don't have a ‘rogue state’ syndrome.”


THE latest round of battles began in 2002, when California enacted the country's first rules for greenhouse gases from tailpipes to fight global warming.

Fran Pavley, the former lawmaker who wrote the legislation, recalled bitter opposition.

“One person threatened to come over with a baseball bat,” she said of a threat to her office. “This got really, really heated.”

Automakers sued the state, and President George W. Bush's administration rejected California's request for a waiver to move forward with the regulations, the only time such a request has been turned down.

A potential legal battle dissipated, however, once Obama took office. His administration granted California's waiver and worked toward a single national policy for reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

High gas prices and political pressure to reduce the country's reliance on foreign oil — not to mention Obama's desire to address climate change — led to additional fuel efficiency regulations finalized in 2012.

It was a period of relative harmony, but the circumstances that fostered co-operation and ambitious national regulations no longer exist. With gas prices lower, consumers have proved more interested in pickup trucks and sport utility vehicles than hybrids and electric cars.


Downtown Los Angeles' tallest buildings rise above a blanket of smog in October 1973. — Photograph: Fitzgerald Whitney/Los Angeles Times.
Downtown Los Angeles' tallest buildings rise above a blanket of smog in October 1973.
 — Photograph: Fitzgerald Whitney/Los Angeles Times.


June 15th, 1993: The Los Angeles skyline as seen from the First Street bridge. — Photograph: Tammy Lechner/Los Angeles Times.
June 15th, 1993: The Los Angeles skyline as seen from the First Street bridge. — Photograph: Tammy Lechner/Los Angeles Times.

Automakers argue that Obama improperly rushed to finalize the rules before he left office, and Trump does not share California's commitment to fighting climate change.

The unraveling consensus on vehicle regulations has concerned advocates.

“There's no reason for environmentalists, automakers and conservatives to risk a nuclear war over these rules, which will result in zero progress for all sides,” said Robbie Diamond, who leads Securing America's Future Energy, a group of business and former military leaders that wants less dependence on foreign oil.

Now that California has recommitted itself to reducing greenhouse gas emissions, the next steps are up to Trump. If the administration's review leads to only slight changes, automakers might be able to balance California and federal regulations without much trouble.

“They could just shuffle cars around,” Harley said, ensuring the mix of vehicles available for sale meet California's benchmarks. Consumers here already buy more electric cars and fewer pickup trucks than national averages.

But there’s still the potential for a dramatic change, or even an unprecedented legal assault on California's cherished ability to set higher standards. Although automakers insisted they weren't calling that into question, Nichols expressed skepticism about their commitment because they asked Trump to review federal rules.

“What were you thinking when you threw yourself upon the mercy of the Trump administration?” she said.

At this point, state leaders seem unwilling to yield to any pressure on regulating emissions.

“I don't like to say anything is nonnegotiable,” said Brown on Monday during a visit to Washington.

But to fight climate change, he said, “we have to intensify, not fall back.”


L.A. Times staff writer Evan Halper contributed to this report.

• Chris Megerian covered the 2016 presidential race for the Los Angeles Times. He is based in Sacramento, where he has written about Governor Jerry Brown, the state budget and climate change policies. Before joining the newspaper in January 2012, he worked for The Star-Ledger in New Jersey for three years, covering politics and law enforcement. He is a graduate of Emory University in Atlanta.

__________________________________________________________________________

More on this topic:

 • PHOTOGRAPH GALLERY: Historical photos of pollution in California

 • Trump wants to shelve fuel mileage rules, inviting a fight with California

 • Trump's EPA pick poised to survive Senate fight, but his brewing battle with California will be harder to win


http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-pol-sac-california-vehicle-emissions-20170324-htmlstory.html

 33 
 on: March 25, 2017, 01:03:29 pm 
Started by Kiwithrottlejockey - Last post by Kiwithrottlejockey

from The Washington Post....

Donald Trump played a game of chicken with House Republicans.
Then he blinked. Bigly!


Dealmaker Donald comes up short.

By CHRIS CILLIZZA | 4:40PM EDT - Friday, March 24, 2017

DONALD TRUMP was elected in large part on one, loud promise: I know how to make deals these normal politicians don't.

Part of that mystique — as outlined in his best-selling book The Art of the Deal — is the willingness to call his rival's bluff, to put his cards on the table and ask everyone else to do the same.

