“Soft despotism is a term coined by Alexis de Tocqueville describing the state into which a country overrun by "a network of small complicated rules" might degrade. Soft despotism is different from despotism (also called 'hard despotism') in the sense that it is not obvious to the people."

Friday, December 01, 2017

Heroes of The USA, General Michael Flynn And President Donald Trump


  1. Judge Napolitano's video clip was good.

    Out on the streets of New York, like Judge Jeanine, or Waters.....

    Judge N. waves his arms and says:

    "Welcome to my chambers"


    1. Have you ever been up before Judge Napolitano, Quirk ?

      If so, how it go, how did it turn out ?

    2. I wouldn't take anything seriously coming out of Team Mueller and his Democrat Lawyers until I see Hillary seriously investigated.

      Since I don't see it happening I'm not going to hold my breath.

      Whole thing is a farce.

  2. .

    Trump and Flynn heroes of the USA?

    I don't think so.

    The video above is similar to the lies the GOP is now spreading among themselves and to the American people as they try to get their tax bill approved in the Senate.

    (As an aside, saw a video of a GOP senator trying to prove everyone gets a tax break citing a study showing one group [$50,000 to $75,000?] that will be getting on average $100/year. Whoopty Do.)

    Flynn admitted to lying four times involving four conversations with a Russian counterpart. One subject was mentioned in the video. The one that wasn't mentioned involved a UN sanctions vote against Israel. Flynn asked the Russians to slow down or try to defeat the mid-December, 2016 UN vote condemning Israeli settlement activity. (There were also stories that Trump himself actually contacted Egyptian president Morsi and asked him to withdraw the sanctions proposal, something that Morsi eventually did.)

    The Obama administration, the only one in charge until January 20, 2017, had already indicated the administration would not be voting against the proposal. Flynn's foreign policy interference in this matter was a clear violation of the Logan Act.

    I know. I know. No one has ever been prosecuted under the Logan Act and Flynn won't be this time, but arguing that Trump and Flynn are heroes for breaking the law strains credulity.



    What the Flynn Plea Means

    Michael Flynn arrives at a U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C., December 1, 2017. (Reuters photo: Jonathan Ernst) by ANDREW C. MCCARTHY December 1, 2017 12:20 PM @ANDREWCMCCARTHY

    There’s less to the news than meets the eye. Former Trump-administration national-security adviser Michael Flynn is expected to plead guilty today to lying to the FBI regarding his conversations with Russia’s ambassador to the United States. Flynn, who is reportedly cooperating with the investigation of special counsel Robert Mueller, is pleading guilty in federal district court in Washington, D.C., to a one-count criminal information (which is filed by a prosecutor in cases when a defendant waives his right to be indicted by a grand jury). The false-statement charge, brought under Section 1001 of the federal penal code, stems from Flynn’s conversation on December 29, 2016, with Russian ambassador Sergei Kislyak.

    At the time, Flynn was slated to become the national-security adviser to President-elect Donald Trump. The conversation occurred on the same day that then-president Barack Obama announced sanctions against Russia for its interference in the 2016 election. It is believed to have been recorded by the FBI because Kislyak, as an agent of a foreign power, was subject to monitoring under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). Mueller has charged Flynn with falsely telling FBI agents that he did not ask the ambassador “to refrain from escalating the situation” in response to the sanctions. In being questioned by the agents on January 24, 2017, Flynn also lied when he claimed he could not recall a subsequent conversation with Kislyak, in which the ambassador told Flynn that the Putin regime had “chosen to moderate its response to those sanctions as a result of [Flynn’s] request.” UP NEXT 5 Things You Need to Know About Mike Pompeo 00:11 01:34 Powered by Furthermore, a week before the sanctions were imposed, Flynn had also spoken to Kislyak, asking the ambassador to delay or defeat a vote on a pending United Nations resolution. The criminal information charges that Flynn lied to the FBI by denying both that he’d made this request and that he’d spoken afterward with Kislyak about Russia’s response to it. Thus, in all, four lies are specified in the one count.

