We'll see

As I said....BO notoriously made sure HIS admin HID everything.

Trump didn't surround himself with never-Trumpers….many were brought in by BO holdovers. He made the mistake of believing BO that he would get a smooth and honest transition when, in fact, it was exactly the opposite with being lied to from election day forward. He found out quickly that there were very few people he could trust with anything.

So he took the notes.....so they wouldn't get leaked? He'd already seen what happens when he trusts those around him....leaks and lies were coming from all directions.

You want ex-Presidents who did worse? How about Bill Clinton and his wife, after one of their WH attorneys killed himself and HIS notes, et al were TAKEN from HIS office and mysteriously appeared in HER office after DC police came looking for them.

Or BO refusing to turn over subpoenaed documents by claiming Executive Privilege at the last minute when Holder was held in Contempt of Congress (with NO consequences, btw, unlike the threats the House is making now about jailing THIS AG and McGahn)

Politico is a piece of trash and can never get a story right so why would I believe a couple of their 'authors'? You didn't provide a link so I don't know what meeting they are referring to....do you? He has lots of meetings.

Like I asked...got any names to former presidents confiscating notes from meetings.

It appears the correct answer at this point in time is NO...

If I ask the same question in a couple years...YOU will have an answer and that answer will be YES and you will provide a link naming Donald J. Trump.

RE: MSNBC....really?????????

You don't dispute the facts...you only dispute the source?

RE:He made the mistake of believing BO that he would get a smooth and honest transition.

Trump believed Obama AND you don't/never would? What's up with that?

In order to "believe something"...you should start by listening to what is being said.

Here's a link to a FOX News story showing something I claimed was true....YOU went silent...Go figure.

Obama warned TheRUMP about Flynn...Sean said it was true AND he said it on FOX News Approx 1:40 mark....

DJT wasn't listening.(earwax condition?)..wanted to be pulled aside and spoken to individually (probably busy writing notes to himself) making up nicknames for his opponents....

IF you dispute "the source" you could lose all credibility, and I'm fairly sure you won't respond to the FACT the Obama warned DJT about Flynn.

confiscate notes when he either had others do it for him or didn't take ANY at all. Deniability was his forte....how often did you HEAR him outright LIE and say publicly in interviews that 'I knew/found out it about it when it was reported in the news'?

I was ALWAYS listening to what BO said, JP....I didn't have to rely on MSNBC hosts to spin or omit or edit, which is what YOU do instead.

BO warned Trump about Flynn LONG AFTER they had ALREADY set him up AND told Flynn he didn't need an attorney present for the infamous FBI 'chat'....that SAME 'chat' that Comey BRAGGED about publicly that was a set up to take 'advantage' of a new administration that wasn't fully formed yet.

MSNBC NEVER deals with FACTS....every person on their payroll are ridiculously INFACTUAL, which is why they are the LOWEST ranked 'news' outlet and can't keep from losing more and more of their audience every day.....so NO.....I hold that source is massive contempt and don't believe ANYthing that comes from them with CNN an extremely close second (another one losing their audience in huge numbers). BOTH are still trying to keep the Russia collusion story alive even AFTER the Mueller report debunked it ALL.

Credibility? Look in the mirror, JP.....you not only COULD lose yours, but I believe you already HAVE.

And I'M still waiting for ANY response from you about a couple of recent posts I've made...…...crickets from you.

So you admit Obama warned DJT about Flynn...

Thank you.

The acting AG, YATES, did and cited the Logan Act (something that no one in history has ever been charged with btw), and it was ALL a set up by Comey, McCabe, et al...….which Flynn, as we speak, is fighting back on by firing his attorneys prior to sentencing now that more information has come out over the last few days.

The more you guys bring up things that you are convinced happened a certain way to prove your points, the more you get egg on your faces.

Mueller's report also shows Manafort's business partner from the UK as someone pretty nefarious and for which Manafort was charged with, but deliberately left out the facts that Kilimnik was actually someone that the BO State Dept has used as a 'reliable' source and was pretty cozy with for a long time....he even visited the State Dept as recently as March, 2016.

