TGHusker

He can't control his tongue in a meeting wt the Russians in the white house in which he exposed an Israel operative - bragging we have pretty good intel - like it is HIS play toy. He would have a hard time controlling his self righteous anger that he was called to testify. I dare he take up Comey's challenge to reveal the tapes of their conversation. I wonder where the Trump tweet storm is at. Perhaps the cat (Comey) got his (Trump's) tongue with some strong testimony. The narrative on the radio is that Comey was a coward, or even act as a jilted lover - having been fired (like being divorced) from his job. However, I think it is Trump who has a lot to prove here - that non of his insiders were involved in illegal acts of collusion.

You know I'm liking this Evan McMullin guy more and more. He's posted some insightful stuff.

There may be a tangled web yet to be revealed and I'm thinking that the Senate needs to subpoena Trump's taxes.

No - otherwise Nixon would have pardoned himself. It took Gerald Ford's pardon to clear Nixon after Nixon resigned. Ford lost the election to Carter for doing so, but he felt it was the best thing to do to bring healing to the nation. Would Pence do the same - not sure. There was more loyalty to Nixon by the Repub party than today's party's loyalty to Trump - which is non-existent only to the extent on how it may affect the party's overall goals.

I listened to the hearing via the radio and wasn't able to view it. I heard most of it and came away thinking that Mr Comey is a very honorable, professional, forthright and thoughtful (as in thinking things through) guy. Just listening to him made me think how 'un-Trump' he is. Afterwards I got in the car to go for lunch and I turned on the radio. Talk radio centered around 2 main things: 1. Comey leaked his own documents 2. Comey was a coward - he didn't confront either Trump or former AG Loretta Lynch. However, in just listening to his words - I didn't have that take away. I think he did what he thought was prudent at the time. Yes, It would have been nice if he had confronted Trump (been better if he was tapping the conversation). But the overarching take away for me was that Trumps was doing all he can to interfere in the investigation without actually telling Comey to stop the investigation. You don't have to be a tea reader to understand what Trump was trying to say without saying it. Comey doesn't come across as a 'showboat' but actually as a fairly humble guy. A dedicated team player, who plays by the rules and who saw Trump as one who isn't a team player and does not play by the rules. Who am I going to believe - pretty easy based on past record and character don't you think. Comey is telling the truth and I only wish there was a clear smoking gun (vs a He said, He said) so we can get the inevitable over with quickly.

Eric Trump has an opinion of the Dems. This is full of hypocrisy - Pretty rich: https://www.yahoo.com/news/eric-trump-fathers-critics-theyre-not-even-people-131415414.html While on the other hand: https://www.yahoo.com/gma/eric-trump-funneled-cancer-charity-money-businesses-associates-100206357--abc-news-topstories.html

He who doctors himself has a fool for a patient and an idiot for a doctor!! Applicable for Trump who wants to be his own fast response team. The guy is acting guilty as sin. Anxiety abounds.

Wow. That gives me the hebegebes If I was in his shoes, I would have felt like a 'marked' man by Trump - marked to play along or something bad would happen - which it did - his firing. If Comey comes across as credible in his testimony - Trump will be in a big pickle. In this case the DOJ investigation could find that no crime was committed regarding Russia but a crime of obstruction could be found. This is an insight on how Trump conducts his business. We can believe this is how he got contracts, cut costs, obtained favors by placing a heavy hand on the person he desired to move in a certain direction. Unfortunately for Trump, he is no longer in the private sector and Comey, ethically, stayed clear of the pressure and was not moved by the not so subtle intimidation. No one the other staffers have a 'fear' of offending Trump. If Trump can do this to a FBI director, just think what he does wt staffers....

There is a delicate line between human rights and security. Our own Patriot Act crossed the line in some aspects. The British are now having to find the balance.

His past bad business dealings and current big mouth are coming together right here. Sounds like Trump made his own bed and has to now sleep in it.

http://www.newsmax.com/Politics/trump-comey-showboat-ad/2017/06/06/id/794498/ Disinformation campaign at full bore. A ad by Great America Alliance to air Thursday and Friday calling Comey a DC insider. It will push the narrative that his testimony cannot be trusted.