    The potential sentence is zero to five years’ imprisonment. Assuming Flynn cooperates fully with Mueller’s investigators, there will be little, if any, jail time. Obviously, it was wrong of Flynn to give the FBI false information; he could, after all, have simply refused to speak with the agents in the first place. That said, as I argued early this year, it remains unclear why the Obama Justice Department chose to investigate Flynn. There was nothing wrong with the incoming national-security adviser’s having meetings with foreign counterparts or discussing such matters as the sanctions in those meetings. Plus, if the FBI had FISA recordings of Flynn’s conversations with Kislyak, there was no need to ask Flynn what the conversations entailed.

    Flynn, an early backer of Donald Trump and a fierce critic of Obama’s national-security policies, was generally despised by Obama administration officials. Hence, there has always been cynical suspicion that the decision to interview him was driven by the expectation that he would provide the FBI with an account inconsistent with the recorded conversation — i.e., that Flynn was being set up for prosecution on a process crime. While initial reporting is portraying Flynn’s guilty plea as a major breakthrough in Mueller’s investigation of potential Trump campaign collusion with the Russian regime,

    1. I suspect the opposite is true. While initial reporting is portraying Flynn’s guilty plea as a major breakthrough in Mueller’s investigation of potential Trump-campaign collusion with the Russian regime, I suspect the opposite is true. Speculation that Flynn is now cooperating in Mueller’s investigation stirred in recent days due to reports that Flynn had pulled out of a joint defense agreement (or “common interest” arrangement) to share information with other subjects of the investigation. As an ethical matter, it is inappropriate for an attorney whose client is cooperating with the government (or having negotiations toward that end) to continue strategizing with, and having quasi-privileged communications with, other subjects of the investigation and their counsel.

      Nevertheless, as I explained in connection with George Papadopoulos (who also pled guilty in Mueller’s investigation for lying to the FBI), when a prosecutor has a cooperator who was an accomplice in a major criminal scheme, the cooperator is made to plead guilty to the scheme. This is critical because it proves the existence of the scheme. In his guilty-plea allocution (the part of a plea proceeding in which the defendant admits what he did that makes him guilty), the accomplice explains the scheme and the actions taken by himself and his co-conspirators to carry it out. This goes a long way toward proving the case against all of the subjects of the investigation. That is not happening in Flynn’s situation.

      Instead, like Papadopoulos, he is being permitted to plead guilty to a mere process crime. A breaking report from ABC News indicates that Flynn is prepared to testify that Trump directed him to make contact with the Russians — initially to lay the groundwork for mutual efforts against ISIS in Syria. That, however, is exactly the sort of thing the incoming national-security adviser is supposed to do in a transition phase between administrations. If it were part of the basis for a “collusion” case arising out of Russia’s election meddling, then Flynn would not be pleading guilty to a process crime — he’d be pleading guilty to an espionage conspiracy. Understand: If Flynn’s conversations with the Russian ambassador had evinced the existence of a quid pro quo collusion arrangement — that the Trump administration would ease or eliminate sanctions on Russia as a payback for Russia’s cyber-espionage against the Hillary Clinton campaign and the Democratic party — it would have been completely appropriate, even urgently necessary, for the Obama Justice Department to investigate Flynn.

      But if that had happened, Mueller would not be permitting Flynn to settle the case with a single count of lying to FBI agents. Instead, we would be looking at a major conspiracy indictment, and Flynn would be made to plead to far more serious offenses if he wanted a deal — cooperation in exchange for sentencing leniency. To the contrary, for all the furor, we have a small-potatoes plea in Flynn’s case — just as we did in Papadopoulos’s case, despite extensive “collusion” evidence. Meanwhile, the only major case Mueller has brought, against former Trump-campaign chairman Paul Manafort and an associate, has nothing to do with the 2016 election. It is becoming increasingly palpable that, whatever “collusion” means, there was no actionable, conspiratorial complicity by the Trump campaign in the Kremlin’s machinations.

      Read more at:

    2. .

      I put this response up earlier today when Doug linked to this NR article...

      (Blogger ate it this morning but sometime during the day it seems to have disgorged it.)

      QuirkFri Dec 01, 06:11:00 PM EST

      What the Flynn Plea Really Means

      The Flynn plea deal is simply an example of the typical way special prosecutors (or prosecutors in general) go about their business in a broad investigation. They go after the low hanging fruit in the hopes that he will lead to others who will lead to others and so on until they get everyone involved.