There are a number of incidents in Mueller's report coming out that shows factual information beneficial to Trump's administration was deliberately omitted (Weisman's MO, btw, that resulted in convictions being overturned by the courts previously) in much the same way as the FISA applications when they were presented to THAT court.

YOU just said HE did....

Obama himself didn't warn Trump?

So Obama directed someone else to warn Trump?

IF Obama hadn't ordered someone to do it, it wouldn't have been done?

ordered that warning....Yates, I believe, took it upon herself to 'warn' Trump....she neglected to mention that not only did BO dislike Flynn on a personal level, but that Flynn was ALREADY under investigation in 2015 once Flynn came out and publicly endorsed Trump.

BO's administration was ALREADY being weaponized in full force from the beginning of HIS first term and just kept escalating to now go after political CANDIDATES and not just Conservative GROUPS. It got to the point that he personally didn't have to order anything....his administration and supporters in government even with those NOT elected were tacitly being given permission to act as they did because NONE were EVER held accountable and KNEW they wouldn't be.

still waiting for ANY response from you about a couple of recent posts I've made

response?

something like THIS response?

MSNBC....really?????????


You didn't provide a link so I don't know what meeting they are referring to

Is this the link you want?

I'll post the link yet AGAIN

Maybe I'll get lucky, it is only about 6 minutes, so hang in there.

IF you took the time and energy to use the forefinger on your right hand and CLICK YOUR MOUSE on the MSNBC LINK you would see, scrolled across the bottom of the screen, that the meeting was held at Camp David AND IF you listened to the video you would hear what they were discussing AND what DJT was ignoring.....

I can almost picture some here reading my posts, and scribbling down notes about me......

and I'll actually READ it.....MSNBC is NOT a legitimate news source. It's more like a 'dream' episode from Fantasy Island.

How bout YOU locate a reliable source...and tell others here......I won't ask you to locate reliable sourceS because there is ONLY ONE reliable source in YOUR world....

I bet I know which one you will pick.....

Pick your source AND pick the subject...I'll see IF I can give you your dream vacation.....trapped on a desert island with a dozen Fox News anchors.....

Way better off than TheRUMP....HE was concerned HE would have to endure 3 or 4 days WITHOUT FOX News,,,Actually FOX shipped some anchors over to babysit.

First words out of his cakehole when HE got out of the "landing craft" when attending D-Day Commemorations...BOO HOO, there's no Fox News here....

Come on Donnie...you're 70 something years old....GROW UP!!!!!

You didn't provide a link so I don't know what meeting they are referring to....do you?

Yes, I do would like me to provide it?

Will you dispute "the source"?

Is not that what dictator (sorry, President) Trump has instructed several of his crew to do?

I guess it's "OK" when it's your guy doing it...

Rick " sick of the excuse for a leader we have " Jones

have ALREADY testified to Mueller. Why would Trump allow these same people to be set up for a 'perjury trap' by RE-testifying to Congress when even YOU have to admit that THAT is ALL Nadler and his crews are looking for? How many times did Brenner LIE to Congress along with so many others in BO's administration and get away with it? ONLY Holder was held in Contempt with no consequences to pay for it....even the IT guy who never bothered to show up under a subpoena got away with thumbing his nose at them all.

You don't have to like him, Rick, but at least give him credit for instinctively knowing (and being RIGHT about it) that their only goal in life is to destroy him and his family and all because he isn't 'one of them' and refuses to play by THEIR rules. The SAME rules that have NOT worked for this country for tens of years. Crap he's dealing with has been around for many years....long before Trump....and it's the same crap that they are perfectly happy to keep in place and expand on. HE'S what the people voted for....and when THEY decide they don't want him anymore (after 8 years max), he'll be replaced....hopefully with someone JUST LIKE HIM.

