Liberal Forum

Trump makes latest visit to golf club.

President Trump visited Trump International Golf Club in West Palm Beach on Saturday, marking his 10th golf course trip over eight weeks as president, according to an NBC News editor.

While White House officials reportedly declined to comment on whether the president golfed, a photo posted on social media shows Trump sporting a golf glove, and one White House press aide told reporters that Trump may have "hit a few balls."

According to a reporter who was in Florida with the president, Trump spent more than four hours at his golf club before returning to Mar-a-Lago.

He hit more than 'a few balls' in four hours.

LOL, they are trying to hide the fact that Trump plays a lot of golf.
I wonder why?

Senators Ask Trump Adviser to Preserve Any Russia-Related Documents

Roger J. Stone Jr., an informal adviser to President Trump, has been asked by the Senate Intelligence Committee to preserve any records he may have in connection to a broader inquiry into Russian attempts to interfere with United States elections.

The letter sent to Mr. Stone, a copy of which was obtained by The New York Times, represents the first public indication of the scope of the committee’s inquiry, and possible connections to Mr. Trump’s campaign.

The Senate committee asked Mr. Stone, who is also under scrutiny from other federal investigators, to “preserve and retain all hard copies and electronically stored information as specified below in furtherance of the committee’s ongoing investigation into Russian actions targeting the 2016 U.S. elections and democratic processes globally.”

Mr. Stone confirmed the existence of the letter, which was dated Feb. 17.

However, he said he had received it only on Friday, by email.

Mr. Stone has acknowledged trading messages over Twitter with Guccifer 2.0, the online persona that officials believe was actually Russian intelligence officers.

Democrats and some investigators, as well as some Republicans, have been watching Mr. Stone, a Richard M. Nixon acolyte and self-described “dirty trickster,” more closely since he posted on Twitter in August 2016 about John D. Podesta, Hillary Clinton’s campaign chairman, whose private emails were hacked and provided to WikiLeaks.

Mr. Stone said on Twitter that Mr. Podesta would soon face his “time in the barrel,” two months before the emails were made public.

Mr. Stone maintained that he was alluding to business activities he attributed to Mr. Podesta, not prior knowledge of the hackings.

Mr. Stone has said any contact he had with Russians represented only surface-level exchanges with no broader import.

In 2016, Mr. Stone said at a public event that he had been in communication with Julian Assange, the founder of WikiLeaks, and suggested they had a large collection of material to publish on Mrs. Clinton and her husband, Bill, in the weeks before Election Day.

In February 2016, the Smoking Gun website approached Mr. Stone about private messages exchanged on Twitter with Guccifer 2.0. (the Russian asset).

Mr. Stone, who initially told the site that he did not recall the messages, later sent captured shots of the brief exchange to The Washington Times, describing them as “innocuous."

Innocuous. LOL
I guess he was just chatting about the weather with the hacker (Russian asset) who hacked the DNC.

So why is the Senate Intelligence Committee looking into this?

Clem said it's a dead issue.
Maybe he should call them and tell them to STOP IT!

roadkill » 18 Mar 2017 10:08 am » wrote: If Misty thinks it's evidence, I believe her.

She would never speculate.

You are saying an "I don't know" is evidence!!!

Misty » 18 Mar 2017 9:23 pm » wrote:
I wonder why?

IDK...do you or don't you?

Misty » 18 Mar 2017 9:08 pm » wrote:1.That 'very talented lawyer' is a conspiracy nut and a 9/11 Truther.

Little Miss Marxist can't debate issues on the merits, so she lies and smears.

Misty » 18 Mar 2017 8:05 pm » wrote:Trump's buddy David Pecker strikes again.
Talk about your FAKE News.

How do you know it's fake?

All you know is that others have not confirmed it.

Misty » 18 Mar 2017 8:15 pm » wrote: Yeah, they're going broke, poor things.

