So here's the bottom line. Donald Trump has been adamant - since day one of his presidency - that there was no collusion by the Trump campaign to help Russia interfere with our 2016 national election. We know now...that is absolutely not true.
Tens of millions of Americans have suspected all along that certain members of the Trump campaign - and possibly...if not more than likely, Donald Trump himself - had meddled with the election...and did so through joint coordination with Russian President Vladimir Putin and/or others at the Kremlin in Moscow.
Unless you've been hibernating in an underground cavern with no access to television, radio or the Internet, you are already aware that a report by The New York Times - on Saturday, July 8th, 2017 - revealed that Donald Trump, Jr. had met on June 9th, 2016 with a Russian lawyer who allegedly had information that could help Trump, Sr. in his efforts to win the presidency, five months later on November 8th. On Sunday, July 9th, 2017...Trump, Jr. acknowledged that the newspaper's article was indeed correct...and that he - along with Jared Kushner and then-campaign chairman, Paul Manafort - attended such a conference.
Donald Trump - on Thursday, July 13th, 2017 - called his son, Don "a good boy. He's a good kid." But Donald Trump, Jr. is not a kid. Even a 6-year old child knows not to lie. However - as the saying goes - "the apple doesn't fall far from the tree." After all..."Daddy Donald" is a chronic liar so "Junior" has been taught from a guy who tells falsehoods practically every single day. But lies can come back to bite a person in the butt. And as I tweeted on Tuesday, July 11th..."The Liar-In-Chief, Jr. will ultimately take down the Liar-In-Chief and bury his presidency." That being said... Trump, Jr.'s story changed over the course of several days, as he first described his meeting with attorney Natalia Veselnitskaya as a conversation about the adoption of Russian children...and that no campaign issues were discussed.
According to The New York Times...Trump, Jr. agreed to meet with the Russian lawyer after he was informed that she could provide Trump's oldest son with damaging information that would be destructive to Hillary Clinton's campaign and would, therefore, sink her chances at becoming our nation's 45th president. But in an exclusive interview with NBC News correspondent Keir Simmons, Veselnitskaya stated the meeting was to discuss sanctions between the United States and Russia. She said, "I never had any damaging or sensitive information about Hillary Clinton. It was never my intention to have that." That, of course, contradicts Donald Trump, Jr. who confirmed - on Monday, July 10th - that he had, in fact, been offered dirt on the former Secretary of State...although he insisted the meeting failed to produce any such unfavorable information. Nevertheless, The New York Times - on that same Monday - reported that Trump, Jr. was advised in an e-mail on June 3rd, 2016 that the Russian attorney could furnish him with details on how her government could aid Trump, Sr. in his race for The White House. Yet now...Trump, Jr. is merely saying that all he expected was "opposition research." And the lies continue.
The next day - July 11th - Donald Trump, Jr. tweeted a string of e-mails, which definitely proves - in black and white - that The New York Times story was accurate. The e-mail chain provides a solid link between Trump, Jr. and Russia. And that it was Trump Family friend and entertainment publicist, Rob Goldstone who e-mailed the younger Trump on June 3rd, 2016 and who wrote that Veselnitskaya had "information that would incriminate Hillary and her dealings with Russia, and would be very useful to your father." Goldstone's e-mail continued with, "This is obviously very high level and sensitive information, but is part of Russia and its government's support for Mr. Trump." Donald Trump, Jr.'s written response..."If it's what you say, I love it, especially later in the summer." Naturally that's when undecided voters would be getting geared up and more motivated for the upcoming election. But Veselnitskaya categorically denied to NBC News any connection to the Kremlin. And Russian officials claim they were not familiar with her prior to the breaking news story. As for Goldstone...The Washington Post reported that he was involved with the Miss Universe Pageant, which Donald Trump had previously owned. Reportedly, Goldstone first became acquainted with Trump, Sr. when The Trump Organization had hopes of doing business in Russia. Goldstone has ties with a Russian pop music artist. That star performer is the son of a wealthy Russian real estate magnate who apparently is close friends with Vladimir Putin. Thus, the Kremlin connection continues.
