Obama Gives Finger To Country—Takes $400,000 From Wall Street

The Jimmy Dore Show is a hilarious and irreverent take on news, politics and culture featuring Jimmy Dore, a professional stand up comedian, author and podcaster.

With over 5 million downloads on iTunes, the show is also broadcast on KPFK stations throughout the country.

It is part of the Young Turks Network-- the largest online news show in the world.

Trump Son In Law Jared Kushner Was Just Told To Lawyer Up Because He Committed A Crime

Rep. Ted Lieu (D-CA) told Trump son in law Jared Kushner that he better hire a lawyer, because he committed a crime when he lied about having contacts with foreign governments on his security clearance form.

http://www.politicususa.com/2017/04/25/trump-son-law-jared-kushner-told-lawyer-committed-crime.html

Bill O'Reilly Has A Lot Of Time To Visit Sylvia's Restaurant Now...

Bill O'Reilly Is Out at Fox - African Americans Should Watch For Who is Next 

Georgia voters in this reliably Republican district may be preparing to ‘stick it’ to Trump

April 17, 2017

Evan Halper
Tribune Washington Bureau
Displayed with permission from Tribune Content Agency

MARIETTA, Ga. — This orderly swath of Atlanta suburbs was never supposed to worry Republicans. They've had a lock on the congressional seat since 1979, with a string of rock-ribbed conservatives such as Newt Gingrich and Tom Price.

Then Donald Trump happened.

Now the GOP is in an unexpected scramble to prevent a politically inexperienced millennial Democrat — unknown months ago — from turning their longtime stronghold blue.

Party officials are filled with angst ahead of Tuesday's special election in Georgia's 6th Congressional District to replace Price, who vacated the seat to become Trump's Health and Human Services secretary.

After a scare for Republicans in Kansas last week, when a congressional race got uncomfortably close in a district Trump had dominated in the presidential election, the Georgia fight teeters on becoming a full-blown crisis for a party that should be relishing its recent success and consolidating power. A Democratic win here, unthinkable weeks ago, is now a very real possibility. It would be another indication that Democrats are not the only party hobbled by a national identity crisis in the age of Trump.

"Nothing like this has ever happened before in Georgia," Charles S. Bullock III, a University of Georgia political science professor, said of the expensive free-for-all the race has become.

With Democratic donors nationwide rallying around 30-year-old Jon Ossoff, the surprise front-runner has raised a staggering $8.3 million, dwarfing contributions to all 11 of his Republican rivals combined.

For Democrats, the allure of the district stems from voter uneasiness about Trump, who barely won here in November. By contrast, Mitt Romney, the last GOP nominee, crushed Barack Obama by double digits.

Ossoff is polling at about 40 percent, far beyond any of his contenders in the open primary. That's largely because the GOP candidates are splitting the vote.

But Ossoff is now within striking distance of winning the majority required to avoid a runoff in June, which may be his best hope, since many believe a two-candidate runoff would favor the Republican.

"Two or three months ago, nobody had a clue who this guy was," Bullock said.

As they lined up at polls last week for early voting, several residents made clear they were viewing the race as a referendum on Trump.

"The Trump administration is scary," said Jeffrey Chou, a 25 year old graduate student and Ossoff supporter voting for the first time. "I don't like what they are doing. I felt it was important to come out and send a message that we don't support it."

He was joined in line by a 60-year-old nurse who voted for Price in the past but said all the "insanity" at the White House had driven her to vote Democratic this time. Arriving soon after was a 38-year-old patent agent trainee who hadn't volunteered for a political campaign since college but said Trump's behavior pushed her to canvass for Ossoff. A physician in his 60s who said he had worked with Price professionally and voted for him declared he would cast a ballot for Ossoff to "stick it in the eyes of Trump."

"You are seeing the liberals demonstrating their total disgust for Donald Trump," said Max Wagerman, 52, a GOP loyalist who boasted of living in the same subdivision as Gingrich. "They've got all the juice now. They have the organization. Republicans here are just too lazy, and the liberals are going to get this one."
With momentum on his side, Ossoff is now everywhere: omnipresent in TV ads, his face plastered on lawn signs and car bumper stickers, talked up by the thousands of volunteers — many from out of state — knocking on doors and calling voters.

Desire by Democrats to land an electoral blow against Trump is so intense that the party is showing uncharacteristic discipline in a messy race with 18 candidates. It quickly rallied behind Ossoff, with liberal bloggers setting in motion a Bernie Sanders-style fundraising operation that has resulted in a frenzy of small-dollar donations, the largest number of which are coming not from Georgia but California.

Ossoff is no Bernie Sanders. He is a cautious, scripted moderate who spends much less time on the campaign trail whipping up rage against Trump than carefully calculating remarks that avoid offending the area's upscale suburban electorate.

"Folks here are excited now for fresh leadership presenting a substantive message about local economic development and talking about core values," he said at his Marietta campaign office, just before a crowded candidate forum where Ossoff was the only one who ended some of his answers without using the full minute allotted. "They are tired of partisan politics."