      In a sense, it's a shitty process because all the power is on one side. The prosecutor has both time and resources on his side. The defendant doesn't. In Flynn's case, he is broken. He's out of money. It's reported he is trying to sell his house to raise more. He and his family have suffered the pressure and uncertainty of the investigation for almost a year now. This is clearly a case of its not the crime as much as lying about the crime that get's you.

      The fact that Flynn has accepted means little if he fails to give up info that Mueller feels makes the deal worthwhile. Normally, the deal isn't offered unless prosecutors expect getting more info they can use.

      It is mere speculation as to why Flynn accepted the deal. Two possibilities are that there are additional crimes he could be potentially charged with or it could be that Flynn is just beaten down and wants to end the process.

      The Mueller investigation is proceeding methodically, Mantafort, Gates, Popandreou, now Flynn.

      It's a waste of time trying to figure out where this will end or what the results will be.

      Simply sit back and enjoy (or condemn) the ride.


    3. .

      And yes, I agree, the National Review article does amount to a nothing burger.


    4. I must have done something right as I slept through the entire exchange.

  4. This comment has been removed by the author.

    1. They are all crowing like roosters over the at MSNBC and CNN.

      Also Q69.0 Shortwave's emissions out of Detroit, Michigan are erupting all over the story

    2. Lot's of talk about never used The Logan Act.

      The Donald needs to get out the pardon pen.

    3. The Pardon Pen m..

      You mean the tools of Criminal Obdtrictionright.

      When the Oardon is accepted, so is guilt.

      Sheriff Joe discovered that,much to his chagrin.

    4. Then there are the State charges, for the various financial crimes that are being uncovered.

      No pardons there, by the President.

      Obstructing justice may have worked for you Draft Dodge, but it will be the demise of President Trump

    5. There's something really wrong with you, War Criminal and Dead Beat Dad.

  5. Tax reform is on track and Democrats want to derail it. Don't believe these myths about the Senate’s bill
    Alfredo Ortiz By Alfredo Ortiz | Fox News


    1. No one has even read tbe legislation.

      Alfredo Ortiz is a liar, propagating FAKE NEWS

    2. There is something really wrong with you, rat.

  6. .

    Have you ever been up before Judge Napolitano, Quirk ?

    If so, how it go, how did it turn out ?



    I don't know. The barista was still serving him when I left.


    1. You made your appearance. That's all that counts, all one can do.

      I think you lucked out.....again.

    2. And he did not have to institutionalize his Auntie, as you did Robert "bank fraud" Peterson.

    3. There is something really, really wrong with you, Dead Beat Dad, Jew Hater, War Criminal and Liar.

  7. .

    I haven't been following the 2018 race for AG in Michigan yet but I did see this commercial today.

    Vote for me. I have no penis.


    1. More damnable subversive sexuality whose sole aim is to turn this country into a Matriarchy.

      NOTICE please that she has not one man on the ticket.

      These scud buckets ought to be mopping floors in motels, and are all Worshippers of the Great Mother, whose aim it is to return our intellectual life back to what it was before Plato, Aristotle, Socrates.

    2. Jill Stein was another of these Demonesses.

      See pics of her type here:


    4. I have a penis, but I've never jacked off into a planter in front of a vagina.

    5. You are a Gentleman, but still unfit for public office.

      You'd need a sex change operation for that.

  8. Senate passes tax bill 51 - 49.

    Corker was the Republican turncoat, I think.

    1. Merry Christmas and Happy New Year !

    2. No presents for you though, Robert "Limp Dick" Peterson.

    3. There is something really wrong with you, rat.

  9. EU migrant policies rejected by 74% of people in 11 countries of Central Europe


    A strong majority of Europeans across 11 nations are opposed to the European Union’s (EU) immigration policies, including nearly nine in 10 Hungarians.

    The survey — “conducted by the Nézőpont Institute in Austria, Bulgaria, Croatia, the Czech Republic, Germany, Hungary, Poland, Romania, Serbia, Slovakia, and Slovenia” — shows that these countries’ leaders are working contrary to the will of the people.

    The big question is this: if most of these citizens disapprove of the suicidal immigration policies of their leaders — which will shape their countries for decades to come — then why are these politically correct appeasement-minded leaders not being voted out?