Diplomatic exchange via Tweets. What a pathetic foreign policy strategy. Because Trump reacts and doesn't think, he misunderstand the London mayor's message to Londoners. He then sends of a bombastic tweet in reaction that totally misinterprets what the mayor said. The mayor corrects him. Trump tweets back that the mayor is offering excuses.. MEANWHILE our fully sane Ambassador tweets his support of the mayor. Words can not describe this. This is beyond train wreck status. While one could brush it off as just another stupid tweet by Trump it is so much more. Because Trump is so insecure, he has to project himself into every situation, conversation -even a 'sacred' conversation between a mayor and the citizens he is to watch over. I say sacred because only certain people are reserved to address citizens in times like these - those who lead them. Think of Ronald Reagan's 'sacred' response after the Challenger disaster. What would we have thought if some bully from England had been critical of his words at that time? And Trump projects himself as an all knowing bully. Because he is so controlling, he cannot trust his diplomatic team to handle the relatively routine response of giving support back to the mayor. So will Trump next be responding to every dog catcher he doesn't agree with. I'm not placing the mayor on that level, but the President should respond on a higher level to heads of state and the diplomatic staff respond to the mayor, etc. He is so arrogant that he appears to know what is best for Londoners at a time like this. And maybe, (first time I'll use this phrase which I don't like to use and it is used too loosely by too many but my mind takes me there) Trump is too racist that he has to attack the Muslim mayor and try to portray him as weak and maybe the indirect cause for the terror in London. Cancel Donald Trump state visit, says Sadiq Khan, after London attack tweets https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jun/05/donald-trump-attack-courts-travel-ban-london The London mayor, Sadiq Khan, has called on the British government to cancel a planned state visit by Donald Trump after being criticised in two tweets by the US president. Trump initially criticised Khan for his response to the London Bridge terrorist attack; though, in doing so, he misquoted London’s mayor. Khan’s office pointed out Trump’s error later but the president responded by accusing London’s mayor of making a “pathetic excuse”. Appearing on Channel 4 News on Monday evening, Khan said Trump was wrong about “many things” and that his state visit should not go ahead. “I don’t think we should roll out the red carpet to the president of the USA in the circumstances where his policies go against everything we stand for,” he said. “When you have a special relationship it is no different from when you have got a close mate. You stand with them in times of adversity but you call them out when they are wrong. There are many things about which Donald Trump is wrong.” Trump’s tirade also appeared to act as a rebuke to the acting US ambassador to Britain, Lewis Lukens, who had put out a thread of tweets, culminating in a retweet of Khan’s statement. “I commend the strong leadership of the mayor of London as he leads the city forward after this heinous attack,” the acting ambassador said. In more normal times, such a message of solidarity with a host mayor in an allied state would be unremarkable, but it unleashed a torrent of online abuse from Trump’s supporters, accusing Lukens of disloyalty. Some focused on the fact that the acting ambassador was offering support for a foreign official who is Muslim, rather than echoing the president.(TG:emphasis is mine - shows the mindset of Trump supporters.) There were calls for Lukens to be replaced. Trump’s initial criticism of Khan on Sunday was based on a misunderstanding of what the mayor had said. Early on Sunday morning, Khan made a statement expressing grief and vowing that the terrorists “would not win”. Khan then added: “Londoners will see an increased police presence today and over the course of the next few days. There’s no reason to be alarmed.” A few hours later, Trump seemed to interpret that as suggesting Londoners should not be alarmed by terrorism. “At least seven dead and 48 wounded in terror attack and mayor of London says there is “no reason to be alarmed!” Trump tweeted. The London mayor’s office initially responded by saying Khan had “more important things to do than respond to Donald Trump’s ill-informed tweet that deliberately takes out of context his remarks”. Hours later, Trump retorted: “Pathetic excuse by London mayor Sadiq Khan, who had to think fast on his ‘no reason to be alarmed’ statement. [Mainstream media] is working hard to sell it!” Theresa May appeared unwilling to be drawn into the row. She praised Khan’s response to the attack but refused to explicitly comment on the US president’s intervention. Asked if Trump had been wrong to target Khan, May told reporters on Monday: “Sadiq Khan is doing a good job and it’s wrong to say anything else – he’s doing a good job.” White House spokesperson Sarah Huckabee Sanders denied that Trump was picking a fight with the mayor of London and said the idea that the president was criticising Khan because he was Muslim was “utterly ridiculous”.