But partisan politics is what they are getting. First, there is his deluge of outside cash. Republican groups have countered by pouring millions of dollars into ads attacking Ossoff as a political neophyte aligned with rioting protesters. One even made ominous insinuations about Ossoff's past work as a filmmaker for cable channel Al-Jazeera.

Republicans are focusing their attacks on one another. They are slugging it out for what they hope will be a spot on the runoff ballot against Ossoff. The intensity of their attacks lay bare how much Trump has complicated Republican politics.

Establishment favorite Karen Handel, the former Georgia secretary of state, has watched her strong lead diminish amid an assault from the conservative anti-tax group Club for Growth and others who question her ideological purity. One ad depicts her as a stumbling elephant in pearls; others accuse the fiscal conservative of recklessly spending tax dollars.

"All you need to know about this district is Mitt Romney won it by 22 points and Trump won it by 1 { points," said GOP pollster Whit Ayres, who is working as a consultant for Handel. "This defines the kind of upscale suburban district where Trump struggled. Karen is the type of person this district has tended to support."

One Trump loyalist who threatens to overtake her is Bob Gray, a telecom executive backed by the Club for Growth. He dismissed as hype the chatter that the local electorate is so uneasy with Trump that it could go blue. "I don't think it's in the cards," Gray said. "This is a conservative seat. Let's be real: Newt Gingrich, Tom Price. The district hasn't changed that much."

Gray stars in his own not-so-subtle TV ad wearing a pair of vibrant camouflage waders and fueling a giant motorized pump, which he then uses to "drain the swamp" — a nod to Trump's catchphrase.


Many of the leading candidates chafed when asked whether the race had become a referendum on Trump.

Said Judson Hill, an anti-tax advocate and GOP candidate: "Donald Trump is not on the ballot here."

But as residents stood in line a few miles away to cast ballots in early voting, it was undeniable that Trump was on their minds.

A collection of regretful Trump voters

http://www.areyousorryyet.com/

10 Republicans who have done a complete 180 on Syria now that Obama’s not president

By Brad Reed
 

In 2013, President Barack Obama went to Congress to ask for an authorization of force against Syrian President Bashar al-Assad — and he was turned down, in large part thanks to opposition from Republicans in Congress.

Here are the biggest Republican flip-flops in Syria that have happened over the last four years.

1.) Donald Trump. Trump is, of course, the most notable person to change his mind on the merits of attacking Syria. In 2012 and 2013, he regularly attacked Obama for his desire to get involved with the Syrian conflict, and even suggested at one point that Obama would go to war with Syria to boost his flagging poll numbers.

Now that Obama’s poll numbers are in tailspin – watch for him to launch a strike in Libya or Iran. He is desperate.

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) October 9, 2012

If the U.S. attacks Syria and hits the wrong targets, killing civilians, there will be worldwide hell to pay. Stay away and fix broken U.S.

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) September 3, 2013

The President must get Congressional approval before attacking Syria-big mistake if he does not!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) August 30, 2013

What I am saying is stay out of Syria.

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) September 4, 2013

2. Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI). Although Ryan gave Trump his approval for Thursday night’s airstrikes, in 2013 he said that Obama’s proposed military strike “cannot achieve its stated objectives” and could make things worse.

3. Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-UT). On Thursday evening, Chaffetz sent out a tweet that read, “God bless the USA!” But in 2013, he said he would oppose the use of force in Syria on the grounds that he saw “no clear and present danger” to the United States that would justify using force.

4. Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN). Blackburn announced in 2013 that she would oppose Obama’s Syrian airstrike after being briefed. On Thursday evening, she approvingly re-tweeted President Trump’s quote that “no child of God should ever suffer such horror.”

5. Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL). Although Rubio has been blanketing the airwaves praising Trump’s airstrikes, in 2013 he said that “I have long argued forcefully for engagement in empowering the Syrian people, I have never supported the use of U.S. military force in the conflict.”

6. Sen. Orin Hatch (R-UT). Hatch gave Trump’s actions an “amen” on Twitter Thursday evening, but in 2013 he said that he had “strong reservations about authorizing the use of force against Syria.”

7. Rep. Pete Olson (R-TX). Olson cited his experience as a Navy veteran as a reason for opposing the use of force against Syria in 2013. Now, however, he is cheering on Trump by praising the president for doing what Obama would not.

8. Rep. Robert Aderholt (R-AL). The congressman on Thursday night gushed about Trump’s airstrike, but in 2013 he worried that Obama had not done enough to seek a “diplomatic” solution to the crisis.

9. Rep. Larry Buschon (R-IN). In 2013, the congressman opposed intervention in Syria on the grounds that he hadn’t met a single person in his district “who believes we should fire missiles into Syria.”

10. Sen. Corey Gardener (R-CO). In 2013, Gardener expressed “skepticism” of striking Syria and argued that he didn’t see “a compelling and vital” national interest in such an attack. On Thursday evening, he called Trump’s strike against Syria a “long-overdue action.”