What is the profit margin misty? Of course they are taking in more. They have not only more paying BUT their expenditures also increase. For instance there are far more emercgency room visits than ever before as well as visits to doctors that wouldn't have occurred in the past.

Show us the profit margin,

TRACKING TRUMP'S PROMISES

Donald Trump made hundreds of promises, pledges and threats on his road to the White House.

This continuously updated interactive feature tracks his progress in delivering on that agenda at the beginning of his term.

Misty » 18 Mar 2017 9:41 pm » wrote: So why is the Senate Intelligence Committee looking into this?

Because if enough dishonest Democrats and their grass roots liars and paranoids make a false accusation that enters the public sphere and affects the public, it will be investigated.

So?

Even honest liberals are appalled by those lies.

Glenn Greenwald called out fellow leftists who have been promoting the unsubstantiated collusion claim. He wrote:

The principal problem for Democrats is that so many media figures and online charlatans are personally benefiting from feeding the base increasingly unhinged, fact-free conspiracies.

. .that there are now millions of partisan soldiers absolutely convinced of a Trump/Russia conspiracy for which, at least as of now, there is no evidence.
(Emphasis added)
To whom was Greenwald referring? By following a link in Greenwald’s piece, we learn that Rachel Maddow is the main media figure he sees as personally benefiting from feeding the base unhinged conspiracies about collusion with Russia. No surprise there.

Misty » 19 Mar 2017 10:31 am » wrote:TRACKING TRUMP'S PROMISES

Donald Trump made hundreds of promises, pledges and threats on his road to the White House.

This continuously updated interactive feature tracks his progress in delivering on that agenda at the beginning of his term.

That list is hilarious. Don't bother asking. If we have to explain it to you...........well, you finish the sentence,

Misty » 19 Mar 2017 10:31 am » wrote:TRACKING TRUMP'S PROMISES

Donald Trump made hundreds of promises, pledges and threats on his road to the White House.

This continuously updated interactive feature tracks his progress in delivering on that agenda at the beginning of his term.

You trust CNN to honestly and fairly appraise Trump?

The network that covered up Clinton's crimes and impeachable acts?

I love moonbat humor.

Misty » 19 Mar 2017 10:31 am » wrote:TRACKING TRUMP'S PROMISES

Donald Trump made hundreds of promises, pledges and threats on his road to the White House.

This continuously updated interactive feature tracks his progress in delivering on that agenda at the beginning of his term.

Fake News from a deeply corrupt network.

Misty » 16 Mar 2017 8:25 pm » wrote: Except he promised that Mexico was going to pay for it.

Now he's paying for it with money he's taking from school lunch programs and Meals on Wheels.

So nevermind if kids and old and sick people go without the only meal some of them get each day.

We will have a big beautiful wall to look at.

Joe Biden — 'Don't tell me what you value, show me your budget, and I'll tell you what you value.'

A wall built to keep people out can be transformed into a wall built to keep people in for the cost of a swivel-chair.

Cannonpointer » 19 Mar 2017 10:42 am » wrote:A wall built to keep people out can be transformed into a wall built to keep people in for the cost of a swivel-chair.

A fence isn't fine, right? It is just a wall that sends snowflakes into a tizzy, right? Just need to be clear on that.

In 2006, Democrats were saying ‘build that fence

https://www.bostonglobe.com/news/politi ... story.html

WASHINGTON — As a senator, Barack Obama once offered measured praise for the border control legislation that would become the basis for one of Donald Trump’s first acts as president.

“The bill before us will certainly do some good,” Obama said on the Senate floor in October 2006. He praised the legislation, saying it would provide “better fences and better security along our borders” and would “help stem some of the tide of illegal immigration in this country.”

Obama was talking about the Secure Fence Act of 2006, legislation authorizing a barrier along the southern border passed into law with the support of 26 Democratic senators including party leaders like Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, and Chuck Schumer.

Now it’s become the legal mechanism for Trump to order construction of a wall between the United States and Mexico, attempting tomake good on a key promise from the campaign trail. Trump specifically cited the law in the first sentence of Wednesday’s executive order authorizing the wall.

