Last Commented Politics Blogs (944)

It's been a blast of political news stories this weekend about Mueller, Manafort, Cohen and Trump. I have to ask myself "Have we passed the point of speculation?"

Carl Bernstein interview:



All along I was thinking SYNERGY was just a software company!

The bottom line remains this: Trump did not violate federal campaign finance laws. Why? Because the payments to Daniels and McDougal amounted to a “private transaction,” as the president himself acknowledged, for a purpose he believed to be unrelated to politics.

The president is correct that the payments had nothing to do with politics, and everything to do with brand management.

The “Trump” name is a brand, and that brand is big business. Protecting that brand’s reputation is critical to the business that uses it – just as it is for brands like Pepsi-Cola or United Airlines.

The fact that the man whose name is Trump happened to be a political candidate did not magically transform brand management into a campaign contribution.

Whatever money was paid out was clearly done to protect “Trump” the corporate brand – not Trump the political candidate, just as the Trump business has done before.

In the Justice Department’s memorandum not a single shred of evidence was presented to explain how a legal business expense became an illegal campaign contribution. Speculation, I repeat, 'speculation' is not enough to prosecute so-called “campaign finance violations.” Prosecutors in the SDNY will have a very hard time proving otherwise and making the case for a felony charge.

NOT HAPPENING!!

If you're in the liberal camp that the President is in legal jeopardy with the Cohen case then you may want to check out this video and interpret it without the loonie leftist spin. In other words, listen to what he's saying, not what you want to hear.

In the video Judge Napolitano points out that 'IF' Trump paid his lawyer to commit a crime, under the law, that makes him as criminally liable as Michael Cohen. Problem is, (for the loonies) there is no crime since there is no violation of campaign financing laws. A candidate is allowed to spend his own money however he chooses, even to protect his reputation or his campaign. The loonies, always protecting their moral high ground, may not like it but the rule of law wins out....not some wishful thinking from the dreamers. Larger issues not withstanding...lol.

Specifically, what Judge Nap is saying is that the case is independent of the Mullet probe. However, the case is trying to be made by the prosecutors of the SDNY. IF they have sufficient evidence that a crime was commited, a crime that goes beyond campaign financing,
and can show intent to mislead the public then there is a felony, but as it stands now there is no violation of financing laws. Cohen has pled guilty to a crime that is not on the books...no statute.

The problem with liberals is they don't comprehend what they read, which is to say they comprehend only what they want to read. AND, if it doesn't fit with their narrative they spin it, ignore it, or in the case of the dimwits who can't stand to be wrong......delete it.

Judge Andrew Napolitano is a Fox News Senior Judicial analyst but not a fan of President Trump.

Many will miss Biff blogs and comments, but I feel her pain. I too worry about the strident near crazy talk on both sides of the policies (and the crazy tweets) that the US administration has become. Having held my nose to vote for him (fingers not all too tight, considering the Dem alternatives of family wide sociopathy---Monica's destroyed life and Bengazi; and moonbat socialist economics---Bernie, who actually was the most human of all). I still can see the many positives, yet am not blind to the downsides of trumpismso. Finally, someone at the helm who is trying to do what he said he would. Long dysfunctional, fat drunk Ted Kennedy non-policies on uncontrolled guest worker arrangements; silly half century acquiescence to PRC mercantile trade relations( c'mon, 51% control of joint ventures and turn over of all trade/production proprietary secrets?!), sensible infrastructure, a long list of much else. Presidents have all waxed misleading on such, without much follow through. Do the means justify the (possible) ends? I see analogies with new leadership in a failing industry. Without the tough medicine, the factories continue to close, literally, and metaphorically. The wags/workers piss and moan, vehemantly so, but without the courage FINALLY to reset course, the plant, and ship of state, are on the rocks. It boils down, for me, to allowing the basic lobbyist run corruption (under a myriad of disguises/ruses) to continue, or actually trying to shake things up some. Thus, the true meaning behind the "remaking great/draining swamps", sometimes seemingly ungrounded, talk. The ancients knew of this, and evolved the concept of courage in leadership. Lots of sleepless nights, with such leaders. Sadly, many just want to keep on comfortly dreaming.

Ahead of a planned White House meeting with the top Democrats from the House and Senate, President Trump on Tuesday warned that "the Military will build the remaining sections of the Wall" if Congress balks.

In a blitz of posts on Twitter, Trump said Democrats don't want the wall because they prefer "open Borders for anyone to come in." And he said huge sections of the barrier have already been built or renovated, which kept thousands of refugees from crossing the U.S.-Mexico border in recent days.

"Despite the large Caravans that WERE forming and heading to our Country, people have not been able to get through our newly built Walls, makeshift Walls & Fences, or Border Patrol Officers & Military. They are now staying in Mexico or going back to their original countries......." he wrote.

Trump's strong stance comes on a day when he'll meet with Rep. Nancy Pelosi, expected to become the new Speaker of the House when Democrats take over next year, and Sen. Chuck Schumer, minority leader in the Senate. Trump pointed out that they both voted for stronger border measures in 2006, when George W. Bush was president.

".....I look forward to my meeting with Chuck Schumer & Nancy Pelosi. In 2006, Democrats voted for a Wall, and they were right to do so. Today, they no longer want Border Security. They will fight it at all cost, and Nancy must get votes for Speaker. But the Wall will get built..." he wrote on Twitter.

