None of that is interesting to average American, and no minds will be changed as long as Trump (via Twitter and his minions in the House and Senate) can play "it was tit-for-tat, "they did this and that" / "hoax" / "plot" / "treason" / "corruption" / "I am the good guy here, draining the 'swamp' and protecting the country from the 'evil deep state'" etc.

He's only happy to play "victim" and "defender of the faith and fatherland" and will proudly wear the impeachment "badge" after "exoneration" by the Senate's Kangaroo Kourt - that's his kind of show.

The real / only thing that will truly hurt him, personally (his psyche and "reputation / resume") - and will make a serious dent in hearts and minds of average people, including some non-cult Republicans - is if Democrats will expose his personal financial crimes, graft, corruption, money-laundering (especially on behalf and the benefit of Russian oligarchs and Saudi "princes"), lack of personal wealth and botched deals, which he uses to offload losses onto other people, while writing them off on his own tax returns (part of money-laundering schemes), before and after him "taking" the office (emoluments).

THAT would not be a game that "great business can turn around and point fingers on others, or that it would work or matter if he tries to play "I know you are, but who am I?"

Until then, have popcorn, but "you investigate me for political acts, I (Barr) investigate you for political acts" will be as productive as "Mueller investigation" - it doesn't help that on the other side there are Clintons, both corrupt and life-long grifters themselves.

These two clans should be married, in fact Ivanka and Chelsey used to be best buds.

What The Orange One didn't mention (yet) was that his newly ultra-conservative and deeply "triggered" son Don Jr has created 15 million jobs, so the question is which one of his children will be "voted off the Island"? Oops, wrong show, which one will get the "You are fired!" finger?

____________
China said Friday that it has reached a consensus with the U.S. in principle

China needs pork (due to "swine flu" epidemic) and soybeans which they have procured from Brazil and Russia after canceling U.S. imports. Trump needs a semblance of a deal, to show he is the "great dealmaker" and to please farmers and stop the bleeding from taxpayers-funded farms bailout, which gives his stupid "strategy" of tariffs the most visible big black eye.

The "deal" is going to be China buying some pork and soybeans - lesser amount than they bought before the "trade war" - in exchange for Huawei and other tech companies relief (they will suddenly stop being "spies"). Trump will announce that China had no choice ("China wants trade deal so much!") and that this is just a "phase one" of the "greatest deal ever made."

They will keep talking to maintain appearance and stave off further tariffs from both sides, because China doesn't need anything else at the moment and will be happy waiting Trump out, and Trump needs appearance of potential "great deal" and being "tough on China" and occasionally get Pavlovian response from the market when it starts tanking, by tweeting about "great things" happening in trade talks (so-called "Trump put" which has been fading of late) but nobody will be making any moves, since Trump already saw the damage to the economy higher tariffs could bring and can't risk recession or visible slowdown that we already have in manufacturing and some service industries in this gig economy.
____________

So even the Stupid Party understands that Pense has a good chance of winning against the current "top tier" of 70+year olds socialists and gaffe-prone has-beens and/or gay young man who is not supported by one of the most loyal strands of the Dem party (blacks / African-Americans) in case Republicans force Trump out (stick: vote to convict on impeachment, or pull a 25th Amendment; carrot: Pense pardons him from all federal crimes, leaving only couple of state's agencies pursuit without help of federal law enforcement)

If Dems can't find someone younger and less controvercial (like Kamala Harris, who checks out all the boxes - color, 2nd generation immigrant, well-educated, and also presents best defence against Nikky Hailey in 2024) then they are Party of Morons (choice of Hillary, about the only candidate who could lose Electoral College in 2016 by less than 80,000 votes kind of seals that definition).

We are between the Stupid Party and Moronic Party, people! Oh joy!

When we saved the banks we gave them $3 trillion.
If Saving Conoco means we get to take the oil why doesn't saving the banks mean we get to take the money?
#5 | Posted by hatter5183 at 2019-10-28 03:08 PM

The ignorance still displayed by both right and the left regarding so-called 'bank bailout' during the GFC, after more than 10 years, is staggering. 1) Nobody 'gave' banks $3 trillion. Banks received guarantees and Federal Reserve backstop facilities of up to $700B in revolving credit line facility and direct infusion of little more than $200B in exchange of passive, non-voting shares owned by Federal government (i.e., "we, the people") via Dept of Treasury.