He’s just a gross, crook, dirty, rotten lying sack of shit

Louis CK regrets comparing Donald Trump to Hitler. But he's not going to take it back.

Mitch McConnell Goes Down In Flames Defending His Merrick Garland Hypocrisy

How the fuck does Kentucky keep re-electing this guy?  dlevere.

By David



Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) on Sunday blamed the American people for the decision of Senate Republicans not to grant President Barack Obama's Supreme Court pick, Judge Merrick Garland, a hearing.

"The tradition had been not to confirm vacancies in the middle of a presidential [election] year," McConnell told Meet the Press host Chuck Todd. "You'd have to go back 80 years to find the last time it happened... Everyone knew, including President Obama's former White House counsel, that if the shoe had been on the other foot, [Democrats] wouldn't have filled a Republican president's vacancy in the middle of a presidential election."

"That's a rationale to vote against his confirmation," Todd argued. "Why not put him up for a vote? Any senator can have a rationale to not to vote for a confirmation. Why not put Merrick Garland on the floor and if the rationale is, 'You know what? Too close to an election,' then vote no?"

McConnell laughed defensively.

"Look, we litigated that last year," the Majority Leader stuttered. "The American people decided that they wanted Donald Trump to make the nomination, not Hillary Clinton."

McConnell argued that Democrats should focus on the issue at hand, the confirmation of Neil Gorsuch, Trump's Supreme Court pick.

"There's no rational reason, no basis for voting against Neil Gorsuch," McConnell opined.

"You say it's been litigated, the Garland situation," Todd replied. "For a lot of Senate Democrats, they're not done litigating this... What was wrong with allowing Merrick Garland to have an up or down vote?"

"I already told you!" McConnell exclaimed. "You don't fill Supreme Court vacancies in the middle of a presidential election."

"Should that be the policy going forward?" Todd interrupted. "Are you prepared to pass a resolution that says in election years any Supreme Court vacancy [will not be filled] and let it be a sense of the Senate resolution, that says no Supreme Court nominations will be considered in any even numbered year? Is that where we're headed?"

"That's an absurd question," McConnell complained. "We were right in the middle of a presidential election year. Every body knew that either side -- had the shoe been on the other foot -- wouldn't have filled it. But that has nothing to do with what we're voting on this year."

White House Staff Turns On ‘Out Of His Depth’ Jared Kushner Amid Chaos And Turmoil

Kushner is arguably the president’s closest adviser.

By David Ferguson / Raw Story

April 2, 2017

Photo Credit: Ovidiu Hrubaru / Shutterstock.com

Thus far, in the scandal-plagued, chaotic presidency of Donald Trump, the chief executive’s son-in-law Jared Kushner has enjoyed a kind of unsinkable “privileged status.”

According to Politico, however, resentment is growing against Kushner in an already factionalized and strife-torn White House. Hardline conservatives see the moderate-minded, 36 year old Kushner as an obstacle to their agenda and worry that Kushner ally Gary Cohn — a Democrat — will pressure Kushner to steer the administration toward the middle.

Thus far, Pres. Trump has tasked his daughter’s husband — a government neophyte with no previous policy or legislative experience — with solving the crisis in the Middle East and overseeing the U.S. relationships with China, Canada and Mexico. On top of that ambitious portfolio, Kushner and Cohn this week established the White House Office of American Innovation, an initiative to modernize and streamline the operations of the federal government.

“But Kushner’s status as the big-issue guru has stoked resentment among his colleagues, who question whether Kushner is capable of following through on his various commitments,” wrote Politico’s Josh Dawsey, Kenneth P. Vogel and Alex Isenstadt. “And some colleagues complain that his dabbling in myriad issues and his tendency to walk in and out of meetings have complicated efforts to instill more order and organization into the chaotic administration. These people also say Kushner can be a shrewd self promoter, knowing how to take credit — and shirk blame — whenever it suits him.”

“He’s saving the government and the Middle East at the same time,” one administration official quipped to Politico.

Kushner is arguably the president’s closest adviser — the last person to speak to him each day and also the administration’s hatchet man. During the 2016 campaign, it fell to Kushner to fire campaign managers Corey Lewandowski and Paul Manafort. It was also Kushner who axed New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie (R) from the Trump transition team.

Lewandowski in particular is rumored to be pursuing a vendetta against Kushner, planting anonymous stories about the president’s son-in-law with conservative media outlets. Other campaign officials who didn’t get hired by the administration are reportedly aligned with Lewandowski and believe that Kushner is insufficiently conservative.

Far-right radio host Mark Levin has attacked Kushner before, calling him “some 32-year-old, liberal Democrat kid out of New York.” Other neoconservatives and Zionist Israel supporters said they had high hopes for Kushner because he is an Orthodox Jew and the grandson of Holocaust survivors, but thus far they say he has disappointed them.

A source told Politico that “those hopes mostly have been supplanted by ‘deep concern that Jared is not the person we thought he was — that this guy who is supposed to be good at everything is totally out of his depth.’”