    A broader Pew Research Poll has also found that:

    Most “Europeans are concerned that the influx of refugees will increase the likelihood of terrorism and impose a burden on their countries.”
    “Europeans do not see growing diversity as making their countries better.”
    “Europeans overwhelmingly believe that the European Union is doing a poor job of handling the refugee crisis.”
    These findings by the Nézőpont Institute and Pew Research Poll are not what Islamic supremacists and their social justice warrior enablers want to see. Indeed, in their view, such findings would indicate that “Islamophobia” is gripping the public. It would never occur to them that rational public concern about safety is valid, and that leaders have an obligation to be the public servants that they were elected to be, not the fascist dictators that many of them are becoming, exempting themselves from accountability.

    “EU Migrant Policies Rejected by 74 Per Cent of People in Central Europe”, by Liam Deacon, Breitbart, November 29, 2017:

    A strong majority of Europeans across 11 nations are opposed to the European Union’s (EU) immigration policies, including nearly nine in 10 Hungarians.

    The survey was conducted by the Nézőpont Institute in Austria, Bulgaria, Croatia, the Czech Republic, Germany, Hungary, Poland, Romania, Serbia, Slovakia, and Slovenia.

    It revealed that 74 per cent of respondents in those countries believed that the EU’s migration policies have or will be negative for the continent.

    Central Europeans were the most opposed, with 89 per cent of Slovaks and Hungarians holding a negative view of the policies, closely followed by 88 per cent of Czechs.

    Meanwhile, 63 per cent of Austrians and 58 per cent of Germans also said the mass immigration overseen by the EU is bad for the bloc.

    Furthermore, when asked about Hungary’s rejection of forced EU migrant quotas, 56 per cent of people in the Visegrád nations (Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland, and Slovakia) say they agreed with the Hungarian premier’s fight against them.

    The migrant relocation scheme was forced through the European Parliament in September 2015, regardless as to whether all nations and their populations agreed.

    A number of Eastern and Central European countries resisted the plan, and have since challenged the scheme in the courts – arguing they did not vote for it and placing blame for the migrant crisis with the EU and Germany – as the EU threatens sanctions.

    Hungary has also constructed a border fence along its southern frontier to stem the flow of migrants from the Middle East and Africa passing through its territories on the way to Northern and Central Europe.

    Since the barrier’s construction, Hungary has reportedly slashed illegal immigration by over 99 per cent.

    Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán ordered the fence’s construction after the migrant crises of 2015 when border controls were suspended and more than a million migrants arrived.

    1. So a minority in the EU does not like the policies instituted by the majority.

      Them's the breaks.

    2. You can't read, rat. It says a 'strong majority.'

      The survey was conducted by the Nézőpont Institute in Austria, Bulgaria, Croatia, the Czech Republic, Germany, Hungary, Poland, Romania, Serbia, Slovakia, and Slovenia.

      It revealed that 74 per cent of respondents in those countries believed that the EU’s migration policies have or will be negative for the continent.

      Central Europeans were the most opposed, with 89 per cent of Slovaks and Hungarians holding a negative view of the policies, closely followed by 88 per cent of Czechs.

      I'd suggest that you move on to a topic you comprehend, though I know there is no topic that you comprehend.

      There is something really, really, wrong with you. rat.

    3. He's just trowing rat turds around his cage again this morning, Trish.

      Pay him no mind.

      He has no mind in any case.

      He is just lonely and seeks attention.

    4. Management should ban the guy.

      There's something really wrong with him.

    5. Robert "Limp Dick" Peterson, you know that no one can be banned from Google Blogspot

      If they could ... You'd have been gone when you wrote that trish was a syphilitic slut.

      You really have no respect for others, do you.
      Must be why you were able to steal your Aunties identity and then defraud the bank for $7,500

      NEVER showing remorse.

    6. One of the things that's wrong with you, rat, is you lie all the time.

      Another is you're a true Dead Beat Dad.

      And a self confessed War Criminal.

      There's some things really wrong with you, rat.

      I'm glad I don't carry your shit load of bad karma, rat.

    7. .

      No lie, Bobbie.

      I remember when you were banished from the kingdom for a few months back in the day. In fact, I wrote an epic poem in prose of your disgrace and how you were eventually accepted back in.

      Was the last a big mistake?

      Hmmm. I will have to think about this.