Donald Trump’s Explanation To Tucker Carlson On Wiretapping Allegation Is A Rambling Mess

Donald Trump was given a gift.

He was interviewed by Tucker Carlson of Fox News.

While not a sycophant like Sean Hannity, Carlson is still going to provide a relatively friendly atmosphere for the President.

It should have been a home run for President Trump instead he flailed about and didn’t do himself any favors.

Not only did he ramble, he outright lied as well.

Here is a partial transcript:

Carlson: So on March 4th, 6:35 in the morning, you’re down in Florida, and you tweet, the former administration wiretapped me, surveilled me, at Trump Tower during the last election.

How did you find out? You said, I just found out. How did you learn that?

Trump: Well, I’ve been reading about things.

I read in, I think it was Jan. 20th, a New York Times article where they were talking about wiretapping.

There was an article. I think they used that exact term. I read other things.

I watched your friend Bret Baier the day previous where he was talking about certain very complex sets of things happening, and wiretapping.

I said, wait a minute, there’s a lot of wiretapping being talked about.

I’ve been seeing a lot of things.

Now, for the most part, I’m not going to discuss it, because we have it before the committee and we will be submitting things before the committee very soon that hasn’t been submitted as of yet.

But it’s potentially a very serious situation.

Carlson: Why not wait to tweet about it until you can prove it?

Don’t you devalue your words when you can’t provide evidence?

Trump: Well, because the New York Times wrote about it. Not that I respect the New York Times.

I call it the failing New York Times.

But they did write on Jan. 20th using the word wiretap.

Other people have come out with…

Carlson: Right, but you’re the president. You have the ability to gather all the evidence you want.

Trump: I do. I do. But I think that frankly we have a lot right now.

And I think if you watch—if you watched the Bret Baier and what he was saying and what he was talking about and how he mentioned the word “wiretap,” you would feel very confident that you could mention the name.

He mentioned it. And other people have mentioned it.

But if you take a look at some of the things written about wiretapping and eavesdropping… and don’t forget I say wiretapping, those words were in quotes.

That really covers—because wiretapping is pretty old-fashioned stuff—but that really covers surveillance and many other things.

And nobody ever talks about the fact that it was in quotes, but that’s a very important thing.

But wire tape covers a lot of different things.

I think you’re going to find some very interesting items coming to the forefront over the next two weeks.

This is where President Trump makes me nervous.

He’s used the “Other people have said it” excuse for unfounded allegations he’s said before.

For example, in the case of supposed voter fraud, he stated in an interview with ABC News, “lots of people are saying they saw things happen.”

It’s as if he believes as long as he thinks somebody is levying an accusation of some kind, it’s safe for him to repeat it.

Also, what is it with him and “things?”

In the course of a little over a minute, the President said “things,” eight times.

“We’re submitting things.” What things?

It makes almost no sense and Carlson should have followed up on that.

The worst part is President Trump flat out lies about the “quotes.”

Look at what he says:

“…and don’t forget I say wiretapping, those words were in quotes.”

He follows up with, “And nobody ever talks about the fact that it was in quotes, but that’s a very important thing.”

His statement is a flat out lie.

Nobody ever talks about his tweets about wiretapping to be in quotes because everybody can see there were no quotes.

** Update: Trump used quotes in two of the tweets and in others he did not:

In this one and this one he did.

But he also tweeted specifically about his phones being “tapped.” –

“I’d bet a good lawyer could make a great case out of the fact that President Obama was tapping my phones in October, just prior to Election!” and “How low has President Obama gone to tapp my phones during the very sacred election process. This is Nixon/Watergate. Bad (or sick) guy!”

He made specific allegations about his phones being tapped which would not cover “a lot of different things.”

Carlson gave Trump an opening to say, “I misspoke” or “Yeah, I may have gone too far there” but instead the President lied to make it appear as if people misunderstood and what he said was correct.