Kushner himself remains breezily confident, telling associates not to fret over the Russia investigation because it “isn’t going anywhere” and assuring others that his father-in-law’s administration will get past its early stumbles.

“But if it doesn’t,” Politico said, “allies and aides say, one thing is clear: the president will surely find someone else to take the blame. And Kushner will likely be delivering the bad news.”

Kushner was the subject of Republican ire in the wake of the president’s failed healthcare bill after he and the president’s daughter Ivanka Trump left Washington for a ski-trip to Aspen, CO. This week it came out that the presidential son-in-law is wanted for testimony in connection to an FBI investigation of a bank implicated in Russian money laundering.

Trump could learn a lot from his mistakes. He won’t.

By Eugene Robinson Opinion writer March 27 at 7:43 PM

 

Last week’s health-care fiasco could end up being a positive experience for President Trump if he learns a few obvious lessons. Spoiler alert: He won’t.

The first thing that should dawn on Trump is that the warring Republican factions in Congress have multiple agendas, none of which remotely resembles his own. This is why the bill that House Speaker Paul D. Ryan (R-Wis.) was forced to withdraw on Friday — the abominable American Health Care Act — made such a cruel mockery of Trump’s expansive campaign promises.

A “populist” president who promised health insurance “for everybody” ended up supporting legislation that would have taken away coverage from 24 million people. Many, if not most, of the victims would have been working-class voters — the “forgotten Americans” Trump claimed to champion. Now that he has time, maybe he will actually read the bill (or have someone summarize it for him) and realize how truly awful it was.

You don’t have to be a policy wonk to recognize that replacing income-based subsidies with less generous across-the-board tax credits would mean a net transfer of resources from poorer people to wealthier people. That’s just fine with Ryan and the “mainstream” House Republicans who hung in there with legislation that Ronald Reagan or even Barry Goldwater would have considered extreme.

For members of the Freedom Caucus, however, the bill didn’t go nearly far enough. They wanted to strip away the requirement that health insurance policies cover eventualities such as maternity, hospitalization, emergency care, mental illness — basically, all the reasons anyone would need insurance in the first place. These ultra-radicals believe health care is like any other product and the free market should be allowed to work its magic. To them, it’s irrelevant that the question is not who buys the latest flat-screen television and who doesn’t, but who lives and who dies.

As Trump lobbied House Republicans to support the AHCA, according to The Post, he kept asking aides, “Is this really a good bill?” They assured him it was, but on some level, he must have known the truth was an emphatic no. What happened to those fabled Trumpian instincts?

The president let himself be convinced by Ryan that health care would be an easy win. That should make him wary of going down another garden path with a speaker who can’t even marshal his own chamber, let alone produce important legislation with a chance of making it through the Senate. Yet Trump seems ready to make the same mistake with tax reform.

Note to the president: If Ryan is saying “trust me on this one,” don’t.

The same dynamic is shaping up. House Republicans will all agree on tax cuts, just as they all agreed that the Affordable Care Act should be repealed. The Freedom Caucus, which can only be emboldened by its recent triumph, will make extreme demands. Ryan will accommodate many of them. The end result will be legislation that is more about ideology than policy. The wealthy will benefit enormously, the middle class hardly at all, and the working class will suffer.

Such a bill could never win 60 votes in the Senate. Only more modest changes that don’t balloon the deficit qualify for the “reconciliation” process under which Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) can pass legislation by simple majority — and if just three Republicans balk, even such a limited bill would fail.

Trump should wonder why someone on his staff isn’t explaining all of this to him and trying to come up with an appropriate strategy. Chief of Staff Reince Priebus and budget director Mick Mulvaney were supposed to know how to get things done in Washington. White House chief strategist Stephen K. Bannon reportedly tried to bully Freedom Caucus members, who instead seem to have stiffened their resolve. Advisers Jared Kushner and his wife, Trump’s daughter Ivanka, went skiing.

Meanwhile, Trump’s approval, as measured by Gallup, stood Monday at 36 percent — a stunning new low. The financial markets seem a bit shaky as investors worry about the administration’s competence. If this were a business, the chief executive would be reading up on Chapter 11.

During the campaign, Trump was nothing if not headstrong. Yet in office he has let others lead — and is getting nowhere. He could still change course. He could get rid of the sycophantic aides who spend so much time blaming each other. He could focus on parts of his agenda, such as infrastructure, that have popular support, including among Democrats.

But that would mean acknowledging his mistakes thus far. Don’t hold your breath.

Read more from Eugene Robinson’s archive, follow him on Twitter or subscribe to his updates on Facebook. You can also join him Tuesdays at 1 p.m. for a live Q&A.

Dear Donald, you were just played for a sucker

Donald, This I Will Tell You

By Maureen Dowd MARCH 25, 2017

Donald, you said you could shake up Washington and make it work again. Instead, you’re the one who got worked over. Credit Al Drago/The New York Times

WASHINGTON — Dear Donald,

We’ve known each other a long time, so I think I can be blunt.

