I envisioned Nunes running to a department store where Santa was sitting upon his big chair, and Nunes, like a good little boy jumped up on Santa's lap and proceeded to tell Santa what he was hoping to get for Christmas.
We'll have to watch whether Nunes career goes up or down.
Santa will return every Christmas, but the Joker in the White House is playing Russian Roulette with our futures and may not.
"There was so much smoke being blown in Washington on Wednesday you could probably see it from the International Space Station."
I wonder what the Russians on the Space Station are thinking when they hear this endless Putin bashing, which is morphing into anti-Russian Xenophobia. "Have you ever talked to a Russian, been to Russia, conducted business in Russia?" Questions that echo tail gunner Joe's "Are you now or have you ever been a member of the Communist Party, or have you ever associated with anyone who is a member of the Communist Party?" The hearing is a witch hunt. One Congressperson breathlessly announced that such and such is married to a Russian, horror or horrors. I don't remember the particulars, but it doesn't matter, this sort of hysteria is disgraceful.
Comedian Jimmy Dore does a good job breaking down some of this nonsense:
It seems hard to remember when Republicans cared more about the country then their party. All that matters for the Republicans is which party wins as if it had no effect on the lives of millions or people.
Interesting Michael that you use that particular title. It happens to be the title of an explosive book by Gerard Menuhin. This book exposes the forces behind the Deep State. I challenge anyone to read "Tell the Truth and Shame the Devil".
Why is Tillerson skipping next month's NATO meeting, and going to Russia instead – to seek political asylum? He's probably counting on Putin to make him the Oil Czar of Siberia, 'cause if he stays here he'll be on trial for treason – along with Manafort, Flynn, Sessions and - maybe - Trump. "They HANG Traitors, Don't They?"
UncleFester, if you and those you let control your thinking get your way and we have their war with Russia, you will have blood on your hands for your helping their demonization of Russia and Putin dominate the American mentality.
Putting those who APPEAR to have colluded with a foreign government to the detriment of the United States ON TRIAL for treason is not advocating war with said government. Whether it was Paul Manafort (Russia) or Benedict Arnold (England), treason is treason. Period. And it's pretty hard to argue that having Tweetle Dumb in the presiduncy is not detrimental to the United States.
You don't put people on trial in order to discover if there is something going on because someone has made baseless accusations without any evidence WHATSOEVER.
Russia is NOT our enemy. Russia did not interfere in our election. The Clinton campaign talked to Russians as much at the Trump one.
I'm not defending the Trump administration to defend them. I'm calling crap on these silly witch hunts whose real purpose IS war with Russia. Of course the folk who want it don't think it will escalate to a full world war, they think they can keep it in Syria or Ukraine and the result will be regime change in Russia so they can get another Yeltsin who'll bend over backwards for the NeoLiberals to steal from the Russian people all their wealth.
You can stand up to Trump on his policies and resist. But you have to have something more other than "THE RUSSKIES ARE COMING!!!!!!! OH NO! KILL THE TRAITORS!!!!!!!!!!!!"
Stop a second. Breathe deeply. Have a glass of milk (soy for me) and a cookie (vegan for me). Take a long bath. Relax. There's no there there.
And perhaps your accusations that "someone has made baseless accusations without any evidence WHATSOEVER" are themselves baseless. An elected Democratic representative, the ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee (and I admit that "House Intelligence" may be almost as meaningless as "Military Intelligence), has stated that the evidence that something was / is going on is "more than circum- stantial", so IMHO a trial - or at least an independent investigation - should be carried out and a trial held if warranted. If in fact the accused are indeed innocent this should (hopefully) clear their names. Neither you nor I have access to the facts, so let's let our shallow shell of a democracy at least go through the motions of attempting to heal itself.
Taking the role of Tennessee Ernie Ford on an 'I Love Lucy' show several decades ago, how do I know that you're not one of those Russkie 'Bots from Kazakhstan or wherever, i.e. "One of those Wicked City Ladies that My Mother Warned Me About", just muddying the waters to make rational discussion impossible? (Not that you and I matter anyway.)
p.s. Rachel blatantly supported that establishment stooge Shilliary during the primaries last year, so I watch her only occasionally and just for entertainment. At least that loudmouth boor Chris Matthews is no longer aired during the limited time my T-V is on while I have dinner.
Right, another assertion free of any support. These are supposed to be people trained in how to debate, yet they think that repeating something over and over without any proof is somehow proof.
Following your idea, all we have to do is make accusations without any evidence until we finally get the trial to find out if there is any evidence. Sounds like what the Republicans did to Mr. Clinton in the 90s. Now Ms. Clinton's people want to do the same thing from the other side.
When someone makes an assertion it is up to them to provide evidence it is true, not for those who (like me) demand evidence to prove there is no evidence.
There is no evidence. None has been provided. Its all assertions without proof. Not just what Schiff has been spouting, but what the intelligence agencies reported too.
Schiff saying he has secret proof reminds me of McCarthy holding up a list, saying it was a list of proven traitorous Communists in the government, but never ever turning the list over to anyone, reporter or other politician, to verify.
It is so strange to see supposed Progressives act like McCarthy and cheer a person like Schiff on.
Exactly my point. YOUR assertions are equally baseless.
NOW whom are you talking about? Certainly not me - I'm only trained in scientific objectivity, not the obfuscation and distortion of a professional liar (lawyer or politician).
Uh, IIRC, as it turned out Mr. Clinton WAS lying to Congress - but only, SFAIK, only in regards to his personal life, not his professional duties. And the present accusations are being made by far more credible people than you or me. Either we accept that at least a few of our elected representatives - such as Al Franken, Jeff Merkely, Adam Schiff and Elizabeth Warren are essentially honest and trying to do their best on behalf of the vast majority of us, or accept my assertion of a couple of months ago that 1984 Is HERE AT LAST!!!
As I said. Those who make assertions must provide the proof. My assertion that they have no proof is not baseless since they have not provided any proof.
I was specifically talking about Adam Schiff.
But what would you do as a person trained in science if you read a journal article that made assertions but its evidence was "I saw the proof in my lab, but I'm not reporting it here?" Of course such an article wouldn't make it into any peer reviewed journals, would it?
Well, I definitely don't trust any of them. Warren lost my trust when she refused to support Sanders and then went all out for HRC. Nope. I won't support putting our country into more and more antipathy with the other major nuclear power simply because these folk say "Trust me."
But I guess most folk haven't learned the lesson of the Milgram Experiment. They'll happily do what someone they see as a valid authority tells them to do, in this case go hysterical against Russia.
Whether the evidence tying Manafort to Russian interference is circumstantial or not, the unfortunate fact of the matter is that a lot of the claims regarding Russian interference are on very shaky ground at best; see for example
In short, the DNC may be under control of a different group of corporate elitist plutocrats than the RNC is, but it is becoming increasingly obvious that neither has much regard for the facts though they will certainly use them when it suits their purposes.
I myself have come to doubt that a truly independent commission could ever be assembled by this congress even they had any interest in doing so.