As sick of him as YOU are, is how a huge number of US felt about BO.....who was NEVER a LEADER. He did so much damage on a DELIBERATE scale that it will take much more than 8 years to fix, if it can be at all.

but at least I respected him, which I cannot say about DJT. He's the first president in my living experience who does not deserve the honor associated with the office. And that's not based on his personality but on his words and actions.

I _don't_ think the people who went after Trump and his admin. were trying to "destroy" him and his family. They wanted to know the truth about his and his operatives' dealings with Russia. Much was found, as detailed in the Mueller report.

I've read your examples of Obama's supposed destruction of America and can only say that your analysis of his actions is different than mine. As for intent, it is difficult for me to believe he intended harm to our nation - on the contrary, I think he intended repair and renewal. I guess we'll never agree on THAT.

And actually, around 3 million more people voted for H.Clinton than Trump. Thanks to our jiggered electoral system, we get an engineered bias towards rural voters. That's the system we have - for now - and though perhaps in the future it will be changed to reflect the will of the people better, I accept the president we have. I and others are free to complain about the results, and are doing so. I reckon in a year or so we'll find out how many desire another four years of Trump or someone else...

Rick

RURAL voters'????? Are you kidding? The type of electoral system YOU want would be geared to ONLY having FIVE States out of 50 elect our President because those five States have the largest population and ALL are almost 90% LIBERAL in their voting records. THAT is NOT the ACTUAL will of the people as Trump has proven and was also proven under GWB.

This is exactly why we a system where ALL States are EQUALLY represented.

I have no problem with anyone complaining about POLICIES regarding our elected officials.....I DO have a problem when it is ALWAYS one sided with liberals and exaggerated or lied about over and over again, even after that information given to the public is completely debunked with actual facts...including exonerating/excusing/ignoring PROVEN criminal acts when done by a liberal held in 'high esteem' but totally destroy INNOCENT people's lives just because they CAN.

WHEN we can actually GET equal justice (something liberals are constantly screaming for publicly but do the opposite to protect their 'own'), I, and the rest of the country of Conservatives, will be happy.

and goofed.

Actually, I think we should scrap the electoral system - and go for one person, one vote, and as many votes as possible for everyone of voting age - maybe even penalize people for _not_ voting in Presidential and mid-term Congressional election years. The penalty would be very slight, like perhaps a 5 cent (nickel) "fine" on one's income tax for the next year - or something similarly negligible.

Anyway, which five states are you referring to ? California, New York, Illinois, Vermont, Massachusetts?
Just curious - but I'll re-iterate that I do not want a rigged system (if that's even possible!) but rather one that treats city folk and country folk and _everyone_ equally.

Better wordsmiths than yours truly have remarked on this - please excuse the length of this copy, but I think it's worth pasting here:

Democracy: Churchillisms

But here are some original things (included in Churchill by Himself) that Churchill did say about democracy:

If I had to sum up the immediate future of democratic politics in a single word I should say “insurance.” That is the future—insurance against dangers from abroad, insurance against dangers scarcely less grave and much more near and constant which threaten us here at home in our own island. —Free Trade Hall, Manchester, 23 May 1909

At the bottom of all the tributes paid to democracy is the little man, walking into the little booth, with a little pencil, making a little cross on a little bit of paper—no amount of rhetoric or voluminous discussion can possibly diminish the overwhelming importance of that point. —House of Commons, 31 October 1944

How is that word “democracy” to be interpreted? My idea of it is that the plain, humble, common man, just the ordinary man who keeps a wife and family, who goes off to fight for his country when it is in trouble, goes to the poll at the appropriate time, and puts his cross on the ballot paper showing the candidate he wishes to be elected to Parliament—that he is the foundation of democracy. And it is also essential to this foundation that this man or woman should do this without fear, and without any form of intimidation or victimization. He marks his ballot paper in strict secrecy, and then elected representatives and together decide what government, or even in times of stress, what form of government they wish to have in their country. If that is democracy, I salute it. I espouse it. I would work for it.” —House of Commons, 8 December 1944