You know how you said at campaign rallies that you did not like being identified as a politician?

Don’t worry. No one will ever mistake you for a politician.

After this past week, they won’t even mistake you for a top-notch negotiator.

I was born here. The first image in my memory bank is the Capitol, all lit up at night. And my primary observation about Washington is this: Unless you’re careful, you end up turning into what you started out scorning.

And you, Donald, are getting a reputation as a sucker. And worse, a sucker who is a tool of the D.C. establishment.

Your whole campaign was mocking your rivals and the D.C. elite, jawing about how Americans had turned into losers, with our bad deals and open borders and the Obamacare “disaster.”

And you were going to fly in on your gilded plane and fix all that in a snap.

You mused that a good role model would be Ronald Reagan. As you saw it, Reagan was a big, good-looking guy with a famous pompadour; he had also been a Democrat and an entertainer. But Reagan had one key quality that you don’t have: He knew what he didn’t know.

You both resembled Macy’s Thanksgiving Day balloons, floating above the nitty-gritty and focusing on a few big thoughts. But President Reagan was confident enough to accept that he needed experts below, deftly maneuvering the strings.

You’re just careering around on your own, crashing into buildings and losing altitude, growling at the cameras and spewing nasty conspiracy theories, instead of offering a sunny smile, bipartisanship, optimism and professionalism.

You promised to get the best people around you in the White House, the best of the best. In fact, “best” is one of your favorite words.

Instead, you dragged that motley skeleton crew into the White House and let them create a feuding, leaking, belligerent, conspiratorial, sycophantic atmosphere. Instead of a smooth, classy operator like James Baker, you have a Manichean anarchist in Steve Bannon.

You knew the Republicans were full of hot air. They haven’t had to pass anything in a long time, and they have no aptitude for governing. To paraphrase an old Barney Frank line, asking the Republicans to govern is like asking Frank to judge the Miss America contest — “If your heart’s not in it, you don’t do a very good job.”

You knew that Paul Ryan’s vaunted reputation as a policy wonk was fake news. Republicans have been running on repealing and replacing Obamacare for years and they never even bothered to come up with a valid alternative.

And neither did you, despite all your promises to replace Obamacare with “something terrific” because you wanted everyone to be covered.

Instead, you sold the D.O.A. bill the Irish undertaker gave you as though it were a luxury condo, ignoring the fact that it was a cruel flimflam, a huge tax cut for the rich disguised as a health care bill. 

You were so concerned with the “win” that you forgot your “forgotten” Americans, the older, poorer people in rural areas who would be hurt by the bill.

As The Times’s chief Washington correspondent Carl Hulse put it, the G.O.P. falls into clover with a lock on the White House and both houses of Congress, and what’s the first thing it does? Slip on a banana peel. Incompetence Inc.

“They tried to sweeten the deal at the end by offering a more expensive bill with fewer health benefits, but alas, it wasn’t enough!” former Obama speechwriter Jon Favreau slyly tweeted.

Despite the best efforts of Bannon to act as though the whole fiasco was a clever way to bury Ryan — a man he disdains as “the embodiment of the ‘globalist-corporatist’ Republican elite,” as Gabriel Sherman put it in New York magazine — it won’t work.

And you can jump on the phone with The Times’s Maggie Haberman and The Washington Post’s Robert Costa — ignoring that you’ve labeled them the “fake media” — and act like you’re in control.

You can say that people should have waited for “Phase 2” and “Phase 3” — whatever they would have been — and that Obamacare is going to explode and that the Democrats are going to get the blame. But it doesn’t work that way. You own it now.

You’re all about flashy marketing so you didn’t notice that the bill was junk, so lame that even Republicans skittered away.

You were humiliated right out of the chute by the establishment guys who hooked you into their agenda — a massive transfer of wealth to rich people — and drew you away from your own.

You sold yourself as the businessman who could shake things up and make Washington work again.

Instead, you got worked over by the Republican leadership and the business community, who set you up to do their bidding.

That’s why they’re putting up with all your craziness about Russia and wiretapping and unending lies and rattling our allies.

They’re counting on you being a delusional dupe who didn’t even know what was in the bill because you’re sitting around in a bathrobe getting your information from wackadoodles on Fox News and then, as The Post reported, peppering aides with the query, “Is this really a good bill?”

You got played.

It took W. years to smash everything. You’re way ahead of schedule.

And I can say you’re doing badly, because I’m a columnist, and you’re not. Say hello to everybody, O.K.?

Sincerely, Maureen

I invite you to follow me on Twitter (@MaureenDowd) and join me on Facebook.

Follow The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook and Twitter (@NYTopinion), and sign up for the Opinion Today newsletter. 

A version of this op-ed appears in print on March 26, 2017, on Page SR9 of the New York edition with the headline: Donald, This I Will Tell You. Today's Paper|Subscribe

Trump: Trump Care Failed Because Of Democrats!