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/06/06/the-real-resistance-to-trump-the-gop-congress-215230 Politico article stating the real resistance comes from the GOP congress. quotes Donald Trump’s young presidency is already prompting many Americans to dust off their high-school civics knowledge and think again about concepts like the “separation of powers,” interbranch “checks and balances,” and the proper functioning of the federal government. At the same time, it is prompting many pundits, especially but not exclusively on the left, to worry that Trump presents an unprecedented threat to the Constitution. Many are asking aloud questions that in recent times had only been whispered: Do the Constitution’s checks and balances still work? Is James Madison’s eighteenth-century notion that “ambition” could be trusted to “counteract ambition” applicable to an era of partisanship so intense that it’s warping people’s very conceptions of reality? Can the other constitutional branches—and especially Congress—check President Trump? Story Continued Below As it turns out, the answer thus far is—more or less—yes: Congress is providing a check on President Trump’s powers. It may not be happening as swiftly or as comprehensively as some Democrats might like, but the legislative branch is making its weight felt in the Trump era in a manner that, if it continues, bids fair to leave Trump with a reputation as an extraordinarily weak modern president. If Trump remains unpopular—and especially if his unpopularity drags down the reelection prospects of other Republicans, as this year’s special elections thus far suggest—then conditions will be especially ripe for Republican pushback. And, at the extreme, if Trump’s presidency at some point really does look like it’s going down in flames, Republicans might sense the chance to develop a bipartisan reputation for heroism by vigorously opposing him. *** So that brings us back to our initial question: Is Congress strong enough to stand up to Trump? Let’s begin with a congressional tool already discussed above: the power of the purse. Republican elites—both governors and members of Congress—have been overwhelmingly critical of the Trump White House’s budget proposals, and it seems apparent that both the deep cuts to many existing programs and a number of the specific programs that Trump does want to fund (the border wall, for example) are unlikely to survive the congressional budget process. Relatedly, Congress appears to be in no hurry to enact much of Trump’s desired legislative agenda. After significant turmoil, the House finally passed the American Healthcare Act, but even before its dismal CBO score, a number of Senate Republicans made it clear that the upper chamber would draft its own bill. Senator Burr recently said that he did not think the Senate would pass a health-care bill this year—a remarkable on-the-record admission from a member of the majority party. And, of course, even if the Senate passed a health-care bill, it would be another Herculean struggle to get it through the House again. Nor is health care the only part of Trump’s legislative agenda that has failed to make it through Congress. Neither an infrastructure bill nor a tax reform plan has yet materialized, and Trump faces the very real possibility of having no major legislative accomplishments in his first year in office. Another domain in which Congress might push back against a president is that of personnel. Here, Trump’s record with Congress has in some sense been better. Only one of his cabinet nominees, Andrew Puzder, nominated as secretary of labor, has failed in the Senate. And by nominating an establishment conservative—the sort of nominee President Marco Rubio might have chosen—as his Supreme Court pick, Trump ensured that the Senate Republican caucus held together. But in another sense, appointments have been a trouble spot for this administration. The administration has been almost shockingly slow to staff up at the sub-cabinet level, and the time required to confirm those nominees later will detract still further from Trump’s legislative agenda. Moreover, Trump is certain to face significant trouble getting his choice of a new FBI director confirmed after having fired James Comey—which may partly explain why five candidates have withdrawn from consideration in the last few weeks. Investigations offer another potent means by which Congress can confront a president, especially this president. There are currently four committees investigating links between Russia and the Trump campaign and administration. Many critics of the administration are frustrated by the pace of these investigations. But while there is little doubt they’d be going faster if Democrats controlled one chamber, the extent to which these investigations have proceeded and have damaged the administration is remarkable, especially for an administration less than 150 days old

http://www.newsmax.com/Politics/lindsey-graham-doubt-senate-healthcare/2017/06/05/id/794311/ Graham says it won't get done this year. House version is DOA to the Senate. He thinks ACA should just implode and then work wt the Dems to fix it. Yes that is government leadership at its best!! Thanks for leading on Graham.