That's what Trump did on Thursday night after a postponement of the planned vote to begin the process of reforming the Affordable Care Act. House Republicans needed to put up or shut up, Trump insisted. Despite being told the votes simply weren't there, Trump pushed forward — arguing that it was now or never.

It was vintage Trump, taking a gamble no other typical politician would take: Force a vote on a massive part of your legislative agenda with an uncertain outcome.

Then Trump blinked.

Hours after Trump huddled with Speaker Paul D. Ryan at the White House, he told The Washington Post's Bob Costa that he had decided congressional Republicans should pull the legislation. The votes simply weren't there, and the possibility of real embarrassment on the House floor existed.

Sure. But, Trump was elected as an outsider — someone who ran against the system. Why not force that system to go on the record with either their support or opposition?




Now begins the blame game. And there's plenty to go around. The White House was already starting to point the finger at Ryan for making health-care reform the first legislative priority of the new Republican-controlled Washington. Rank and file members were suggesting that simply not enough time was given to thinking about what was in the bill before it was offered. Establishment Republicans blamed the House Freedom Caucus for their refusal to compromise.



All true! But Trump is the president of the United States. Trump ran as the only person who could solve the major problems facing the country. Trump was the one who billed himself as the dealmaker extraordinaire, the guy who had faced down people in corporate boardrooms all over the country and all over the world — and won.

But when the time came to push all his chips to the middle of the table, Trump folded. Period. Beyond the spin, that is what happened here. If Trump had continued to insist that the bill be put to a vote, trust me that Ryan would have done it despite his reservations.

What you are likely to hear over the next few hours and days is that Trump did so because no deal is better than a bad deal. The problem with that argument is Trump's Twitter paper trail. On Friday, as the House prepared to vote, Trump tweeted that this legislation was a great chance for Republicans to make good on their campaign promises — calling the legislation a “great plan.”




Trump will, as he always does, somehow declare victory and move on. “The beauty,” Trump told Costa, “is that they [Democrats] own Obamacare. So when it explodes, they come to us, and we make one beautiful deal for the people.”

The simple fact, however, is that Trump wanted this deal, pushed for this deal, called his own party's bluff on this deal and then walked away when it appeared as though the deal wouldn't come together.

Dealmaker Donald played chicken. But he lost his nerve at the last minute.


• Chris Cillizza writes The Fix, a politics blog for The Washington Post, and hosts the Ciquizza podcast, a weekly news quiz [Subscribe on iTunes or Stitcher].

__________________________________________________________________________

More on this topic:

 • VIDEO: Trump on health care bill: ‘We couldn't quite get there’

 • VIDEO: Ryan: ‘We came up short’


https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/03/24/donald-trump-played-a-game-of-chicken-with-house-republicans-then-he-blinked

 34 
 on: March 25, 2017, 12:58:13 pm 
Started by Kiwithrottlejockey - Last post by Kiwithrottlejockey

from The Washington Post....

Trump's colossal failure

The emperor has no clothes.

By JENNIFER RUBIN | 4:05PM EDT - Friday, March 24, 2017

HOUSE SPEAKER Paul D. Ryan (Republican-Wisconsin) avoided total humiliation in wriggling out of the president's order to take what he knew would be a losing vote on the American Health Care Act. That he had to go, whip list in hand, to the White House, tells us how far he has been reduced in stature by this process.

In refusing to take a vote that apparently would not even have been close, Ryan at least avoided unnecessarily putting his own members at risk (e.g., moderates who were asked to take unpopular votes, conservatives who would disappoint the hard-edged Heritage Action and other groups working against the bill). He also retained a smidgen of his own stature. Had he gone forward he would have effectively forfeited Congress's standing as a co-equal branch of government.

Ryan will remain speaker because no one else wants the job, but in a sense he does not “lead” the House Republicans, let alone the House. He is continuously caught in the crossfire between the moderates and the far right, just as his predecessor was. He will have his hands full keeping the House together in the future on controversial, “hard” votes. The lesson members learned was to look after their own interests. Calling Ryan and Trump's bluff worked well for them.