  10. ABC’s fake news about Flynn & Russia causes stocks to crash
    Published time: 2 Dec, 2017 10:38 Edited time: 2 Dec, 2017 14:05

    ABC News falsely claimed that then-presidential candidate Donald Trump ordered Lt Gen Michael Flynn to contact Russian officials during the 2016 campaign. Following the report, the stock market tumbled and many people called out the network on Twitter.
    The initial report from ABC News investigative reporter Brian Ross, which aired during the “Special Report” program at about 11am on Friday, stated that an anonymous source told the reporter a close associate of Flynn was ready to testify that Trump had “directed him to make contact with the Russians” during the 2016 presidential campaign.

    Ross later corrected the report on ABC News’ Friday night edition of “World News Tonight,” telling audiences that the source who had provided the initial information told him later on that President Trump was actually president-elect when he asked Flynn to contact Russia.

    ABC News subsequently reported that then-President Elect Trump ordered Flynn to contact Russia in order to find ways to repair relations between the two countries.

    In any event, the news appeared to have done some damage, with the Dow Jones Industrial Average plummeting more than 350 points. It recovered by the end of the day.

    Unfortunately for ABC, that wasn’t the end of the fallout from the faulty reporting: Twitter later erupted in reaction to the initial report.

    Former White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer took to his Twitter, saying that “ABC ‘news’ owes it viewers an apology. Calling false reporting a ‘clarification’ is a cop out and just another reason for the decline in trust of the media.”


    1. ... falsely claimed that then-presidential candidate Donald Trump ordered Lt Gen Michael Flynn to contact Russian officials during the 2016 campaign

      Yeah, during the campaign it was Carter Page who went to Russia.

      While it was Russia that came to Don Jr, Jared Kushner and Paul Manafort. During the campaign.

      "... just another reason for the decline in trust of the Trump Administration.”

  11. Rasmussen had The Donald's approval rating at 44%

    His average is at 39.9%.

    These are rising numbers, not falling numbers.

    With the tax cut, the stunning stock market, the unemployment numbers, his approval rating will be going up, not down.

    1. .

      Perhaps, if they confine their polling to the top 5%.

      Stock market? It should be going up. As noted at the WSJ forum, only 3 or 4 CEO's out of 40 to 50 'said' they would spend the money on wages for their workers. The majority indicated they would use it for stock buy backs thus driving up the price of stocks for the rich who own them. As for fundamentals, I heard on CNBC yesterday it looks like 2017 will be the first year since the recovery that car sales will actually drop from the previous year.

      Unemployment? For the past two years, the unemployment numbers have been what has been called in the past the 'natural' unemployment number indicating full employment. Employers are struggling to get 'qualified' workers having the right skills. At the same time the Trump tax cuts and budget are goin out of their ways to stick it to students at all levels, cutting the budgets for education programs, cutting deductibility for interest on loans for graduates at all levels, cutting back on training programs and their deductibility, cutting back on national efforts in science. All short term 'fixes' designed to provide money for the already rich and further degrading the US' ability to compete.

      Trump/GOP priorities are obvious and they include zero for us. And the useful idiots who defend these moves continue to bend over and ask for it in the ass but harder.

      As for the average American, I'm sure they will be very grateful for that $100 per year they get in tax cuts. It will be enough to pay for a nice dinner for the wife on her birthday. Well, until it is eventually phased out that is. The big advantage for the GOP? The average Joe won't notice it when it's gone.

      Admittedly, that same Average Joe will have the pleasure of watching the rich gain further riches in the stock market. They will see Trump and his family and his friends getting a massive Christmas gift of $ billions to add to the $ billions they already have. They can see the deficits and the national debt balloon even further and faster than it has already has. They will be able to see their insurance premiums skyrocket. They will see interest rates rise with the accumulating debt and real wages decline even more with the increasing inflation.
      What more could they ask for?


    2. .

      As for wages, Bank of America did a survey of US companies and found that about 1/3 'said' they would use their tax windfall to increase wages. It will be interesting to see if them 'saying' it actually results in action. Wages are usually set by the prevailing rate, that is the rate the competition sets. With the US being at full employment, the total work force declining, and the majority of companies not planning on increasing wages it will be interesting to see if those companies that profess an altruistic bent follow through with their assertions especially given that companies in general are currently cash rich and making historically strong earnings and yet wages remain pretty flat.