( from https://richardlangworth.com/worst-form-of-government)

As for esteem or lack of regarding Hillary Clinton - when I mentioned elsewhere that even some Dems ain't exactly fond of her I should have said some would probably say, at least 'in camera' or to trusted pals that they truly loathe her. I've met some otherwise liberal women (and men, too, though perhaps a smaller percentage) who cannot stand the sight of her, her voice (which I admit I find grating) or her manner - the comments are usually "she's too smug", "she thinks too much of herself", "she's two-faced", and perhaps less often "she should have divorced her husband the second he left office" - though some women actually admire her for "standing by her man", citing traditional mores about marriage (being 'til death, thick and thin, etc.). I personally suspect she had known for years he was a 'horn-dog' as they say, and put up with his disgraceful behaviour in sex matters for the sake of her daughter, her husband's reputation, or some strange combination that I'm thankfully not privy to. Whatever- worse things have happened in wedlock and the people have slowly healed their former bond - or not - and stayed together for various reasons. I remember at the time being appalled at his transparent lies and further disgusted by some guys I knew who made jokes about Monica, as if she was _not_ a victim of a very powerful man taken advantage of in the worst way. Same for Paula Jones - who tellingly fought hard and finally "won" [settled for $850,000, though as part of this out-of-court settlement he acknowledged no wrongdoing - yeah, right, ya *******!].

Phew. So, all that said, it's my view that Hillary's hubris, more than anything, along with her misjudging the private opinions of her peers and otherwise led to Trump's win. Though, still, as noted before if the popular vote had been followed, she would be in office
even so.

What this all means in the nexus of politics vs society I guess historians will be arguing about for quite some time. Trump - in my view - has energized so much opposition and rancor towards himself I reckon the "pendulum" will swing against him - and especially his silent enablers - in the U.S.A. and particularly abroad.

Rick " hell, I like Jimmy Carter, so what do _I_ know? " Jones :^)

about some things you mentioned....

"He's the first president in my living experience who does not deserve the honor associated with the office. And that's not based on his personality but on his words and actions. "

It's difficult for me to believe or understand how you can say this considering all the obvious damage BO did deliberately and yet you believe that BO deserved the honor of the office. Please explain to me how Trump is actually worse than BO regarding 'words and actions'. I, personally, prefer someone who is somewhat crude and blunt in his words but his actions bring good results rather than someone whose words are slick and polished but the actions are deplorable and abhorrent. (And even at that, many of BO's words were arrogant, apologetic, disdainful towards opponents, and inciteful....with many of them done with foreign leaders against his own country...and he continues to do so.)

How about "You can keep your doctor; you can keep your health plan"...….knowing all along it was a lie?

Or how about "Obamacare doesn't cover illegal immigrants"....knowing all along it was a lie, even when he was called out on it publicly from Sen Wilson DURING that lie being told?

Or how about "HILL didn't jeopardize national security"...knowing all along that she DID since her private server had been hacked at least five times by foreign entities?

Or how about "I found out from the news at the same time everybody else did".....knowing all along that HE had emailed her back and forth using that server and a FAKE email address when HE did?

As for "How bout trash talking Nancy during an interview on foreign soil with the graves of American military as a backdrop?" How about the fact that Nancy called for him to be in JAIL BEFORE he made that statement....all while he was on foreign soil?

Hi Toni,

Being direct is possibly the _only_ thing I like about Trump - and is perhaps one of the principal reasons people voted for him. Coincidentally, Howard Stern was on the Colbert show recently and was asked how he regarded Trump as Colbert knew he had appeared on his radio show often over the years. Stern replied something along the lines of "He's a straight shooter and you always knew exactly where he stood on whatever topic - no bull@#$% from him, ever". I hold such a manner in high regard also, and commend him for speaking his mind. The trouble I have is that he is racist, misogynistic, narrow minded, rarely thinks of the long-term repercussions of his actions, and is generally a boor. People like him used to be called crass - don't hear that word too often nowadays - and that is indicative of another problem I have with Trump: his bloviating and general indifference to conventions of civil society have encouraged others who are like-disposed to do the same or worse - and he actively goads them on to do it! Witness his offering to pay legal fees for someone's defense so that they will feel free to harass and physically harm the hecklers at his rallies. Witness his remarks (or lack of) about known white supremacists, nay, self-avowed neo-Nazis. To me, it is one thing to be crude and blunt, and another to be a relic of another century. ( 19th, not 20th! ).