Donald Trump, Jr. says his dad knew nothing about the e-mails or the subsequent meeting with the Russian attorney. Therefore, he and Trump, Sr. want me to believe - as well as the rest of our country - that the Trump patriarch had no knowledge of that meeting, which happened to be held at Trump Tower in New York City, one floor below Trump, Sr.'s office. If you think that Trump, Jr. didn't tell his father about the meeting - either sometime before or immediately after it - then you believe that monkeys can fly.
Donald Trump, Jr. says his reason for posting the e-mails on Twitter was "to be totally transparent." But The New York Times says Trump, Jr. released the e-mails after word came his way that the newspaper would be publishing an article about them. Meanwhile, Donald Trump has defended his son by praising him as "a high-quality person" who is "open, transparent and innocent." Did anybody really expect Trump, Sr. to publicly chastise Trump, Jr.? Even though that is what he is probably doing in private.
As the big bully and coward that Donald Trump is...he - on July 13th - felt it was necessary to once again attack someone from former President Barack Obama's Administration. Trump pointed the finger of blame at former Attorney General Loretta Lynch for being the person - so Trump "heard" - to approve the Russian lawyer's visa to enter our country. Trump has - time and time again - refused to accept responsibility for himself or for anyone in his inner circle when a wrong has been committed.
Donald Trump, Jr.'s e-mails are clear-cut evidence that the son of the President of the United States attempted - during his father's campaign - to collude with Russia in order to meddle with America's presidential election. And whether or not information was actually provided to Trump, Jr. that would be detrimental to Hillary Clinton's campaign, there is no doubt that Trump, Jr. was eagerly willing to collude with a foreign adversary. Furthermore...by his recent lies, Trump, Jr. has demonstrated a willingness to cover up actions that are allegedly corrupt.
Can any of Donald Trump, Jr.'s activities be considered espionage...or against the law in any other way? According to several legal experts, if there is evidence of solicitation, then there is a violation of federal election statutes. "Value" is apparently the key. And value does not have to mean money. Negative information about Hillary Clinton would have been valuable to Donald Trump. Therefore, as long as there was an attempt by the Trump campaign to obtain information from the Russian lawyer, which Trump, Jr. had presumed would hurt Secretary Clinton as she challenged Trump, Sr. in the presidential election and which Trump, Jr.'s e-mails admit...then - according to many attorneys who have broadcast their views on numerous television news programs - the law had been broken. The crime is the attempt...despite the result...whether it was beneficial to Donald Trump or not.
Let us not forget Jared Kushner in this conspiracy. A senior adviser to the President and the husband of Donald Trump's oldest daughter, Ivanka Trump... Kushner was invited by his brother-in-law, Donald Trump, Jr. to attend the meeting with the Russian attorney. But after Trump was elected President and Kushner was appointed to the official White House team with national security clearance, he was required to sign a disclosure form that would identify the names of people connected to any foreign nations. The following is the certification that Kushner signed to get his security clearance. "I understand that a knowing and willful false statement on this form can be punished by fine or imprisonment or both. I understand that intentionally withholding, misrepresenting, or falsifying information may have a negative effect on my security clearance, employment prospects, or job status, up to and including denial or revocation of my security clearance, or my removal and debarment from Federal service."
Jared Kushner did not disclose his meeting with Donald Trump, Jr., Paul Manafort and Natalia Veselnitskaya. Neither Trump, Jr. or Manafort are part of the Trump Administration. However, since Kushner is a top-level member of the White House senior staff, his lack of trust and his ties to Russia should cause - as some Members of Congress and others nationwide have expressed - the immediate removal of Kushner's security clearance. Remember...he lied on his disclosure form.