Why? Because they’ll be “submitting things before the committee.”

http://www.redstate.com/jaycaruso/2017/ ... ling-mess/

Misty » 19 Mar 2017 10:52 am » wrote:Donald Trump’s Explanation To Tucker Carlson On Wiretapping Allegation Is A Rambling Mess

Donald Trump was given a gift.

He was interviewed by Tucker Carlson of Fox News.

While not a sycophant like Sean Hannity, Carlson is still going to provide a relatively friendly atmosphere for the President.

It should have been a home run for President Trump instead he flailed about and didn’t do himself any favors.

Not only did he ramble, he outright lied as well.

Here is a partial transcript:
This is where President Trump makes me nervous.

He’s used the “Other people have said it” excuse for unfounded allegations he’s said before.

For example, in the case of supposed voter fraud, he stated in an interview with ABC News, “lots of people are saying they saw things happen.”

It’s as if he believes as long as he thinks somebody is levying an accusation of some kind, it’s safe for him to repeat it.

Also, what is it with him and “things?”

In the course of a little over a minute, the President said “things,” eight times.

“We’re submitting things.” What things?

It makes almost no sense and Carlson should have followed up on that.

The worst part is President Trump flat out lies about the “quotes.”

Look at what he says:

“…and don’t forget I say wiretapping, those words were in quotes.”

He follows up with, “And nobody ever talks about the fact that it was in quotes, but that’s a very important thing.”

His statement is a flat out lie.

Nobody ever talks about his tweets about wiretapping to be in quotes because everybody can see there were no quotes.

** Update: Trump used quotes in two of the tweets and in others he did not:

In this one and this one he did.

But he also tweeted specifically about his phones being “tapped.” –

“I’d bet a good lawyer could make a great case out of the fact that President Obama was tapping my phones in October, just prior to Election!” and “How low has President Obama gone to tapp my phones during the very sacred election process. This is Nixon/Watergate. Bad (or sick) guy!”

He made specific allegations about his phones being tapped which would not cover “a lot of different things.”

Carlson gave Trump an opening to say, “I misspoke” or “Yeah, I may have gone too far there” but instead the President lied to make it appear as if people misunderstood and what he said was correct.

Why? Because they’ll be “submitting things before the committee.”

http://www.redstate.com/jaycaruso/2017/ ... ling-mess/

Who got the butter for the popcorn? Criticizism for granting interviews to friendly networks and hosts. This is rich!

Misty » 19 Mar 2017 10:52 am » wrote:
This is where President Trump makes me nervous.

He’s used the “Other people have said it” excuse for unfounded allegations he’s said before.

Hey psycho, the NYTimes reported that Trump Tower was "wiretapped." One of many such stories.

But you're too dishonest to acknowledge that Trump should be able to rely on that story.

Unless you're claiming that the "paper of record" was incompetent or lying.

Misty » 19 Mar 2017 10:52 am » wrote:Carlson gave Trump an opening to say, “I misspoke” or “Yeah, I may have gone too far there” but instead the President lied to make it appear as if people misunderstood and what he said was correct.

Why? Because they’ll be “submitting things before the committee.”

When it comes to your evidence-free accusation of collaboration with the Russians, you brush that off by saying it's still being investigated.


When Trump cites NYTimes and other stories as well as evidence he apparently has, you accuse him of lying.

Proving that you're the liar.

Misty needs to learn the difference between a lie and foolishly reacting to a news article.

Lies are things like you can keep your plan if you like your plan when you know that 40-70 of Americans would lose their current policy.

That's a lie.

Ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee, Adam Schiff, on Meet The Press today:

CHUCK TODD: When FBI Director James Comey testifies before the House Intelligence Committee tomorrow, we can expect to hear about two stories that have dominated the news.

1) Evidence that the Russians interfered with the 2016 election, perhaps on behalf of the Trump campaign and
2.) the committee has asked the FBI to turn over any evidence it has to support President Trump's allegations that President Obama wiretapped Trump Tower prior to the election.

