Capitol Hill Blue Forums Forum News & Information Tell It To The Editors Trump Forum

I think Gen Flynn has been for some time delusional (I mean in a serious way). Perhaps in his world his ambiguity makes sense to him.

I believe it is very possible that President Donald (Closet War Hawk) Trump will have us in a shooting war before the mid-terms.

Either that, or some phony-baloney "terrorist" hysteria so that he and his handlers can make the USA even more fascist.

James Madison:

I believe there are more instances of the abridgement of freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments by those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations.

Of all the enemies of public liberty, war is perhaps the most to be dreaded, because it comprises and develops the germ of every other.

The means of defense against foreign danger historically have become the instruments of tyranny at home.


No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare.
.

SOTU becomes STFU: CNN uninvited Kellyann Conway from State of the Union over "credibility" issue. Source

Mss Conway has long had credibility problems in my opinion.

She routinely does not understand what people say (much like Limbaugh and other right wing radio hosts) and so misrepresents positions (lies- meant to deceive, intentionally or not).

Appears Cosmo found a piece predating her Bowling Green misspeak in which she stated the same lie.

Look, I do not mind spin because I expect it, but I do require facts be the basis of that spin. In Mss Conways case, she is fact free and intentionally runs a deception. Most of not all of Mr Trump's surrogates do the same. Sebastian Gorka may be the exception. He is an intellectual ideologue of the most dangerous kind, a true believer. He fallaciously engages interviewers in successful attempts to deflect from the issues. I have seen Cuomo and Tapper both felled as victims by this chicanery.

I do not think there is anyone in the administration honest enough to get substantive information.

Like I've said before, why treat Trump with kid gloves to maintain access? All the access is going to be lies anyway. Why bother? Just get your facts elsewhere and report the damn news. "Banned from the White House" just means your sources are going to be far more truthful.

If the truth pisses off Trump and his toadies, that means you are doing your job as a reporter.

Barely two weeks in and they're already having trouble keeping things together.
I look for it to fly off the rails sooner rather than later.

He may resign before they get around to impeaching him.

Maybe. He thought he would be the absolute ruler of the US, but even the President has to answer to the Judiciary. Members of Parties nominate and confirm judges but those judges are more loyal to the Judiciary than they are to the Party that nominated them. Trump has already gone after two federal judges. I imagine most federal judges are not kindly disposed to a man who belittles them and threatens them.

The appeal court panel he now faces is fairly certain to uphold the EO stay because they will think he will lose the case too. If it gets to the Supreme Court quickly, with even a partisan vote, they will tie 4:4 and that will leave the EO on hold. Donald is looking at his first defeat and he's only been in office for 3 weeks. He's going to be very upset about this.

I can't imagine how emboldened he would feel if the court ruled in his favor. The chance of that happening is not remote. There is a strong line of cases supporting judicial deference on immigration issues. IRONICALLY, it is a canon least favored by conservative judges.

NWP - do you have any padding for your comments?

The pundits (from both sides) seem to me to ignore something basic to the conversation. Yes, the president has great latitude in writing EO's especially in cases of national security, but he, just as Pres' Lincoln and Roosevelt, is Constitutionally limited by what they can do.

The EO is in response to Islamic terrorists attempting to enter the US through refugee or immigration processes. It is by it's very nature a ban on Muslims, but not all Muslims. The EO selects countries which have high numbers of Muslim terrorists operating and then gives deference to minority religions. There is no distinction between Sunni or Shia Muslims to support the fallacious argument one of these is a religious minority. It is a blanket ban on all Muslims from those countries.

From a legal perspective I do not have a clue ... perhaps you can enlighten the readers?