While Ryan loses stature, Trump does not necessarily gain any. Previously he claimed victory merely by decimating the opposition (GOP challengers, Hillary Clinton, a reporter, etc.). Now Ryan's loss is not Trump's gain. (It might be Stephen K. Bannon's gain, but not Trump, who needs to show results.) Trump shares responsibility for a bill he endorsed and lobbied hard to get. (Press secretary Sean Spicer said Trump “left everything on the field.”) His rallies and threats and his vapid cheerleading count for nothing when it comes to governance. What worked in a campaign no longer serves any useful purpose.

Trump now will rightly be seen as a weakened, if not inept, president. His attention span lasts only a couple of weeks before, starved for adulation, he moves onto the next thing in search of affirmation. Democrats know this, as do Republican opponents. You can wait this guy out.

Trump may choose to shake up his staff, but the bravado and the willful ignorance about policy come from the top. His defiance of norms and refusal to operate in the real world are formidable hurdles that impair his ability to do his job. Unless he changes (at 70 years old, he is unlikely to) he will lose over and over again.

Health-care reform surely is dead for now, most likely for the remainder of Trump's term. Trump, rather than slaying the Freedom Caucus, let the Freedom Caucus defeat him. If Trump wants to get anything done, they reason, he will have to go through them. If Trump wanted — as he was willing to do with a very right-wing health-care bill that contradicted his populist ethos and many specific promises — to turn right in order to appease the emboldened Freedom Caucus, he would still be left with opposition from House moderates and the Senate. In trying to govern like Senator Ted Cruz (Republican-Texas), he'll find himself without popular or legislative support. And if Trump pursues that course, he will wind up sacrificing his base without much to show for it.

In short, Trump now stands as the emperor with no clothes — vulnerable, weakened and mocked. Sad!


• Jennifer Rubin writes the Right Turn blog for The Washington Post, offering reported opinion from a conservative perspective.

__________________________________________________________________________

More on this topic:

 • VIDEO: The many ups and downs of the GOP health-care battle

Will Trump’s health-care plan cover congenital lying?


https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/wp/2017/03/24/trumps-colossal-failure

 35 
 on: March 25, 2017, 12:54:01 pm 
Started by Kiwithrottlejockey - Last post by Kiwithrottlejockey

from The Washington Post

‘We just pulled it,’ Trump tells The Post amid GOP revolt

‘Hello, Bob’: Trump called a Washington Post reporter to say the health bill was dead. Here's what he said.

‘The closer’? The inside story of how Trump tried — and failed — to make a deal on health care

Trump learns that dealmaking is not the same as leadership

The Fix: Democrats can't stop happy-tweeting about GOP's failed bill

Analysis: Trump didn't pledge repeal in 64 days. He pledged it in one.

List: The Republicans who forced Trump to pull health bill

Time for Trump to call Nancy Pelosi

 36 
 on: March 25, 2017, 01:08:30 am 
Started by Im2Sexy4MyPants - Last post by Kiwithrottlejockey

A bit of education for the stupid........they were spying on the Russians. But while spying on the Russians, they picked up Trump's mob conspiring with the Russians to subvert the American election. And a huge thank you to that GOP idiot for drawing the news media's attention to the Trump team's conspiracy.

 37 
 on: March 24, 2017, 08:13:48 pm 
Started by Im2Sexy4MyPants - Last post by Im2Sexy4MyPants
so trump was correct

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sds8wLK-DF0


 38 
 on: March 24, 2017, 12:44:15 pm 
Started by Kiwithrottlejockey - Last post by Kiwithrottlejockey

from The Washington Post....

House leaders postpone health-care vote amid hunt for backers

With no carrots to dangle, cajoling recalcitrant lawmakers on a nail-biter vote is hard

CBO analysis of revised health-care bill shows just as many uninsured, less deficit reduction

An even bigger challenge if health-care bill emerges from House: The Senate

A postponed health-care vote, a big GOP embarrassment and no good options ahead

Republicans have met the enemy on health care. It's them.

How Ryan messed the health-care fight up






 39 
 on: March 24, 2017, 10:06:42 am 
Started by Kiwithrottlejockey - Last post by Kiwithrottlejockey

from the Los Angeles Times....

Most Republicans are in denial about the probe into Trump-Russia ties

By DAVID HORSEY | 5:00AM PDT - Thursday, March 23, 2017



ON WEDNESDAY, U.S. Representative Devin Nunes, a Republican from the San Joaquin Valley, took a trip to the White House that made as big a splash as California's recent torrential rains. Even though he is chairman of the House Intelligence Committee that is investigating links between Russia and members of President Trump's campaign team, Nunes chose to share intelligence reports with the president before he shared them with members of his committee.

