the ACA. They did not do it and still cannot do it. They are manifestly unfit to govern.
Trump intended to convey by his Mika tweet? Maybe I'm a little slow on the uptake, but how is mentioning that someone "bled" from surgery even "hitting back"? Post-operative bleeding would be fairly normal, I should think. So I'm not sure how Trump thought he was "hitting back." Or was the hitting back the name-calling, with the bleeding taunt being merely a gratuitous detail thrown in?
Why should Mika's bleeding make the slightest difference? What is going on inside Trump's mind?
to intervene with Comey to get the FBI to "back off" the investigation into Flynn. That, ladies and gentlemen, is obstruction of justice, almost exactly what Nixon did by ordering the CIA to obstruct the FBI's Watergate investigation.
"Coats told associates that Trump had asked him whether Coats could intervene with Comey to get the bureau to back off its focus on former national security adviser Michael Flynn in its Russia probe, according to officials. Coats later told lawmakers that he never felt pressured to intervene."
HOLY SHIT! Trump asked Coats to obstruct justice.
are people going to trust, a man who has given his life to public service for 3 presidents from both parties or a man who believed and stated that President Obama was born in Kenya?
Tapes would just be icing on the cake, imo. This is not a case of "he-said, she said." This is a case where the two accounts directly contradict one another and both cannot simultaneously be true. So Americans must pick whom they are going to trust.
their local media outlets and no national coverage whatsoever. There should be a 100% media blackout on Montana until Gianforte resigns.
Montana is dead to me now.
letter to Comey:
"you informing me" -- the gerund "informing" is a noun and should take the possessive adjective "your" (not "you" .
"to effectively lead" -- classic split infinitive. Not a grammar error per se, but a major stylistic weakness. Would read better to say "not able to lead the Bureau effectively."
The days of William Safire, George Will and William Buckley Jr. are long gone for Republicans.
Have fun, my fellow grammarians and band of brothers!
Senate's Howard Baker and ask the question?
about intervening in the Syrian civil war:
Picking sides in other countries' civil wars typically never ends well. It did not end well in Vietnam nor, more recently, in Afghanistan and almost certainly cannot end well in Syria either. This explains why President Obama's decision not to retaliate against Assad in 2013 without prior congressional authorization seems even more eminently wise and prudent. If we attack ISIS, we strengthen Assad. If we attack Assad, we give ISIS a boost.
I strongly recommend the entire Blow piece. It is sobering reading indeed.
and its possessions anywhere and anyway it can. Trump was required to go to the U.N. Security Council and did not do so. Syria is now under no obligation to seek U.N. Security Council permission since current international law allows nation states to engage in military action to defend against actual or imminent attacks.
Whether Syria is capable of attacking the U.S. or its assets is another question entirely, but it would be fully within its rights to do so from this point forward. That's what flagrantly violating international law produces.
Trump's naked military aggression to stand. Trump did not seek a UN Security Council resolution (just like Bush refused to do with Iraq). Thus, Trump and the U.S. have once again blatantly violated international law. So how will Putin respond? And President Ping of China? Those are the other two guarantors of the existing world order.
Profile InformationMember since: Thu Oct 9, 2014, 12:38 PM
Number of posts: 7,908
- 2017 (24)
- 2016 (29)
- 2015 (13)
- 2014 (27)