The New York Times - on July 13th - reported that Kushner has three times amended his list of foreign contacts on his disclosure form...updating it with an additional one-hundred or more names. Proof - that like his father-in-law and brother-in-law - Jared Kushner is a liar. But losing his national security clearance is unlikely because according to a report by the Congressional Research Service, the President of the United States - as Commander-In-Chief - has "authority to establish the standards for access to classified national security information." In other words...when push comes to shove...it's ultimately up to Donald Trump whether Jared Kushner's security clearance is ever revoked. And the odds of that ever happening is probably slim to none.
It is my opinion, however, that Kushner should not have any White House credentials. He should be fired. Let's face it...at this point a non-Trump relative would have been shown the door and banned from 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. Jared Kushner should be tossed out the same way. But we all know that's never going to become a reality.
So will Donald Trump, Jr. be indicted for any criminal wrongdoing? Will he be convicted and sentenced to prison? Nobody knows. But if the answers to those questions are yes, would Donald Trump then pardon him? The answer, of course, would also be yes.
Will a judge and jury someday take away Jared Kushner's freedoms and put him behind bars? Nobody knows. But we do know that Donald Trump would obviously pardon him too.
And then there's this question. Will Donald Trump ever be impeached by the U.S. House of Representatives...convicted by the U.S. Senate...and removed from office? Again, nobody knows that for sure either. But if so, would Mike Pence then pardon him? More than likely...yes. However...I've always said that Trump would pull a Richard Nixon and resign the presidency before he would ever suffer through any impeachment hearings.
But even if everybody is safe from indictments or impeachment, Donald Trump and the Trump Administration will remain tainted forever.
To quote a July 9th tweet by Oscar nominated motion picture producer, Golden Globe nominated film director and Emmy winning television actor Rob Reiner... "Coordination, collusion, treason. Whatever you want to call it, the gun just started to smoke. #LockThemUp"
For me...I can't wait until Donald Trump, Jr. and Jared Kushner testify before Congress. My eyes and ears will be glued to my TV.
And that's The Controversy for today.
I'm Gary B. Duglin.
"We'll talk again."
The Controversy is a publication of GBD Productions. Founder and Editor-In-Chief of The Controversy is Gary B. Duglin.
Now, please express your personal opinions by following the instructions above. And thank you for reading The Controversy.
Copyright 2017 Gary B. Duglin and
TheControversy.net. All Rights Reserved.
Gary, let’s do some fact checking. You state “So here's the bottom line. Donald Trump has been adamant - since day one of his presidency - that there was no collusion by the Trump campaign to help Russia interfere with our 2016 national election. We know now...that is absolutely not true”, what proof do you have, where is there any proof they colluded with the Russian Government. Yes, they meet with a private lawyer who is Russian and yes they were told she had information that could hurt Clinton, so what. Ms. Veselnitskaya claims she has no connection to the Russian Government, as I said, so what. As President Trump said this is politics, the Clinton campaign worked with the Ukrainian government to influence the election, there’s proof of that. Donald Trump, Jr. emails don’t prove any direct link or as you said “solid link between Trump, Jr. and Russia”. All it proves that is that a former business associate of the Trumps got third party information to setup a meeting to get “opposition research” on Hillary. The information was incorrect Ms. Veselnitskaya wanted to discuss the Magnitsky Act, they didn’t and the meeting lasted less the 30 minutes. Who cares! Let’s fact check again, you said “Donald Trump, Jr.'s e-mails are clear-cut evidence that the son of the President of the United States attempted - during his father's campaign - to collude with Russia in order to meddle with America's presidential election” where’s the proof, there is none. Donald Trump, Jr attempted to get opposition research from a Lawyer from Russia. He did meet with her and would have met with anyone to gather the information (which there was none from Veselnitskaya), he did not pay for anything, there was NO COLLUTION, there was one person claiming through a 3rd party to have information and claimed it would be helpful and claimed it was what the Russian Government wanted. Once again no proof!! Let’s fact check again, you stated “According to several legal experts, if there is evidence of solicitation, then there is a violation of federal election statutes”. Where is there any solicitation, they approached him, there is NO PROOF that Donald Trump, Jr. solicited anything from anyone. I could go on and on disproving all you claims but it is not worth my time. You quote people like Rob Reiner who’s views are borderline anti-American or even Un-American, like most of Hollywood and the mainstream media. Maybe it’s time for the Democrats start working for all Americans not just the far left, they need to stop doing everything they can to subvert the President , all they care about is getting even for him for beating Hillary and trying to prove the election was tainted. Get over it she lost. It is now starting to look that without the Obama AG’s interference's she may have been headed for an indictment instead of an inauguration, thank God she lost.