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/david-rank-beijing-ambassador-quits/2017/06/05/id/794291/ http://www.cnn.com/2017/06/05/politics/acting-ambassador-to-china-david-rank-resigns/index.html Acting US ambassador to China David Rank resigned from his post in Beijing over President Donald Trump's decision to withdraw from the Paris climate agreement, several sources familiar with the decision told CNN. A career foreign service officer since 1990, Rank assumed the position of deputy chief of mission at the US embassy in Beijing in January 2016 and had been serving as charge d'affaires until the arrival of Trump's pick for the job, former Iowa Gov. Terry Branstad, who was confirmed by Congress late last month. "Dave is exactly the type of diplomat any American would want representing their interests abroad, and he was sought after within the State Department for increasingly difficult and challenging assignments because he's strategic, smart, savvy, curious, loyal, and non-partisan," said Dan Feldman, who worked with Rank for five years on Afghan issues. "Given he spent much of his career seeking to strengthen the US-China relationship to benefit all Americans, we need his expertise and skills now more than ever before," he said. "It's heart-wrenching that we're losing career officers of his talent, as they pride themselves on serving any Administration, but some are increasingly grappling with whether they must take principled decisions as they balance their sense of duty with their conscience." Rank has served in several senior positions within the US State Department including time as the director of the office of Afghanistan affairs and as a senior adviser to the special representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan. "Mr. Rank made a personal decision," a senior State Department official told CNN, stopping short of citing the climate deal developments as the reason. "We appreciate his years of dedicated service to the State Department." But sources familiar with the decision indicated that Rank's departure is directly tied to Trump's controversial move to pull out of the accord. One source familiar with Rank's decision to resign said that Rank addressed his staff on Monday and talked about his four tours in China and how much he loved the country. But he said this weekend he was asked to do something which "as a parent, patriot and Christian I simply cannot do." Rank, according to the source, told the embassy staff he couldn't in good conscience do anything that would contribute to the implementation of the decision to withdraw from the climate agreement. He said he looked for a way to avoid a conflict between his duty and conscience but when he couldn't find one, he offered to resign, assuming his resignations would be accepted. And it was accepted. Rank was serving in China when President Xi Jinping and then-US President Barrack Obama jointly declared their commitment to the Paris agreement. China, the world's largest carbon emitter, said it would stick by its commitments to the treaty despite the US decision. Rank becomes the second US diplomat serving at one of the largest embassies in the world to publicly split with Trump in recent days. The acting US ambassador to to the United Kingdom, Lewis Lukens, issued a statement on Twitter singling out London Mayor Sadiq Khan for praise after Trump attacked him on Twitter in the wake of the terror attacks which killed at least seven people

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/05/us/politics/trump-discontent-attorney-general-jeff-sessions.html And now it appears, based on 'unknown sources' within the admin, Trump is frustrated wt Sessions - why because he did the right thing and recused himself from the investigation.

As others have said, Riley has improved recruiting and also has added some quality coaches. But now he must endure his toughest 2 year schedule since he's been here. This year and next, he will have to survive on his and his coaching staff's skills. The recruits that he is attracting now will have minimal impact overall - outside of a few - to affect the seasonal results. He better hope that QB Lee is the real deal and can carry this team. Otherwise, I don't think he survives the next 2 years - then we say hello coach Frost - just in time to 'harvest' the benefits of MR's recruiting.

http://journalstar.com/sports/huskers/sipple/steven-m-sipple-another-collapse-caps-another-unremarkable-year-for/article_8a7c565e-347a-5f7b-9116-001851c17146.html Sip talks about the season ending collapses in the 3 major men's sports -- Basketball, Football, Baseball. We finished ranked 9th in the Big 10 in all sports. Pretty pathetic for a school of our resources, facilities and fan support. I do not believe we are getting our money's worth - but then again maybe we are - based on the $$s we are paying our coaches. This ranking, (and it was worse a couple of years ago) speaks loudly to me that we do not have the combined coaching talent and recruiting power to get it done. We have to pay big league salaries to get big lead results and attract talent to NU. With TV money and every team on TV now, this isn't the 1990s anymore where a power team like Nebraska could dominate because we were one of the relatively few that were on TV every week. Quote: Many Husker sports fans are fired up, some fed up. They wonder what in the world is going on with their teams, especially the high-profile ones. Meanwhile, the Nebraska athletic department continues to rev up what's become a formidable public relations/marketing machine, especially on social media. Other than John Cook's potent volleyball program, the PR/social media wing at North Stadium may be the department's strong suit. Media types generally are a cynical bunch. But in this market, some stumble all over themselves to praise the Huskers' slick social media presence. Trouble is, all the creative social media campaigns in the world can't hide Nebraska's ninth-place standing in 2016-17 in our annual compilation of average finish in Big Ten competition across all sports. The Huskers' final average of 7.00 trails powers Ohio State (4.29) and Michigan (4.30), which lead the way. They're followed by third-place Minnesota (4.79), Wisconsin (4.91), Penn State (5.26), Northwestern (6.00), Indiana (6.78) and Purdue (6.95). Nebraska also was ninth in 2015-16 and 11th in 2014-15. The numbers are troublesome considering the generous amount of resources, passion and energy that NU pours into it athletics. The Huskers should be knocking on the top four on a regular basis. In defense of NU athletic director Shawn Eichorst, his focus on maximizing the "total experience" for student-athletes is admirable. He's proud, and rightfully so, of the achievements of Husker athletes in academics and life skills. He believes that if athletes are doing well away from the fields and arenas, they're more apt to excel when the lights go on — when everyone is keeping track. It seems a sound credo.