I believe your gripe with Dems always being against Repubs is somewhat warranted - many times it seems spiteful and childish, and ill-considered all-around. Those who do it are, however, human, and may sometimes be excused for doing so as a strictly teat-for tat ( take that, software filter!) gut-level response. Sometimes, but not always - I'm especially dismayed by some of the younger Congress-critters who delight in thumbing their nose at the other side of the aisle whenever they get the chance, just for the 'thrill' of it. That's exactly why we have a locked, polarized system right now - though blame can be placed on the Repubs for doing the same thing.

However, that said, I lay most of the blame for the current situation on the door of 'good old' Newt Gingrich - his scorched earth policy toward liberals/progressives have left a taste of brimstone in the mouths of many, to this day.

So, if we can get away from the past and have some policies that are truly long-term ( like what we will need to do with climate change and infrastucture, not to mention reeling in big pharma and for-profit medicine),
I think our country could actually regain our much-vaunted status of old - one we had for a long time, and still have, though it's tarnishing rapidly lately. To me, it's not so much a problem with Trump or people like him (there are many, see the recent 'strongman' approach in Europe and elsewhere), it's a lack of vision and indeed purpose. Purpose as in striving for a better world - not a richer one, not a more 'productive' one as in growth, but a smarter one. Getting behind efforts to mediate global warming could be such a purpose/goal : something the entire planet could work at, and benefit immensely from. If that idea is too "pie-in-the-sky", well, at least it's a noble one...

Rick

"They wanted to know the truth about his and his operatives' dealings with Russia. Much was found, as detailed in the Mueller report. "

Considering that all of what 'they' wanted to know about was made up by THEM and HILL and they KNEW it from the beginning and went ahead anyhow. As for the Mueller report, just the OPPOSITE is true of what you state. Even he and his liberal team found NOTHING that pointed to Trump OR his campaign/administration being involved with the 'Russian hack' (that was the collusion/conspiracy crap made up by Dems and liberals) OR ANY OTHER AMERICANS (surprisingly Mueller DIDN'T include the actual PROOF that HILL DID CONSPIRE AND PAID RUSSIANS FOR THAT DOSSIER, so to say NO Americans could be charged is bullslit).

NO charges of obstruction were even recommended by Mueller....what he stated in his report was "maybe" and "perhaps" speculations on his part....along with MANY omissions and edits to testimonies to deliberately point in that direction for Congress's benefit only. Just as Comey overreached with HIS decision to not indict HILL when it wasn't HIS job to do so (only LYNCH had that authority as a PROSECUTOR), Mueller himself UNDERREACHED his PROSECUTORIAL authority by leaving it up to the new AG to decide and now to Congress to do HIS JOB. Mueller is as big a disgrace to his position as Comey, Lynch, and Sessions were to theirs.

The fact that he DIDN'T recommend charges is PROOF that AS A PROSECUTOR he didn't have anything to actually to charge him WITH other than 'maybe' and 'perhaps' speculations ON HIS PART.