Congressman Adam Schiff is the ranking Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee.

You will see him a lot tomorrow. And he joins me here now for a preview.
Congressman Schiff, welcome back to the show.

REP. ADAM SCHIFF: Thanks. Great to be with you.

CHUCK TODD: Let me start with your two witnesses tomorrow are going to be the FBI director and the National Security Agency Director Mike Rogers. What do you hope - what light will be shed tomorrow, do you hope?

REP. ADAM SCHIFF: I think for a lot of Americans this will be the first time to really tune in to exactly what the Russians did and what the investigation involves and I'd like to walk through with both directors: What do we know about the Russian operation? What was its breadth?

REP. ADAM SCHIFF: We know it was hacking and dumping of documents. We know their slick use of their media campaign.

But more than that I think we want to share with the country why we're so concerned about the issue of US person involvement.

Were there US persons who were helping the Russians in any way. Was there any form of collusion?

And what can we do to protect not only ourselves in the future and our allies who are facing the same Russian onslaught right now?

CHUCK TODD: But if this is an ongoing investigation by the counter-terrorism unit in the FBI. What do you think Dir. Comey can say publically?

REP. ADAM SCHIFF: Well, on the issue of collusion he'll probably be the most limited in what he can share, but there's a lot he can tell us about the Russian motivations for their intervention in our election, how the Russians operate in Europe, what techniques they use and what we should be on the lookout for in our investigation in Europe and other places we've seen them use blackmail, use compromise, use the natives of those foreign countries that they're intervening in, how they use paid social media trolls, so the full range of Russian intervention and what that looks like.

So I think fleshing out why this ought to matter to Americans. I think people need to understand we are in a global war of ideas.

It's not communism vs. capitalism, but it is authoritarianism vs. democracy and Putin is very much at the vanguard of that autocratic movement and that ought to concern all of us.

CHUCK TODD: Let me ask you about - you received information on Friday from the Department of Justice about President Trump's claims on wiretapping.

What can you tell us? Were you satisfied with the information they provided?

REP. ADAM SCHIFF: Well, I got a classified briefing on their response.

They delivered it after most of us had left town.

But once again no evidence to support the President's claim that he was wiretapped by his predecessor.

And you know, I have a lot of respect for Susan Collins, but I have to differ with her on this, she said we need to get to the bottom of this. We are at the bottom of this.

CHUCK TODD: Is there any bottom? We are at the bottom?

REP. ADAM SCHIFF: There is nothing at the bottom.

CHUCK TODD: Will Director Comey say that definitively tomorrow, do you expect?

REP. ADAM SCHIFF: I expect that he will. And I hope that we can put an end to this wild goose chase because what the president said was just patently false.

And the wrecking ball it created now has banged into our British allies and our German allies, it's continuing to grow in terms of damage, and he needs to put an end to this.

I suspect what's really at root here, Chuck, is this is just how the president does business.

Now maybe this is the way he conducted his real estate business with half-truths and sometimes no-truths, and a lot of bluster.

That, in my opinion, is no way to run a business. But it's an even worse way to run a country.

It's dangerous to us, it's already alienating allies, and as George Will so correctly pointed out, when there is a crisis over North Korea or Iran or whatnot, and every president has one in their term, we need to be able to believe our president and he's making it very, very difficult.

CHUCK TODD: I want to get to the point of, look, collusion is sort of what hasn't been proven here between whatever the Russians did and the Trump campaign.

In fact, the former acting director of the C.I.A., Mike Morell, who was a supporter of Hillary Clinton, he essentially reminded people, took Director Clapper at his word on this show who said, "There has been no evidence that has been found of collusion."

Are we at the point of, at what point do you start to wonder if there is a fire to all this smoke?

REP. ADAM SCHIFF: Well, first of all, I was surprised to see Director Clapper say that, because I don't think you can make that claim categorically, as he did.