Apologies for my extensions changing some of the verbiage. But you get the point. We're at an impasse. Ossoff's war chest is largely from individual donations. What is the correct choice? Take the Bernie approach and swear off big money or take the money to try to stay afloat for the massive amounts they'll have spent against them? Well you cannot play until you get in. So on one side you say "I'll take the money now but commit to working towards changing the laws that govern money in politics". You will get attacked for not being consistent. Or You run your campaign as pure as the driven snow (where did that phrase come from , but I digress) don't take the money and get hammered. Part of me says the former - play by the rules as they now exist and then try to do something about them. Don't do what the 2nd district congressman in Okla is about to do: He campaigned on term limits, committed to running for only 3 terms. Now that he is about to be voluntarily 'termed out' he is reneging and thinking strongly of running for the 4th. It has a lot of people's blood boiling. But if he gets the endorsement of the Indian tribe, he'll probably be able to pull it off.

Pretty sad list there knapp ^^^^^ We are in the middle of 'dysfunction junction' with this president and this congress.

I disagree - the Dems are a sh!t show. Not as bad as the Repubs, but still bad. I reject your premise that the only options are to stand on the sidelines or with the Dems against the Repubs. I think a large part of our issues are due to the influence of money in politics, so I also work with Wolf-PAC to get a Constitutional amendment saying that corporations are not people and they do not have the right to spend money to buy our politicians. And I am opposed to the current establishment in both parties. So I work with Brand New Congress to get incumbents out of office and get new blood into the government. And if a new party emerges (like the Draft Bernie people hope will happen), I'd be more likely to vote for them than the status quo because I think we need major changes in our political system. An term limit amendment would help to speed the process up. Again - it would have to pass a majority of repub state legislatures which may be a hindrance while they are the party in control. An amendment or judicial ruling that would prevent gerrymandering would be beneficial. And yes, getting big money (corporations and union money) out of the 'election business' would be a step in the right direction.

The top of the ticket sets the tone. Trump has set a new low mark in politics.

I meant multiple respected sites. But then the debate 'what is a respected site'?

yes, agree we have to participate now - with the cards given to us (the 2 major parties) but history has shown that there can be an evolution of new parties over time and the fading of the old. Work the best we can wt what we got now but push for something better. Our 2 party system is failing us right now - it is too partisan. Unfortunately wt the Repubs holding most of the state govts, it would be hard to manufacture a change (via amendment) in which the repubs weren't the center of it. However, I'm old enough to remember when the Dems had the same strangle hold on the states and Congress and the Presidency that the repubs have now. If the repubs fall in greater disfavor and still overplay their hand, they could see a reversal of their fortunes. If that were to happen, then 2020 would be the crucial year - when new census is completed and district lines could possibly be redrawn to be more equitable..

Back to what TGHusker said. Yep, both parties are a sh!t show. The Repubs are just an opposition party, and the Dems look to be headed in the same direction. I keep hoping for a new party to emerge or for the existing ones to change, but I don't see any of that as likely. Sadly, I'm becoming more convinced that our country will collapse in my lifetime. Yes, that is the heart of why I posted this - regardless of the website - if I dug deeper, I'm sure I could have found something similar from Zoog's beloved NYT - Regardless, my concern is that we have two parties - one in control that can't get anything constructive done and also proving to also doing a poor job in many states (like my own Oklahoma) and another that cannot find its identity post Clinton. I too wish for a new coalition party of center right and center left that would abide by the constitution and enact laws that seek the welfare of individuals with reasonable budgetary restraint ( and not just dumping it all on the states - which the repubs are wanting to do wt food stamps - that is kicking the can away from one's responsibility)