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/trump-blames-failure-republican-healthcare-bill-democrats

The American Health Care Act Of 2017 (Trumpcare)

Republicans tried to hide payments to Russia-linked intel firm for dirt-digging on Hillary Clinton

By David Ferguson

The Republican National Committee (RNC) tried to conceal payments it made during the 2016 election to a shadowy intelligence-gathering firm for opposition research against Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton.

Politico reported on Friday that the RNC paid $41,500 to the Hamilton Trading Group, a Virginia-based private company run by former CIA operatives. The agency worked with a former Russian spy to hunt for information that would show conflicts of interest between Clinton’s role as Secretary of State and her interests as a private citizen and leader of the Clinton Foundation.

Observers in politics and intelligence noted that it would be odd for the RNC to make payments to Hamilton Trading given that the group specializes in matters pertaining to Russia.

“RNC officials and the president and co-founder of Hamilton Trading Group, an ex-CIA officer named Ben Wickham, insisted the payments, which eventually totaled $41,500, had nothing to do with Russia,” wrote Politico’s Kenneth P. Vogel and Eli Stokols.

Wickham and the RNC initially claimed that the payments were in return for building and security analyses of RNC headquarters in Washington.

“But RNC officials now acknowledge that most of the cash — $34,100 — went towards intelligence-style reports that sought to prove conflicts of interest between Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton’s tenure as Secretary of State and her family’s foundation,” Politico said.

HTG produced two dossiers, both of which attempted to make a case that Clinton directed U.S. interventions in Bulgaria and Israel on behalf of energy firms that donated to the Clinton Foundation, said individuals familiar with the documents.

Wickham told Politico in a Thursday interview that he floated the building inspection story because “any other work we may have done for them” was covered under a nondisclosure agreement.

“I’m not denying that I wasn’t totally forthcoming, but I’m telling you why,” Wickham told Politico.

“The security stuff that we did, which is legitimate, was not covered by any kind of a confidentiality agreement, so I can discuss that.”

Last June, when the RNC filed financial disclosures with the Federal Elections Commission (FEC), a $3,400 payment to Hamilton attracted attention because the firm is not known for building security consultations, but rather for espionage work related to Russia.

“Adding to the intrigue are the firm’s intelligence connections in Russia, where it was known to perform background checks and provide security services for American officials and companies,” said Politico.

The job was handed to former KGB agent Gennady Vasilenko, who declined to comment on the matter.

Wickham denied that his firm looked into any connections between the Trump campaign and the Russian government, saying he has “never had any contact with … Trump or Manafort or their people.” Politico said the RNC has produced documents detailing a list of Clinton-related issues it tasked Hamilton Trading with researching.

He said that while his firm is not well-known for building security, it did an assessment for the RNC to protect against a “McVeigh-type” bombing attack or a gun-wielding intruder like the San Bernardino mass shooting.

“We certainly are not widely known, as we have always been a two- to three-man company and have done little advertising,” Wickham said, adding that the firm has done anti-terror security consultations for Amtrak and the International Monetary Fund’s offices in Moscow.

The Russia Scandal Takes A Mind-Blowing Turn That Could Destroy The Republican Party

It wasn't Donald Trump alone who had ties to the Russians during the 2016 campaign. It turns out that the Republican National Committee used a firm with ties to Russian intelligence to dig up dirt on Hillary Clinton.

By Sarah Jones

This is truly mind-blowing.

Perhaps you’ve been wondering how establishment Republicans were so happy ignoring the looming treason scandal of their President. It very well could be because they, too, have something Russian to hide.

So it wasn’t Donald Trump alone who had ties to the Russians during the 2016 campaign. It turns out that the Republican National Committee used a firm with ties to Russian intelligence to dig up dirt on Hillary Clinton.

The RNC used former CIA officers’ firm the Hamilton Trading Group, which has “particular expertise” in Russia, to dig up dirt on Clinton according to a Politico report.

“RNC officials and the president and co-founder of Hamilton Trading Group, an ex-CIA officer named Ben Wickham, insisted the payments, which eventually totaled $41,500, had nothing to do with Russia,” Kenneth P. Vogel and Eli Stokols reported.

The RNC claimed the payments were for “security.”

“But RNC officials now acknowledge that most of the cash — $34,100 — went towards intelligence-style reports that sought to prove conflicts of interest between Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton’s tenure as Secretary of State and her family’s foundation.”

Oh.

So the RNC was perfectly comfortable working with a firm that raised eyebrows for its Russian connections, at a time when the intelligence community was telling them that Russia was interfering in the U.S. election.

To say this again, as Putin has bragged about information warfare as the new war, a major U.S. political party sided with a country that declared information warfare, or war if you will, on the U.S.A.

Yes, it is an act of war, it is meant to destroy western democracy in the end.

Russia uses “rigged polls and fake news to sway foreign elections,” the Wall Street Journal reported, on a dossier showing an example of how Russia operated in Bulgaria.

The entire Republican Party had strange ties to a government at war with this country, the country to which Republicans are supposed to be loyal.

Strange things are afloat. No wonder Congressional Republicans are doing everything they can to ignore the screaming treason of the White House. They are quite possibly in on it themselves.