Some banks felt they didn't need the infusion, carrying hefty amount of interest to be paid, but they were forced to accept it by Hank Paulson (Treasury Secretary at the time) to avoid speculation on financial condition of other banks.

At any given time there was less than $625B debt outstanding drawn on this facility. The amounts borrowed by the banks as short term loans have been repaid to the Fed with substantial interest, which the Fed returned to the treasury as portion of the profits it makes on lending every year. In other words, the taxpayers made money off this 'bailout' from the banks, not even counting penalties they were later subjected to by the DOJ, SEC and some states agencies who found convenient cookie jars to get their hands into.

why doesn't saving the banks mean we get to take the money?

Whose money would you get to take? The depositors, who keep their money in the bank (mostly in digitally recorded form) and stood a good chance of losing some or most of it (FDIC didn't have nearly as much in their piggy bank to bail out depositors if multiple banks failed, and would have to ask government / Treasury and the Fed to bail it out)? Or shareholders of the banks who in many cases were the same depositors in form of individuals or their pension plans or institutions who held banks' shares in their 401(k)'s? Or would you stop paying the workers at the bank by raiding whatever little (by comparison) amount of money banks had on in payroll accounts?

Unfortunately, most people's idea of what happened is derived from watching many stupid cartoon videos on Youtube, provided by people with good artistic skills but complete financial and economic illiteracy.

But there has to be a substantive legal underpinning to support such a claim.
#10 | Posted by tonyroma at 2019-10-26 05:37 PM

Not if the point is stalling for time or hoping for a chance of favorable opinion up the chain, in the court where Executive Powers of the President have already been given undue deference.

"This is America. Anybody can sue anybody until they can't."

Giuliani Butt-Dials NBC News Leaving Long Voicemails

Was not something like this on the recent (NBC's) SNL episode? Life imitates art?

Bribery is Well Defined in the Constitution as Impeachable

Yes! Great! Fantastic!

Now, can you well define "bribery"? After all, one man's (House of Representatives) "bribery" is another man's (Senate)... fill-in-the-blank ("goodwill gesture", "business as usual", "just an appearance of impropriety", "nothingburger...")

Trump is practically begging to get impeached soon... the sooner the better... for him. He wants the impeachment to be about anything that doesn't have to do with his crooked and treasonous finances, so whether it's "Ukraine" or "Turkey / Kurds" or any other "weekly outrafe" which has given way now to a "daily outrage", he doesn't care as long as House, armed with impeachment inquiry subpoena powers, don't go after his finances and graft (before and after he became an occupant / occupier of White House).

So he'll be even more outrages and his people will "confess" to any quid-pro-quo thst might get him immediately impeached as the polls start to reach critical mass.

He knows that Mitch McConnell will run the Kangaroo Court as fast as he can, and then there are no investigations, just pardons and more money-grabbing and treasonous "executive" decisions. There is 25th amendment, but that's why his "cabinet" mostly consists of loyalists or "acting" (temporary / unconfirmed) secretaries, so there would be no real quorum to vote this "stable genius" out as a true "mental case".

BTW, did Germans, Japanese, Italians and Vichy French were "helping us during World War II"? We can't bomb them today (can we?), but maybe we can "destroy their economies" by placing sanctions and tariffs on these so-called "allies"? What have they ever done for us?

the fact that eight-inch floppy disks were still used to store data critical to operating the Air Force's intercontinental ballistic missile command

It's very cool and sophisticated to have been using 8" floppies - everyone knows that 5.25" are just not nearly as safe because many people / commercial outfits are still using them and could accidentally or intentionally replace them in the central missile command.

Hopefully they switched to something similarly difficult to substitute and stay away from the "cloud" (Internet) storage, so they ain't gonna get hacked.

/jk/

____________
"Stroke of the pen, Law of the land. Kinda cool." (Paul Begala, an aid to Mr Clinton, said in summarizing the approach.)

"Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely." (Lord Acton)

"It's good to be the king." (Mel Brooks / King Louis, or someone previously known as The Prince)

So why do people insist on and keep giving more and more power(s) to single individuals? Because they think on some issues they will act in their interests?
____________

_______________
Why?
#8 | Posted by chuffy at 2019-10-14 12:56 PM

Why? ... Why? ... Why?

You keep using that word. It doesn't mean what you think it means.
You know that the answer to "Why?" is always "Because" or "Because I can."
_______________

So if someone says in advance they are going to kill a bunch of people, that gets them off the hook?