ReplyDeleteThe response to the above reader will be in two parts.
DeletePART ONE
1) The proof is that Donald Trump, Jr. met with a Russian with the intent to collude. It is the attempt, which is the crime.
2) This is NOT "politics."
3) Yes, this is a link between Donald Trump and Russia. If you think that Trump, Sr. did not know about the meeting - as I wrote in my column - "either sometime before or immediately after it - then you believe that monkeys can fly."
4) "Opposition research?" That was not the intent. Trump, Jr. was told in the e-mails - in black and white - that the result of the meeting would be information to the Trumps that would be destructive to Hillary Clinton. Again, the attempt and intent was there even though information may or may not have been provided.
5) You are as delusional as Donald Trump when you say, "Where's the proof? There is none." You cannot dispute - as I wrote in my column - the "clear-cut evidence that the son of the President of the United States attempted - during his father's campaign - to collude with Russia in order to meddle with America's presidential election." The clear-cut evidence is written in the e-mails that Donald Trump, Jr. released.
6) The law is also very clear - as I wrote in my column - that money does not need to change hands. "If there is evidence of solicitation, then there is a violation of federal election statutes. "Value" is apparently the key. And value does not have to mean money. Negative information about Hillary Clinton would have been valuable to Donald Trump. Therefore, as long as there was an attempt by the Trump campaign to obtain information from the Russian lawyer, which Trump, Jr. had presumed would hurt Secretary Clinton as she challenged Trump, Sr. in the presidential election and which Trump, Jr.'s e-mails admit...then - according to many attorneys who have broadcast their views on numerous television news programs - the law had been broken. The crime is the attempt...despite the result...whether it was beneficial to Donald Trump or not." By being part of the meeting is considered "solicitation" because once at the meeting Trump, Jr. was expecting to receive damaging information about Hillary Clinton.
GBD
END OF PART ONE OF TWO
PART TWO OF TWO
Delete7) Both Donald Trump, Jr., Jared Kushner and Paul Manafort violated "federal election laws."
8) I noticed that you never commented on Kushner's lying. He lied on his national security disclosure form. That is a serious crime.
9) You can say all day long that you can disprove my "claims" - but you CANNOT. These are facts...and Congress and a grand jury will show you. As I wrote, however, neither Trump, Jr. or Kushner will probably never see the inside of a prison cell because Donald Trump would pardon them. But special prosecutor Bob Mueller will eventually find that Trump, Sr. has been involved with this Russian conspiracy since the beginning of his campaign.
10) It always amazes me when people like you refuse to accept comments by someone such as Rob Reiner by calling him and the "mainstream media" - "borderline anti-American or even unAmerican like most of Hollywood." Such a statement by you is disgraceful and despicable. Yet you accept the word of people like Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh and other conservative commentators who did nothing for 8 years but bash President Obama.
11) Democrats - which do include progressives and liberals, or what you call "the far left" - do work for America. You and other Republicans have continued for nearly 9 months to use the same old ludicrous statement that Democrats oppose Trump just - as you say - to "get even for him beating Hillary." Your remark is laughable. If that was the case then Democrats would have felt that way towards every Republican president...and we did not. The election was indeed "tainted" because of former FBI Director James Comey's letter and by Russia involvement and computer hacking. Seventeen U.S. intelligence agencies have concluded that Russia did meddle in our election. This has nothing to do with Hillary Clinton's loss, so your comment "Get over it, she lost" is - quite frankly - moronic.
