March 2, 2017

Tweet of the Day

UPDATE: Okay, I'll be fair.(From an FB group, sorry I cannot provide attribution):

RussiaRussiaRussia.jpg

Trump Agonistes Posted by John Kranz at March 2, 2017 11:35 AM

Seriously? You giving credence to this manufactured controversy?

Posted by: johngalt at March 2, 2017 2:52 PM

No, I just found it amusing.

I'm going with Reason on this one (no great friend of AG Sessions):

But meetings between U.S. officials and foreign ambassadors, even of countries many insist are "hostile," are par for the course. The U.S. should engage with any country willing to engage, on any issue where there might be convergence. The U.S. and Russia, recent anti-Russia hysteria aside, have complex relations. In the last year, the Russian ambassador to the U.S. met with, among others, the administrator of NASA and the governor of Tennessee (though neither of these appeared to be unforthcoming about their meetings). Last month he was scheduled to attend a physics conference also attended by Los Alamos scientists.

Posted by: jk at March 2, 2017 3:07 PM

The prior administration can conduct secret negotiations and establish Executive Agreements with Iran, the world's leading state-sponsor of terrorism, but anyone in this administration who ever spoke with a Russian official is denounced and called on to resign for national security reasons.

Or, it's just subterfuge.

Meanwhile, sources for the Times story said the campaign was not directed by Obama himself. Maybe not.

But did he know of it and, therefore, tacitly approve of it? If so, using a public office for a political purpose is a violation of the law, and this is highly questionable if not illegal behavior by a former president.

Will Schumer now call for an investigation of Obama and his aides for possible illegal interference with the operations of an incoming president?

Oh, and one more thing:

By the way, the Times report once again noted there was no evidence that Trump campaign officials coordinated in any way with Russians.

But who believes the "failing" New York Times? Even Schumer doesn't.

Posted by: johngalt at March 2, 2017 6:14 PM

I have not reached a decision. But the "crux of the biscuit" is perjury more than influence. "The 1990s called, they want their scandal language back!"

I'll confess getting rid of my least favorite cabinet member seems almost a fair trade for empowering the completely hypocritical opposition you cite.

The IBD editorial addresses, but your pull quotes do not, the AG's defense "He did in fact meet twice with the ambassador, but he says it was as a part of his job as a member of the Armed Services Committee — not as a Trump campaign adjunct. There's a very big difference."

I guess I can buy that -- I'd love to watch the tape -- but it seems like some hair-splitting, does it not?

Posted by: jk at March 2, 2017 6:42 PM

again... Democrats:

Kennedy would lend Andropov a hand in dealing with President Reagan. In return, the Soviet leader would lend the Democratic Party a hand in challenging Reagan in the 1984 presidential election.

https://pjmedia.com/jchristianadams/2017/03/02/us-senator-colludes-with-russians-to-influence-presidential-election/

Posted by: nanobrewer at March 4, 2017 1:06 AM | What do you think? [5]