1. Since when, in the course of military operation, killing "a bunch of people" you consider and clearly proclaimed your mortal enemies and a "terrorist organization" gets you "on the hook"?

2. Since when, if you are protecting "a bunch of people" - who for years and decades have been your true allies on the front lines of combat in multiple wars and military operations - from their mortal enemies who clearly declared their intentions to eliminate the threat of "terrorist organization," abruptly leaving them unprotected and not only allowing them to be attacked but not warning them while alerting their enemies of your decision, gets you "off the hook" for your actions?

"Some would call that treason." What say you?

What is the reason for sanctioning Turkey? They are doing exactly what they said they would do if given the chance. Sanction those (The Orange One) who made sure they got that chance.

We haven't even seen the promised "tough sanctions" for Turkey buying S-400 from Russia despite Trump's and Pompeo's "tough bluff"?

Trump is running out of time to put things in his "resume" to get Nobel Peace Prize - Kim's mis-adventure backfired, he almost "made peace" with Taliban and left Afghanistan on September 11, but darn it, they just had to kill some service memebers there and the "peace" scheme fell apart; he is trying to make Russia and Putin "respectable" and bring them back to G-7.5 hoping that would count as the greatest "peace" agreement in history, ever.

Poor Liddle' Boy Donald - he doesn't know the difference between "War and Peace", or between "Dr Zhivago" and "Anna Karenina".

Trump Trade War May Cut Global Growth by Half a Point Next Year

Really, just half a point? Yawn.

If Trump, in his "great and unmatched wisdom" can't "grab this Global Growth by the p***y" and shave at least a couple of points from her, then he doesn't know how to play 3D chess and didn't master the Art of the Deal.

Yes, but it's too early to actually vote on impeachment - that should be done after months of investigations, while the House has powers of subpoenas and can investigate all kinds of Trump crime family crimes, from financial self-dealings to electoral to political and executive abuses of power and coverups.

He needs to be actually impeached about a year from now. If he is impeached too early, he'll be quickly acquitted by the Senate Kangaroo Court and claim "exoneration" and at that point there will be no "checks" and no "balances" on his malfeasance. After quick impeachment and quick acquittal he is home-free and unconstrained because there will be no second chances for investigations..

I think he is actually already trying to and will keep trying to bait Democrats to impeach him as soon as possible, by not complying with demands for documents and witnesses, and be more and more outrageous, to force their hand. They should not let him off the hook that easy.

Who ya gonna believe, the Tall Orange Stable Genius With Great And Unmatched Wisdom Dude or the Little Yellow Rocket Man?

RIP, Rip. You've been a very funny guy.

Donald Trump wants Romney shot. not impeached.

Mitt Romney should avoid Fifth Avenue when in New York City.

I can't believe Republicans can have any respect for Trump.

Most don't, they despise him for any number of reasons (some for moral / religious / behavior; some for financial / economic failures, incompetence and ignorance; some for legal / constitutional; some for disastrous incompetent and incoherent foreign policy, lurching from right to left trying to win that elusive "Obama's" Nobel Peace Prize and please his bosses Putin and the Oligarchs by weakening U.S. economic and "soft" power in the world etc.) but the ignorant "base" spurred by propaganda apparatus built and honed by Roger Ailes keeps them in the closet or on the outside (#NeverTrump).

Grow a pair and remove him from office.

Easier said than done, and besides, Trump would get a pardon for federal crimes (Ford / Nixon), including treason, which might also make state crimes more difficult to prove or carry sufficient recourse or penalty, so he will continue to be a menace via Twitter-sphere and his own TV, radio and cyber Trump Media Group Networks.

Sometimes I am amazed at how low Pres Trump has pulled the Republican Party.

Don't be amazed or even surprised. This is not your father's Republican Party, it's a Trump Party and he'll attempt to keep a hold of it as long as he and Ivanka can - it's just another channel for him to hawk his wares, but this one is of incredible size he's never had before. He breeds corruption and destroys anything he touches and anywhere he goes. Whether "they" go high or go low, Trump can and will always go lower, to bring "them" down to his level, because he can't possibly go any higher - that's his lifetime Modus Operandi, see his entire CV.

Trump has neither the law nor the facts on his side.

So, as the saying goes, he pounds the table Twitter, and before Twitter he was pounding the media (National Enquirer, NY Post etc. Now he has Roger Ailes and Steve Bannon's Breitbart media channels, but if they go soft on him, I suspect there will be plenty of money (legal or illegal, foreign or domestic) funneled to him to become a "media mogul" to undermine this country's morale and policies from within - he wants to be the "King, Czar and Pope of all media." Unlike Nixon, he will not go quietly into that good night.