12) President Obama's attorney general, Loretta Lynch, did not "interfere" - as you state. Hillary Clinton was NEVER going to be indicted for anything because she did NOTHING illegal. Comey stated it before Congress. No prosecutor would have proceeded with such a case. There was no evidence whatsoever that Secretary Clinton did anything that was against the law. You are a true Clinton hater and a true Obama hater. And you prove it with every comment you make.
GBD
END OF PART TWO OF TWO
Part 1, Gary, you and many others claim without proof there may have been a crime, but many do not, Legal expert Alan Dershowitz in an interview on July 12 stated he doesn't believe Donald Trump Jr. committed a crime by meeting with a Russian lawyer during his father's presidential campaign. He also said: "There's a big difference between the act of stealing or the act of hacking and the act of using it," Dershowitz said. "There's really no difference under the First Amendment between a campaigner using information from somebody who obtained it illegally and a newspaper doing it."
ReplyDeleteHe said that's why The New York Times could safely publish the Pentagon Papers, while the man who copied and leaked the documents, Daniel Ellsburg, faced charges under the Espionage Act.
He acknowledged that Trump Jr. should have handled the situation differently, as this looks "awful politically" for the Trump administration."But we have to distinguish between political sins and federal crimes," Dershowitz said. He added that even if Trump Jr. misrepresented or lied about the meeting, it would only be a crime if he lied to an FBI or law enforcement official or lied under oath."We just have to not broaden and expand criminal law by focusing on and targeting our enemies."
Jonathan Turley, George Washington University Law Professor who is widely regarded as a champion of the rule of law and his stated positions in many cases and his self-proclaimed "socially liberal agenda” have led liberal and progressive thinkers to consider him a champion for their causes, especially on issues such as separation of church and state, environmental law, civil rights, and the illegality of torture. Turley stated in an interview “"I criticize many of those folks that are saying this had to be because the investigation's closing in on Trump," the legal scholar said. "I don't see the crime, so I don't see how it's closing in on Trump." In a NBC interview Amy Jeffress, a former top Justice Department national security lawyer in the Obama administration said: "I just don't see an easy crime to prove here," and "Collusion is wrong, but I'm not sure it's a crime." In a July 10 interview Craig Donsanto, who spent more than 40 years working on election-law cases at the Justice Department before he retired said when asked about it being an election law violation he said: "that's stretching it," "Where is the contribution?"
Alan Dershowitz and the other attorneys you noted in your response are not the be-all and end-all of U.S. justice and the law. Other legal experts on federal election laws have expressed different thoughts. Therefore, my column stands and doomsday for The Trump Family is nearing. GBD
DeleteGary, I never said that those I mentioned were the “be-all and end-all of U.S. justice and the law”, it was show you that your statements are opinions NOT FACTS as you claim. Many true experts disagree with your so called experts.
DeleteMy statements regarding the issue being discussed are NOT opinions. And what you don't seem to understand is that they are not MY opinions, but factual statements made by legal experts throughout the country. I trust their knowledge (not opinions, but their knowledge) of the law, and therefore, I would come to the conclusion that the lawyers you happened to note in your earlier response...are wrong. GBD
DeleteYour statement proves it is your opinion, my opinion is the legal experts and top legal scholars I quoted are correct and yours are wrong.
DeleteAmazing! No. My statement does not prove it's my "opinion." They are NOT OPINIONS and they are not mine. They are factual statements that were made by knowledgeable legal scholars who know the law. Unfortunately, the people you quoted obviously are not aware of the laws being discussed. Therefore, I hold to my words that it is the attorneys that you quoted who must be "wrong." GBD
DeleteSo I guess you’re saying that you know more about the law then multiple Harvard Law Professors (Allen Dershowitz and others) George Washington University Law Professor Jonathan Turley, Amy Jeffress an attorney for the Obama Administration and many, many former US Attorneys. You must be one really smart guy to know more then all these people.