If this scandal comes to a head, that is to say if the intelligence community turns on the Republican Party in an effort to force them to deal with the possible collusion with a hostile foreign power in the White House, the Russia scandal could bring down the Republican Party for a generation.

Republicans should be smart here; this will come out. They should get on the right side of history before it’s too late. Sadly, this party’s elected officials have shown little allegiance to their country.

What is going on here is a scandal that will go down in history. One of two major parties in the U.S. system working with a foreign power that has declared war on the U.S.A. That is not to say they colluded with Russia to bring the U.S. down, but they did work with them as Russia was attacking the election, an act of war. That much is in evidence.

The collusion evidence, the circumstantial collusion evidence, in this case could be as simple as Republicans knew Russians were attacking the U.S. elections when they worked with this firm with ties to Russian intelligence. To be clear, there is not public evidence of direct collusion in terms of quid pro quo right now. There is evidence that the RNC was deceptive about their connections with Russian intelligence in this regard, and that they had it during the campaign.

The fact that the head of the RNC at the time is now in the Trump White House is even more troubling, as Trump has hired people at all points whose contacts with the Russians during the election have already caused one of them to be fired and another to step down from overseeing an investigation into Trump’s ties to Russia.

This should now be amended to the Republican Party’s ties to Russia. Lucky for them, they are in power of both branches of government and trying to get their Supreme Court nominee in as the last gatekeeper in a checks and balances system. The only way this scandal is going to come out is through the intelligence community leaking to the press.

And that’s why Republicans are so outraged about leaks.

But this is not Republicans trying to protect our national security secrets. This is Republicans trying to make sure they cover up the fact that Russia has eyes and ears in the situation room, and has access to our national secrets because of Trump and the GOP.

It was true that going to the extremist corner they did, Republicans could not win a national election without cheating. They knew this, everyone knew this. So it was a shock when Donald Trump, the most extreme of the extreme, won.

But now, it’s not such a shock because it wasn’t won without cheating. It was won with the help of a hostile, aggressive government whose goal is to bring the U.S. down in order to kill the hope of democracy.

The Best Single Statement Ever On GOP "Healthcare" - Devastating

Dear Mom,

You won't comprehend this because you have Stage 6 Dementia, but things need to change. The nice congressmen in Washington want to free us from government dependency so we can make better healthcare choices without the stigma of taking handouts from society.

So, Mom, about your Medicaid Aged and Disabled Waiver that pays me a 40 hr/week pittance to care for you at home 24/7: the new HHS Secretary and Medicaid Chief sent our Governor a letter that says people on Medicaid should seek employment if they want to keep those benefits. This may sound unfair considering you're 89, bladder and bowel incontinent, unable to walk unassisted, and often lapse into episodes of uncontrollable whimpering, but if the government decides it's for the best, we'll all need to buck up and contribute our fair share. After all, your 50 year nursing career doesn't necessarily entitle you to a free ride.

I'll probably need to get a "real" job too, because I exploit the system. Never mind that your care would cost the state $78,000 annually in a nursing home versus the $16,000 it pays me; leave the math to those smart fellas in Washington who understand that big government should stop controlling our lives. The important thing is we'll have freedom to choose, and not impose an unfair tax burden on millionaires and the medical industrial complex.

Once I stop taking handouts, I won't be home with you. We should bolster the economy by hiring attendant care, but it costs more than I can earn, and Medicare won't cover it because those warmhearted legislators support family values like looking after our own. You'll enjoy being home alone all day, Mom. You don't really need regular meals or clean Depends, and when you have one of your falls, you can rest quietly on the floor in a puddle of urine until I get off work. Those dear congressmen give us other options, too, such as permanently placing you in a facility to die more quickly and efficiently. Here's another choice: I could stay home and attend you for free! We'll do fine on your Social Security income by sacrificing a few luxuries like groceries, property taxes, electricity, and the car.

There's a bonus, Mom. I won't be forced to maintain health insurance! Remember “Obamacare” that saved my life through early cancer screening? The Republicans devised a better plan. Because I'm over 50 and earn $150 per year above the Medicaid cutoff, my annual premium will increase by roughly $6,000, but I can choose to opt out! I'll still have "access” but not be victimized by the enslaving tax subsidy that let me afford coverage for the first time in 25 years. I'm excited about returning to indigent emergency room treatment and boosting insurance industry profits while taxpayers shoulder the cost instead.

With so many great options it's hard to decide, but here's our new plan, Mom. Under Trumpcare, I'll "choose" to lose health coverage, seek a minimum wage job, and dump you in a nursing home. Between the cost of facility care, a couple of ER visits and perhaps one minor surgery for me per year, and the food stamps and heating assistance I'll need once you and your Social Security income leave the household, I estimate we will save the government roughly NEGATIVE $350,000 over the next 5 years! Multiply that by the millions of people who will lose coverage, and you can appreciate what a sensible and economical plan the Republicans have devised.