______________________________________________________
Can someone name last Democrat President who won his first term election being over 61 years old?

So why is then so much excitemenr over 3 front runners in their 70s with old stale ideas of how much free stuff to give to certain constituent groups (health, education, certain kinds of debt, reparations, UBI)?

Is this also the best way to win lasting loyalties of younger generations, particularly millennials who are now watching with horror a spectale of senile deranged orange man in position of nearly "absolute" power, which supposedly corrupts absolutely?
______________________________________________________

_________________________________________________
Crowdstrike is a now-public cybersecurity company that was managing security for DNC website and email (note: that's not the same as managing a single server - in fact most of the website data was in the cloud, spread over 140 servers. Crowdstrike and FBI made snapshots of entire website data and structure for forensic analysis, before clearing servers to wipe out Russian malware and rebuild website from scratch.)

Crowdstrike was the first one to get the call when DNC suspected a breach of their computers.

CTO of Crowdstrike is Dmitri Alperovich, who was born in Russia and is a naturalized American citizen which likely makes him more patriotic American than Trumps who care mostly about American $Dollars and self-aggrandisement.

Alperovitch is also a senior fellow at the Atlantic Council, which received funding from the Viktor Pinchuk Foundation. Pinchuk, a Ukrainian billionaire, has previously donated to the Clinton Foundation but had no known investment in Crowdstrike.

"With regards to our investigation of the DNC hack in 2016, we provided all forensic evidence and analysis to the FBI," CrowdStrike said in a statement. "As we've stated before, we stand by our findings and conclusions that have been fully supported by the US Intelligence community."

--------
Trump adviser Roger Stone's legal team alleged the 2016 hack was an inside job and that CrowdStrike tampered with the evidence to pin the activity on Russian hackers. Stone's legal team used this argument to claim of the U.S. government's warrants in the case were invalid.

Stone has been indicted for making false statements before congressional committees and has a history of spreading conspiracy theories online.

This is not the first time Trump has brought up the missing server conspiracy theory " he raised similar questions during his press conference with Russian President Vladimir Putin in July last year.

"You have groups that are wondering why the FBI never took the server," Trump said last year. "Why didn't they take the server? Where is the server, I want to know, and what is the server saying?"

--------

________________________________________________________
Donald Trump Truly Has No Idea What He's Talking About

Not only that - he is talking about it "very bigly badly." And yet, so many people think this is his 3d/4D/nD Chess game mad skillz. In reality, it's just "The Art of the Covfefe" - one can interpret it and see in it whatever one wants it to be.
________________________________________________________

Does the article say if the age of uninsured population is taken into account? It's well known that younger people, especially ones not attached to a full-time corporate job, or so called "invincible" prefer not to spend money on insurance.

Texas also had influx of population, particularly younger, migrating from other states due to work / job / gig opportunities, and newly-arrived may not be eligible for state / gov't insurance for a year or so, until they have "established" residence.

This could artificially increase the number / percentage of uninsured, temporarily or semi-permanently - these numbers are often in flux in some dynamic states.

_____________________________________________
Trump Denies Making Promise to Foreign Leader

That makes sense. By now everybody, including foreign leaders, should understand that Trump's promises are worth about as much as diploma or certificate from Trump University.
_____________________________________________

_____________________________________________

EPA Plans to Revoke California's Right to Set Air Pollution Rules

That's interesting.

1. To revoke something (e.g., "the right") it had to be granted before. When did EPA grant this particular "right" to California?

2. What if the car companies "voluntarily" decide ("collude") to keep the agreed upon rules because they know that less than 2 years from now new EPA chief will throw out Trump's rules and whatever lawsuits it will generate.

3. California can simply refuse to allow certain cars to be sold in the state unless car maker offsets them with lower emission cars (fleet sales) and no amount of federal pressure will do anything to beat that. Of course, Trump could put tariffs and sanctions on California (JK), but they could also put tariffs and sanctions on his businesses (NK).
_____________________________________________

All in all, nice "tough guy" show from "The Apprentice President" Trump to his cult followers.

Not to say that California is doing something reasonable or "saving the environment" by denying the choice of its residents to buy any car they want, if they have money to pay for one of the most expensive gas bills in country due to taxes and regulations.