Democrats went ballistic saying Nunes had acted improperly, raising serious questions about his ability to lead an independent, bipartisan investigation. Observers with deep ties to the intelligence community said it was unprecedented for someone in the key position Nunes holds to so brashly share sensitive information with a person who is the object of an inquiry.

Another Californian, U.S. Representative Adam B. Schiff from Burbank, is the ranking Democrat on the House committee. Speaking to reporters in his usual calm, ex-prosecutor's voice, Schiff said, “The chairman will either need to decide if he's leading an investigation into conduct which includes allegations of potential co-ordination between the Trump campaign and the Russians, or he is going to act as a surrogate of the White House. Because he cannot do both.”

In comments outside the West Wing after he met with Trump, Nunes said he had told the president that communications from members of his transition team had been inadvertently intercepted by U.S. intelligence agencies. Fox News jumped on this as evidence confirming Trump's recent tweet that accused President Obama of wiretapping Trump Tower. Despite Fox's quick leap to shill for Trump, Nunes' statement actually undercut Trump's charge by making clear that, not only was the surveillance inadvertent, it was also legal.

Unsurprisingly, Fox, the reliable mouthpiece for the GOP, is reflecting the pervasive denial that is making a lot of Republicans look like quaking little boys whistling past a spooky graveyard. They seem quite desperate to pretend there is nothing scary about the FBI's probe into contacts between Trump surrogates and Russian intelligence operatives at a time when the Russians were hacking their way into the American presidential election to do damage to Hillary Clinton's campaign.

Earlier this week when FBI Director James B. Comey appeared before the House Intelligence Committee, GOP members arrived at the hearing with an orchestrated series of questions focusing not on the Russian attack on American democracy but on leaks from within government agencies that helped expose connections between Trump's people and the Russians. They looked more than a little silly chasing this line of inquiry after Comey dropped a bombshell by acknowledging that his agency is conducting an “active investigation” into the Trump-Russia links.

Trump apologists are also making themselves look ridiculous by continuing to insist that Paul Manafort, who headed the Trump campaign for a period that included the Republican National Convention, was somehow a marginal figure in Trump's run for the White House. He was far from peripheral and, according to convention delegates on the platform committee, it was he who engineered the removal of a plank in the platform that called for sending arms to Ukraine in support of that country's fight against Russian military aggression. On Wednesday, the story about Manafort's cozy relationship with Russia blew up again with the revelation that Manafort at one time had a multi-million dollar contract with a Russian oligarch who is part of President Vladimir Putin's inner circle — a deal in which, according to an Associated Press report, Manafort promised to provide services that would “greatly benefit the Putin government.”

The more Republicans try to protect their president by downplaying the very curious and apparently very frequent contacts between Russians and Trump campaigners, the more it looks as if they are willingly aiding a coverup. They would do well to stop collaborating and start following the lead of their 2008 presidential nominee, Arizona Senator John McCain. McCain is now calling for a select committee to take over the investigation. He sees that as a necessary step toward uncovering the impartial truth.

It will be difficult for other Republicans to argue against McCain now that Nunes has so badly compromised his committee's work by trotting off to share secrets with Trump.


http://www.latimes.com/opinion/topoftheticket/la-na-tt-republican-denial-20170323-story.html

 40 
 on: March 24, 2017, 10:06:27 am 
Started by Kiwithrottlejockey - Last post by Kiwithrottlejockey


Hahaha.....YES.....members of the Trump team were captured by the intelligence community who were spying on the Russians.

Kinda PROVES that Trump's team were colluding with the Russians to interfere in the American election results.

THANK YOU Fox News for blowing the whistle on the corruption involving a hostile foreign power AND Trump's team.

And thank you to the idiot from Woodville for posting that link which draws attention to the dealings between Trump's team and the Russians.


And now, it's time for David Horsey's EXCELLENT latest column and cartoon about this very same topic....



Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 10
Powered by EzPortal
Open XNC2 Smileys
Bookmark this site! | Upgrade This Forum
SMF For Free - Create your own Forum

Buy traffic for your forum/website
traffic-masters
Powered by SMF | SMF © 2016, Simple Machines
Page created in 0.14 seconds with 14 queries.