DeleteI don't know if you're the same person who has been writing comments yesterday and today about the above column, but I have to repeat myself - can you not read? I never said anything about "know(ing) more about the law than multiple Harvard Law professors." If you READ all of the responses to you and/or other readers, I stated that what I published regarding the specific issue you are discussing was not MY opinion. It was not ANYBODY's opinion. They are factual statements that were made by knowledgeable legal scholars who know the law. Unfortunately, the people you quoted obviously are not aware of the laws being discussed. Therefore, I hold to my words that it is the attorneys that you quoted who must be wrong. Again, I was not giving an opinion. The statements I included in my column were based on facts from legal scholars. Now read this again so you thoroughly understand so you don't have to send another moronic and combative statement that shows that you are either looking to simply fight...or that you are just plain stupid. GBD
DeleteThere you go name calling again, it is what you do best. You just don't get it, it is a lawyers legal opinion, not a fact whether a crime was committed or not. Unless stated by a Judge or Jury it is only a lawyers legal opinion.For every lawyer you can find saying Trump Jr broke the law I can give you a just as well educated and experienced lawyer that's says he didn't. That is why they are legal opinions. It is now time for me to name call, if you can't understand that simple process them maybe you are just too stupid!
DeleteI try never to "name-call." But when somebody like you continues to harp on the same matter and not accept certain facts, it is very frustrating to have a conversation - even in writing - with somebody of your ilk. Thus I figured by saying that you were "either looking to simply fight...or that you are just plain stupid" would shut you up. I guess, however, it didn't. Nevertheless, there are Federal Election Laws that are not open for interpretation. They are the laws. Donald Trump, Jr. and Jared Kushner have broken the law (or laws). And you will find me to be correct with that statement in the not too distant future. Thus, my column above stands as it is...with the facts of those laws. GBD
DeleteYou make me laugh, every column that mentions the President, a true Conservative or someone supporting the President of the United States you “name-call”. Your comment shows how un-educated on the law you are, almost every law is subject to interpretation, that is the purpose of many of our courts to interpret laws, compensation: what does that mean, something of value, does it have to be $5 in value or is $500 or $5000, who gets to determine the value of something that cost nothing and is given to you or even just offered to you. Everything is up to interpretation under the law that is the American legal system. Maybe you should take some law classes before you continue to make a fool of yourself.
DeleteWell, well, well...you are so wrong. What you "interpret" as "name-calling" I call educated opinions and/or facts. If I call Donald Trump a "narcissistic maniac," I do so based on two things - simple dictionary definitions and numerous psychiatric reports by medical professionals throughout the country.
DeleteAs for your comment that "almost every law is subject to interpretation," the comments I have made are based on consultations with various legal experts who are knowledgeable about federal election laws and who deal directly with such laws. If you read my column, I specifically discuss that "value does not have to mean money." This is why both a vast amount of Congressmen, Senators, law enforcement officers and lawyers have stated that Donald Trump, Jr. and Jared Kushner have broken the law. I did take several justice and law classes in college - albeit it's been many years ago - but again, I am reporting what others who are legal experts have stated over the last number of weeks. So before you go making "a fool of yourself"...know what you're talking about. By the way, if you don't like what is published at The Controversy...then as the old saying goes when somebody doesn't like what's on a television show, I say this to you...change the channel. You don't have to read me. GBD
part 2: Once again you are wrong with your “facts” you stated “Seventeen U.S. intelligence agencies have concluded that Russia did meddle in our election”, well former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper testified to the US Senate “that a report concluding Russia was responsible election meddling was only conducted by three agencies — the FBI, the NSA, and the CIA — plus the Office of DNI”. He repeated that fact on CNN on Thursday July 6, 2017, saying, "When President-elect Trump was briefed on this on the 6th of January, there were four of us, meaning the directors of NSA, FBI, CIA, and myself. That's all," he said. "How the narrative got out there about 17 components being involved, I don't know," he said. Should I say “fake news”! Anyone who is honest and fair minded that doesn’t believe that Loretta Lynch interfered with the Hillary investigation either has blinders on or as you said “believe that monkeys can fly”. Comey testified she interfered telling him to call it a “matter” not an investigation, that’s interfering, what about the meeting with Bill, once again you must “believe that monkeys can fly”. Though I believe you and most of the left truly hate President Trump and yes it is because he beat Hillary. You can claim you never hated GOP Presidents before, well you never had them beat the one you worshiped before, the left looked at her like a goddess and he brought down the queen. I on the other hand don’t hate the Clinton’s or former President Obama, I just know there policies were wrong and bad for America. But I don’t hate them!