You'll be proud to receive depersonalized institutional care instead of burdening society in comfort with your family. The facility gets your Social Security check, and Medicare/Medicaid will cover the balance until you hit the newly proposed block grant funding cap. If you're still alive then, we're unsure what will happen, but we can trust Congress to do what's right. I hear they're formulating a plan to ship the poor, elderly, and chronically ill to arctic ice floes. It's called “Trump Tower North: the Last Resort.” You might even get to see polar bears before they become extinct! Won't that be fun?

I'm so happy that the government wants to stop interfering in our lives.

Love,
Your Freeloading Daughter

P.S. Mom, if you do need a job to keep that Medicaid, I thought of a placement for someone who can't function productively, has no grasp of reality, and relies on government entitlements. 435 congressional seats will open up next year. You appear to be perfectly qualified.

http://www.dailykos.com/stories/2017/3/24/1646735/-Dear-Mom-About-your-50-year-nursing-career-Medicaid-Woman-s-post-will-blow-GOP-minds

Trump Is The Biggest Failure In History As His Disapproval Rating Skyrockets To 58%

Donald Trump has set a record that has never been reached before in the history of polling as his disapproval rating has reached 58% - two months into his time in office.

By Jason Easley 

Donald Trump has set a record that disapproval rating that has never been reached before in the history of polling as his disapproval rating has reached 58% two months into his time in office.

Here is the latest Gallup Daily Tracking Poll of Trump’s approval rating:


Trump’s approval rating has plunged to 37% as his disapproval rating has soared to 58%.

Never in US history has a president been this unpopular so early in his first term. Trump has lost 2 points in approval and gained three disapproval points since the CBO revealed that 24 million people would lose their health insurance under Trumpcare.

Trump has the worst job approval numbers since Gallup began tracking presidents in 1945. At this same point during his first term, President Obama’s job approval rating was in the low 60's. George W. Bush’s approval rating was in the low 50's. It took Ronald Reagan a year to have an approval rating as bad as Trump’s, and it was a year into Richard Nixon’s second term before he hit the low that Trump is at.

The practical political lesson for Democrats is that they should not shy away from linking Congressional Republicans to their unpopular president. What should be frightening for elected Republicans is that things will probably get much worse for Trump in the future. The first few months of his term are supposed to be the most popular point of his presidency.

How low can Donald Trump go? It is possible that he may set records for unpopularity that will stand for decades.

Trump promised to make America great, but instead, he has been a complete failure as president.

Rachel Maddow Terrifies Trump By Warning That The Tax Return Leaked To Her Won’t Be The Last

Rachel Maddow had a terrifying message for Donald Trump. The 2005 tax return that was leaked to her may be the first, but it won't be the last.

By Jason Easley



Maddow said, “The greater concern. The worry that this president may be financially beholden to an individual, to an institution, to a country, and now that he’s president we won’t know if he tries to use the resources and power of our country to pay off that entity to whom he is beholden. We can’t know any of that without getting his tax returns. That’s why presidents release their tax returns. That’s why there will continue to be unrelenting pressure to find Donald Trump’s tax returns, to expose Donald Trump’s tax returns, and that pressure will remain every single day that he is president and until he releases them that pressure will never let up, and that’s why somebody has decided to leak this portion of his 2005 tax return, which is how and why we got it tonight, and I am sure it is only the start, but it’s a start.”

The news isn’t what is on Trump’s 1040 from 12 years ago. The big story is that a tax return was published. Every news organization in the United States and others around the world have been trying to get their hands on Trump’s tax returns.

The fact that somebody was able to get one of Trump’s returns out to the public suggests that there are more of them out there, and it is only a matter of time before others reveal the secrets that this president has worked so hard to keep hidden.

Maddow got a 1040, but eventually, a whole tax return or returns will be made public. Trump isn’t worried about the details of what Rachel Maddow made public. What terrifies Trump is that his tax return secrecy has been shattered and the real damage is yet to come.

Campaign Flashback

69

'I Might As Well Have Not Voted': Details Of GOP Health Plan Leave Trump Voter Appalled

By Brad Reed

Donald Trump this week signaled his support for the House Republicans’ new health care bill — but it looks like that legislation is going over like a lead balloon with his base.

Not only are the Trump diehards at Breitbart News bashing the plan as “Obamacare 2.0,” but even some casual voters are worried about the president’s plan.

ABC News this week talked with North Carolina resident Martha Brawley, a 55 year old woman who cast a ballot for the first time in her life for Donald Trump. Brawley says that she voted for the president on the hopes that he could bring down the cost of health care — but she’s been appalled so far by what she’s seen from the Republican Congress.

“I voted for Trump hoping that he would change the insurance so I could get good health care,” she told ABC News. “I might as well have not voted.”

Brawley was particularly upset when she learned that, under Trumpcare, she would receive a paltry $3,500 tax credit to buy insurance. At the moment, she gets a federal subsidy of around $8,688 to buy insurance from Obamacare.

“All these people who talk in politics have insurance,” she told ABC News. “People like me don’t.”