Do NOT try to say that he COULDN'T because of his NOW excuse of 'you can't indict a sitting president' because the FIRST part of his report actually stated that there wasn't ANY evidence that ANY American, including Trump AND his administration, had conspired/colluded with Russians. IF there WAS any evidence he would have charged them. So how can he be allowed to NOT use that 'rule' for ONE aspect of his investigation but then be allowed to USE it for another in the SAME report? He's trying to have his cake and eat it, too and point the finger for NOT charging on the obstruction to the Congress to do HIS job for him and salvage HIS legacy. It's more bullshlit. HIS JOB as a PROSECUTOR is to CHARGE or NOT CHARGE....and he chose to NOT CHARGE on BOTH because he couldn't PROVE EITHER ONE.....when you can't PROVE something, it's SPECULATION rather than EVIDENCE.

said on more than one occasion, that he was hamstrung by the policy of not being able to indict a sitting President. Game over before it had started, so to speak.

I think you are right though - he was chicken-***** for not doing _something_ definitive.

As for Hillary - do you really think her lack of prosecution was due to lenience on the part of those investigating her? From what I've read/heard she ain't exactly well-liked, even by some Dems! I think if there had been a smoking gun they would have nailed her to the wall. Maybe any crimes she committed will surface later?...

Anyway, here's hoping you are doing well. And your son, likewise!

Rick

If he knew from the start that he 'couldn't indict a sitting president' than he shouldn't have taken the job in the first place and saved the taxpayers $40M and a deliberate hit job at the end since what he did in the second part of his report was nothing less than what Comey did with HILL in July 2016....listed HER crimes and then chose NOT to charge (which wasn't HIS decision to make...it was up to a PROSECUTOR to decide, not an INVESTIGATOR). I believe she will STILL be charged eventually because HER crimes were real and proven, even by Comey. They didn't have to LIKE her....to them, she was better than the alternative so they chose to try to destroy him by letting her off to complete her campaign.

As for Derek....I went to his Chief Warrant Officer commissioning ceremonies on the USS Harry S. Truman in March in VA Beach. It was a beautiful ceremony even though the weather turned to crap and I thought I would freeze or shiver myself to death before it was over with. He got back from a month-long school in Rhode Island two weeks ago, is going to another one now in VB with a third on in VB scheduled immediately after, and then on July 7 drives down to Pensacola, FL for nearly 3 months for the last school in the series. Derek found out a few days ago that his ship is in drydock for another year plus so ship deployment may not happen in time for another rank upward since he's now in a position that ship time is vital to moving up. But he's no longer 'enlisted' and instead is a 'commissioned officer' and he's got time to figure out if he wants to stay in for another ten plus years since he's already got 17 in....now it seems 'it's all about the money' because it's gotten really serious regarding retirement, where they want to live at the end, if the kids are in colleges (he's already transferred all of his college benefits to them since he won't need them personally as he's getting his BA while still serving for free), etc. He loves his job which helps a lot but because he's going to be under 50 when he retires, he's not sure if he wants to keep working after or just full time enjoy the freedom of not having a schedule anymore. He's somewhat ADHD and constantly 'on the move' so I think he'd get bored pretty quickly without 'projects' that hold his interest.

that Derek is doing fine. From what I've read and a few friends who retired fairly early it's sometimes hard to adjust to the increased amount of "free" time. I'm talking about men in general - I guess you already know that for men their jobs are sometimes their "identity" and so when that's changed it can be tough. I've also known some older guys who struggled with a changed schedule after retiring. Having a hobby or activities outdoors helps - and a wife who is understanding of the "pitfalls" of retirement. :^)

I might have mentioned here (I can't recall if I did or not!) that I suffer from bipolar || (2) - different from ADHD of course, but the "highs" of hypomania and full
manic episodes can resemble ADHD. I take quetiapine which helps tremendously (YMMV!) but it has some side-effects like increased appetite and reduced libido that I wish I didn't have to go through. I reckon there is various medications for ADHD? Or is his mild enough to tolerate?

Anyway, glad to hear you could make his ceremony. And congrats on his commission!

Rick "medicated but still weird" :^)

all have it to various degrees. Hang in there.
I take a rather mild drug, as they go. It lessens the high-low range, but pulls down the zero line a bit. Still, no more suicidal thoughts. ... I count that as a plus.
Problem with BP is, when you're up 'you're not sick', so no need for treatment or even a consult.