ReplyDeletePolitifact - winner of the Pulitzer Prize - wrote the following.
Delete"Trump (on July 6th, 2017) asked if the federal government really does have 17 intelligence organizations. Yes, it does.
They are as follows: Air Force Intelligence, Army Intelligence, Central Intelligence Agency, Coast Guard Intelligence, Defense Intelligence Agency, Energy Department, Homeland Security Department, State Department, Treasury Department, Drug Enforcement Administration, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Marine Corps Intelligence, National Geospatial Intelligence Agency, National Reconnaissance Office, National Security Agency, Navy Intelligence and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence.
We noted (on October 7th, 2016) that the 17 separate agencies did not independently declare Russia the perpetrator behind the hacks; however, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence speaks on behalf of the group.
But in the case of the Russia investigation, there is no evidence of disagreement among members of the intelligence community."
As for your ludicrous remark that Loretta Lynch interfered with the FBI's investigation about Hillary Clinton's e-mails and private server, you show your Clinton hater colors, as you and most other Republicans do.
I really don't like having to use the following language to one of my readers, but I'm sorry to say that you must be as mentally ill as Donald Trump. You can spew your venom all day long that "the left truly hate Trump" because he won the electoral vote to become temporary tenant of The White House, but you are totally wrong. We did not "worship" Hillary Clinton. We supported her. You think you're angering me by writing "the left looked at her like a goddess and he brought down the queen." It just goes to prove your loathing and your lunacy. As does Donald Trump, you need serious mental help. And I certainly hope that you seek out professional medical treatment before you are poisoned by your own hatred.
GBD
You proved my point the former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper testified that it was only 3 agencies and his office not 17 and stated on CNN (Clinton News Network) "How the narrative got out there about 17 components being involved, I don't know,". As for Loretta Lynch she is now being investigated by Congress and maybe the truth will come out on how she tried to use the US Justice Department and the FBI to influence the election. Your comments on mental illness make me laugh; you who are not honest enough with your reader to admit your hatred for conservatism and true Constitutionalism prove to the world your metal illness. All anyone has to do is read your column to know you “worship” the Clintons, for that alone you need extensive treatment for your mental illness. You are the hater; once again all anyone needs to do is read your column to know it.
DeleteMy response to the above reader's comments will be in three parts.
DeletePART ONE OF THREE
I truly feel sorry for you. It is obvious you either cannot read or you don't have the mental capacity to do so.
My response to you above does not "prove (your) point" to anything. Therefore, I will provide the facts to you again.
Politifact - winner of the Pulitzer Prize - wrote the following.
"Trump (on July 6th, 2017) asked if the federal government really does have 17 intelligence organizations. Yes, it does.
They are as follows: Air Force Intelligence, Army Intelligence, Central Intelligence Agency, Coast Guard Intelligence, Defense Intelligence Agency, Energy Department, Homeland Security Department, State Department, Treasury Department, Drug Enforcement Administration, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Marine Corps Intelligence, National Geospatial Intelligence Agency, National Reconnaissance Office, National Security Agency, Navy Intelligence and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence.
We noted (on October 7th, 2016) that the 17 separate agencies did not independently declare Russia the perpetrator behind the hacks; however, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence speaks on behalf of the group.
But in the case of the Russia investigation, there is no evidence of disagreement among members of the intelligence community."