  12. Mueller has opened a new restaurant chain: NothingBurgers

    Mueller’s New Restaurant Chain: Nothing Burgers - 12/2/17

    If Trump committed a crime, we would know about it after half a year of investigation by Mueller and his hoard of investigators. Al More


  13. Mueller Removed Top F.B.I. Agent Over Possible Anti-Trump Texts

    WASHINGTON — The special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III, removed a top F.B.I. agent from his investigation into Russian election meddling after the Justice Department’s inspector general began examining whether the agent had sent text messages that expressed anti-Trump political views, according to three people briefed on the matter.

    The agent, Peter Strzok, is considered one of the most experienced and trusted F.B.I. counterintelligence investigators. He helped lead the investigation into whether Hillary Clinton mishandled classified information on her private email account, and then played a major role in the investigation into links between President Trump’s campaign and Russia.

    But Mr. Strzok was reassigned this summer from Mr. Mueller’s investigation to the F.B.I.’s human resources department, where he has been stationed since. The people briefed on the case said the transfer followed the discovery of text messages in which Mr. Strzok and a colleague reacted to news events, like presidential debates, in ways that could appear critical of Mr. Trump.

    A lawyer for Mr. Strzok declined to comment. A spokeswoman for the Justice Department said that “we are aware of the allegation and are taking any and all appropriate steps.”

    Mr. Strzok’s reassignment shows that Mr. Mueller moved swiftly in the face of what could be perceived as bias by one of his agents amid a politically charged inquiry into Mr. Trump’s campaign and administration. But the existence of the text messages is likely to fuel claims by Mr. Trump that the F.B.I. has a bias against him and that he is a target of the “deep state” — a term used to describe the notion that government intelligence agencies secretly conspire together.

    Continue reading the main story
    The discovery of the text messages came at a crucial moment in Mr. Mueller’s investigation. At the time, Mr. Mueller was ramping up his investigation into Mr. Trump’s former advisers, while also coming under criticism for putting many donors to Democratic candidates on his team. Some conservatives encouraged Mr. Trump to fire Mr. Mueller, saying the investigation was tainted. Mr. Trump seriously entertained the idea but ultimately backed down.

  14. I just heard that Flynn had been a life long Democrat.

    Who Is Michael Flynn? 19 Things to Know About Donald Trump's Former National Security Adviser.

    Here's what you need to know about Flynn:

    1. He is a registered Democrat.
    Raised in Rhode Island, Flynn comes from "an Irish Catholic family of blue-collar Democrats," according to Politico, and was a lifelong Democrat before throwing his support behind the Republican candidate. "I grew up as a Democrat in a very strong Democratic family, he told ABC, "but I will tell you that Democratic party that exists in this country is not the Democratic party that I grew up around in my upbringing."

    1. Trump is a life long Democrat. - dumb ass

      He surrounded himself with Democrats

      Wake Up you ignoramus

  15. Do you have the Lava Tube stocked with food and water, Doug ?

    Do you have a Geiger Counter, and a handgun ?

    Matches, and some light source ?

    Batteries for a month ?

    Medical supplies ?

  16. This comment has been removed by the author.

    1. Vandals eating pussy today, Vandal fans --

      Half Time

      Mighty Idaho Vandals 17

      Georgia State Panthers 10

    2. Final

      Mighty Idaho Vandals 24

      Georgia State 10

      Last game of the season, folks.

      Next year we are in The Big Sky.

      Our Freshman quarterback played well today.

      Also, next year we are only able to fund 20 some scholarships, rather than 30 some.

      That's it for this year Vandal Fans !



    ABC News has announced that Brian Ross would be suspended for four weeks without pay “effective immediately.”

    “It is vital we get the story right and retain the trust we have built with our audience – these are our core principles. We fell far short of that yesterday,” the network said in a statement on Saturday. “Effective immediately, Brian Ross will be suspended for four weeks without pay.”

    Ross came under considerable fire on Friday after he erroneously reported on live television that then-candidate Donald Trump had instructed Michael Flynn to make contact with the Russians. In a correction seven hours later, the channel admitted that it was “President-elect” Trump who had made the request of Flynn — a pretty significant difference.

  18. Nunes blows up, threatens contempt after FBI stonewalls House on Russia investigator demoted for anti-Trump bias

    "By hiding from Congress, and from the American people, documented political bias by a key FBI head investigator for both the Russia collusion probe and the Clinton email investigation, the FBI and DOJ engaged in a willful attempt to thwart Congress' constitutional oversight responsibility," Nunes said in a statement Saturday afternoon. "This is part of a months-long pattern by the DOJ and FBI of stonewalling and obstructing this committee's oversight work, particularly oversight of their use of the Steele dossier. At this point, these agencies should be investigating themselves.