Read article and see tweets:

Radoslaw Sikorski was one of the founders of the Eastern Partnership, a joint policy initiative which aims to deepen and strengthen relations between the EU, its member states and its six eastern neighbours: Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Georgia, Moldova and Ukraine.
“This was the first big political project that Poland persuaded the whole EU to adopt,” he says proudly.
*
Former Polish foreign and defence minister Radoslaw Sikorski speaks to Emerging Europe about his new book, the current state of Poland, Brexit and his potential return to politics.
...
Polish politics
...
“I mean they only won by fluke, by the incompetence of the left in particular who went into the last elections as four different groups, and not a single one passed the parliamentary threshold. I hope they have learned their lessons.”
Much of the support that PiS can count on comes partly from its tough anti-immigration stance, something which Mr Sikorski believes is hypocritical.
“We are a country of migrants, and have been for 300 years,” he says. “Just about every generation has produced a wave of people who were given asylum somewhere else, including me: I was a refugee in the UK. So for our leaders to be using this kind of anti-foreigner sentiment, particularly against people fleeing war in Syria, is unbecoming a Pole. It is un-Polish. In addition to that our church is no longer Catholic, it is a nationalist sect. We have senior clergymen praying for the Pope to die.”

Brexit
...
“It’s a national folly,” he says. “It’s the last gasp of English exceptionalism and of English arrogance, because it’s a product of misinformation and lack of understanding of how the EU actually works. I mean the leave campaign targeted the Indian community and the Commonwealth community, which have nothing to do with the EU.”
He does accept, however, that the huge numbers of Poles who went to live and work in the UK after Poland joined the EU did play a role in the outcome of the Brexit vote.
...
“I have been saying this for months, that the ruling party [in Poland] is in danger of repeating the British mistake, namely leaving the EU by accident. Attacking the EU to score internal politics comes at a huge cost, as the British government has found out.”
If there is to be any silver lining to Brexit at all it will be that lessons can be learned.
“You play with these nationalist feelings at your peril, for the public may just believe in your propaganda,” says Mr Sikorski.

Eastern Partnership and foreign policy

Sikorski was one of the founders of the Eastern Partnership, a joint policy initiative which aims to deepen and strengthen relations between the EU, its member states and its six eastern neighbours: Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Georgia, Moldova and Ukraine.
“This was the first big political project that Poland persuaded the whole EU to adopt,” he says proudly.
“The EU has already spent billions of euros on the Eastern Partnership, managing borders, investing in infrastructure, providing aid for small businesses, preparing countries for visa-free travel and for the EU free tradezone as well as offering advice with legislation. Thanks to the success of the programme’s first decade, Ukraine will now be more closely integrated with the EU than Britain.”
...
"Poland needs to re-establish the EU credentials which have been destroyed by the current government.”
Mr Sikorski could be one of the key individuals driving that process. The main Polish opposition party, Civic Platform, has been discussing the possibility of his return to politics, as a candidate for election to the European Parliament next year. While Mr Sikorski is still toying with the idea, he nevertheless believes that change is certain, and that PiS is on the way out.
“We are going to win,” he says.
***
Full interview on Emerging Europe:

An arrogant politician expressing contempt for Donald Trump and his supporters experienced a surprising and humiliating defeat in late 2016 in our presidential election. A corresponding scenario seems to be playing itself out again in Paris.

A year and a half ago, in the wake of President Trump leaving the Paris Climate Accord, France's President Emmanuel Macron asked for a fight on climate change, in an address delivered in English, making it clear that his target was Donald Trump and the American electorate. As Andrew Bolt, writing for the Herald-Sun in Australia, noted, he asked for a fight and "he got one" – but against his own citizens rebelling against taxation intended to drive them from their cars. His words, "France will not give up the fight," have come back to haunt him.

CBS provides a partial transcript, making it clear that Macron was sticking his nose into American politics, appealing to anti-Trump people to come to France to continue the struggle:

French President Emmanuel Macron blasted President Trump Thursday for pulling the U.S. out of the Paris climate agreement and offered a "second homeland" to those who are disappointed by the decision.

"Tonight, I wish to tell the United States: France believes in you. The world believes in you. I know that you are a great nation. I know your history, our common history," Macron said in a statement, delivered in English, posted on Twitter.

"To all scientists, engineers, entrepreneurs, responsible citizens who were disappointed by the decision of the president of the United States, I want to say that they will find in France a second homeland," Macron said. "I call on them, come and work here with us to work together on concrete solutions for our climate, our environment. I can assure you France will not give up the fight."

Here is a video of his English-language address (regrettably voiced over by a translator speaking French, but you can still hear the English). (Hat tip: Andrew Bolt.)

Macron subsequently insulted President Trump in front of world leaders commemorating the hundred-years anniversary of the end of World War I by denouncing "nationalism" and making it clear he meant Trump's avowal of being a nationalist.

As anyone paying attention to Trump for the last three years knows, his policy is to hit back twice as hard when attacked. And hit back he did over the weekend, as Macron's citizenry rose in revolt in the streets of Paris.

Full article:

Nato accuses Russia of breaking nuclear missile treaty

6 hours ago from BBC



Image copyrightEPAImage caption

Russia denies building missiles that violate the accord

Western military alliance Nato has formally accused Russia of breaching the 1987 Intermediate-range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty, which banned land-based nuclear missiles in Europe.

Following a meeting, Nato foreign ministers issued a statement supporting US accusations of Russian violations.

The US has threatened to withdraw from the treaty because of Russian actions.

Note: NATO only acted on it after Trump's decision to withdraw.

All you hard core Trump supporters, you think he is good for America, fair enough. But do you like him as a human being. Do you think he's a nice person? A good person? An honest person?

I've been busy with work and preparing for a move so I haven't followed the funeral for President George H.W. Bush. I heard the story on the morning news in my car. They described Engine 4141 a funeral train going 70 miles from Spring to College Station where people can line up along the stops to view the flag draped casket and give their last goodbyes.

An interesting bit of history found on one news clip "Bush’s funeral train procession is the first since 1969, when President Dwight D. Eisenhower was taken by railroad from Washington to his burial place in Kansas."