I would characterize it this way, at the outset of the investigation, there was circumstantial evidence of collusion. There was direct evidence, I think, of deception.

And that's where we begin the investigation.

Now I don't want to prejudge where we ultimately end up, and of course, there's one thing to say there's evidence.

There's another thing to say we can prove this or prove it beyond a reasonable doubt, or there's enough evidence to bring to a grand jury for purposes of criminal indictment.

But there was certainly enough for us to conduct an investigation.

The American people have a right to know, and in order to defend ourselves, we need to know whether the circumstantial evidence of collusion and direct evidence of deception is indicative of more.

CHUCK TODD: Well I want to get to the witness list here. You have subpoena power if you choose to use it. But you and Congressman Nunes need to come to an agreement on that. Is he willing to use subpoena power?

REP. ADAM SCHIFF: He's going to have to be willing to use subpoena power, because there will be people we need to bring in before the committee who may not be willing witnesses.

And if we're going to do this credibly, and right now, we're the only game in town, we and the Senate Intelligence Committee, we're going to need the power of compulsion.

You know, I still think we have a lot of spade work to do before that.

You don't want to bring the witnesses in before you've reviewed the evidence that you want to question them with.

You may only get one shot at the witnesses. But we're going to have to do that.

CHUCK TODD: But you guys seem far behind.

The Senate Intel Committee has already been asking Roger Stone, a one-time advisor of President Trump, who admitted some at least communication with Julian Assange of WikiLeaks.

He's been ordered to preserve documents, sort of to make sure he doesn't destroy any documents, sort of, perhaps he is going to be subpoenaed by them.

Have you done that with any, have you formally sent letters to any potential witnesses to say, "Hey, you need to make sure you have saved any documents related to the campaign or Russia"?

REP. ADAM SCHIFF: You know, I think we were the first to send letters to the U.S. government to tell them to preserve evidence.

CHUCK TODD: What about outside folks? So Mike Flynn, Carter Page, Roger Stone?

REP. ADAM SCHIFF: We have not yet sent letters to individuals. And I think it's a good practice.

I'm not sure that if you have someone who wants to hide, that that letter's going to have the effect that it ought to.

But nonetheless, there is a great deal that we are doing.

And I think in some respects, we are ahead of where this Senate investigation is, in some respects, they're ahead of where we are.

I do think, look, at the end of the day, the real question where the rubber will really hit the road, is as you suggest, when we have to use compulsion to get documents that we need, to bring in witnesses.

I hope the answer is going to be yes from the majority. I also do think though--

CHUCK TODD: But right now, you have not been given that authority?

REP. ADAM SCHIFF: Well, we haven't asked for it.

CHUCK TODD: Or you haven't asked for it? Okay.

REP. ADAM SCHIFF: To subpoena certain witnesses. But we will be. There are a lot of witnesses that we're going to want to--

CHUCK TODD: Devin Nunes agrees with you on this?

REP. ADAM SCHIFF: Well, he's going to have to. Otherwise we really can't do our job.

CHUCK TODD: Which means he doesn't yet agree with you on it?

REP. ADAM SCHIFF: Oh, you know, I don't want to say that.

CHUCK TODD: Okay.

REP. ADAM SCHIFF: You know, we hammered out a very detailed agreement that allows us to look into issues like collusion with U.S. persons, people in the Trump campaign.

That's what we wanted, that's what we got, and we have to hold him to that commitment.

CHUCK TODD: Adam Schiff, the top Democrat on House Intel, we'll be watching your hearing tomorrow. Thanks for coming on today.

REP. ADAM SCHIFF: You bet.

http://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/m ... 17-n735421

REP. ADAM SCHIFF: I would characterize it this way, at the outset of the investigation, there was circumstantial evidence of collusion.

There was direct evidence, I think, of deception.

That's what I keep saying.
People who are being deceptive have something to hide.
If it's not collusion, it could be something else.