    Leadership at FBI and DOJ should all be eliminated.

    1. Whatever happened to the FBI guy that was given immunity?

  19. Health Food Nut

    The book states president would order from McDonalds

    “two Big Macs, two Fillet-O-Fish, and a chocolate malted.”


  20. The book also provides an in-depth look at the relationships between Trump and senior staff members, such as then-press secretary Hope Hicks, who is now White House communications director.

    One unusual duty of Hicks’ was to press Trump’s suits while they flew on his plane between campaign stops, typically while he was still wearing the suits.

    Trump would yell out for Hicks, “get the machine!” Hicks knew she had to grab the steamer.

    I'd run for president if it would get me steamed by Hope Hicks:


    2. Left out this part:

      “And Hope would take out the steamer and start steaming Mr. Trump’s suit, while he was wearing it! She’d steam the jacket first and then sit in a chair in front of him and steam his pants,” they explained.

  21. What should the Doctors do if you've been in a car crash, are unconscious, and have a "DO NOT RESUSCITATE" tattoo ?

    Doctor dilemma over unconscious patient's 'Do Not Resuscitate' tattoo....DRUDGE

    Miami doctors face dilemma over 'Do Not Resuscitate' tattoo
    Doctors faced ethical, medical conundrums

    Posted: 1:23 PM, December 01, 2017
    Updated: 2:17 PM, December 01, 2017

    Courtesy University of Miami via CNN
    Photo of the patient's tattoo entered into the medical record to document his perceived end-of-life wishes. The patient's presumed signature has been masked.

    (CNN) - Picture this: A man is admitted to the hospital, unconscious, with a history of serious health problems and a high blood alcohol level. He has no identification and no family with him. On his chest, he has a tattoo: "Do Not Resuscitate."

    What would you do?

    It sounds like a worst-case-scenario question from a medical ethics course, but it really happened recently at a Florida hospital. A newly published study in The New England Journal of Medicine explored the ethical and medical conundrums the staff faced when presented with a 70-year-old patient whose denial of potentially life-saving treatment was right there on his skin.

    At first, doctors wanted to ignore it

    According to the study, authored by a team of medical professionals from the University of Miami, the doctors attending to the man didn't want to honor the tattoo because there was no way to be absolutely sure that's what the man wanted.

    "We initially decided not to honor the tattoo, invoking the principle of not choosing an irreversible path when faced with uncertainty," the study said. The doctors chose to treat the patient with antibiotics and other life-saving measures.

    However, they called in the hospital's ethics consultant, who had a different opinion.

    Differing view from an ethics consultant

    Laws about do not resuscitate orders are sometimes complex and vary from state to state. According to an article in the Journal of General Internal Medicine, "Clinicians are morally and legally obligated to respect the preferences of patients to forgo life-sustaining treatment." However, this typically means an official signed a do not resuscitate agreement such as a Physician Order for Life Sustaining Treatment.

    Tattoos, while clearly administered with a patient's wishes, aren't legally binding, and are usually considered too ambiguous to act upon.

    "The emergency responder may wonder: (D)o the letters stand for Do Not Resuscitate? Or Department of Natural Resources? Or someone's initials? Second, the tattoo may not result from a considered decision to forego resuscitation. Errors in interpretation may have life and death consequences," the Journal of General Internal Medicine article said.

    In the case of the man in the Florida hospital, the facility's ethics consultant said the doctors should honor the tattoo.

    "They suggested that it was most reasonable to infer that the tattoo expressed an authentic preference, that what might be seen as caution could also be seen as standing on ceremony, and that the law is sometimes not nimble enough to support patient-centered care and respect for patients' best interests," the study reads.

    There was also another development that supported the consultant's decision: The hospital's social work department located a copy of the man's Florida Department of Health "out-of-hospital" do not resuscitate order, which supported the request on his tattoo.

    The outcome
    Ultimately, a do not resuscitate order was issued, and the man died. The authors of the study said they were "relieved to find his written DNR request," but the initial confusion over the tattoo brought up a curious issue that has been debated in the medical community on several occasions.