The crux of Politifact's statement is that "the Office of the Director of National Intelligence speaks on behalf of the group (of all 17 agencies)." And that "in the case of the Russia investigation, there is no evidence of disagreement among members of the intelligence community." Therefore, a statement that 17 U.S. intelligence agencies agree that Russia meddled with our 2016 presidential election is a true and accurate statement. There is no debating this matter.
My comment from an earlier response about Loretta Lynch stands and not Congress nor anybody else will ever determine that she did anything illegal "to use the U.S. Justice Department and the FBI to influence the election" through her position as attorney general.
GBD
END OF PART ONE OF THREE
PART TWO OF THREE
DeleteHate is not the operative word. I strongly oppose the conservative movement. I have been extremely open with my beliefs - through my columns - over the last 5 years of The Controversy. I am an ultra-liberal, progressive Democrat who recognizes that the United States is in many ways a socialist country that is best when the middle-class and the poor are treated in the same fashion as the rich.
I do not "worship" the Clintons. I admire them, I respect them, I truly honor them for their achievements and their service to the United States of America. I only "worship" God and through Him my religious beliefs and teachings.
It is not I who "need extensive treatment for mental illness" because it is NOT I who is the hater. It is you who are hater...and there is nothing in my columns to demonstrate hatred towards Donald Trump or Republicans or conservatives in general. I am merely critical of what they stand for and I am truly concerned that Trump - if given the chance - will destroy our nation.
Impeachment or resignation for Trump IS coming. It WILL happen. Donald Trump has followed the Richard Nixon playbook for 6 months. And we all know what happened with Nixon.
As long as Donald Trump continues to fight the press on Russia...as long as he continues to fight with his senior staff and his Cabinet members...as long as people like the now-former Press Secretary Sean Spicer quit and people like Attorney General Jeff Sessions is attacked by Trump...it is Trump himself who will bury himself (metaphorically speaking) and his presidency.
GBD
END OF PART TWO OF THREE
PART THREE OF THREE
DeleteIf you are a regular reader of The Controversy, you may remember that in my column of May 30th, 2017, titled SEAN SPICER SHOULD EXIT STAGE LEFT, I wrote...
"How much longer will it be before Sean Spicer tells Donald Trump to take the Press Secretary's job and shove it?
The Trump spokesperson is nothing more than a robot with human hair. The White House Press Corps gets little or no answers to their questions...except scripted remarks that have either been written by lawyers...or prepared by Trump and then handed to Spicer with the direct order to not respond to reporters with anything else.
Why would Sean Spicer want to keep his job? Unless he's a masochist who finds pleasure being pulled from either end by first-rate journalists who are doing their jobs with the utmost professionalism...I would think Spicer would turn in his government credentials and not suffer the turbulence that is eventually going to cause the Trump Administration to crash and burn.
It has become Spicer's practice to be tight-lipped about anything "Russia." And now...when reporters grill him about King Donald's Prince Jared...Spicer looks like something out of The Body Snatchers. He has obviously been commanded to silence...which makes Spicer not only appear foolish, but labels him the President's patsy.
My advice to Sean Spicer - not that he's asked me...which he hasn't - is to make like Snagglepuss...exit stage left...then run, not walk as fast as he can out of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue...and to not look back. After all...Spicer's days as White House Press Secretary are probably numbered anyway...and at some point - sooner rather than later - Trump is going to chew up Spicer - as he does with everybody who he fires (except for his Russian "spy buddy" Michael Flynn) and then spit him out like seeds from a watermelon.
So be smart, Sean. Take a hike. And do so before the "big bear" in The West Wing woods goes wild again...and without you knowing it...attacks from behind."
Spicer stayed on a lot longer than I expected. The next to go will be White House Chief of Staff Reince Priebus.
The Trump Administration is clearly imploding. And Trump's presidency will eventually come to a sudden end...long before January 20th, 2021.
GBD
END OF PART THREE OF THREE