The Meetings That Nobody’s Talking About | Raucous Caucus | Tom Cushing | PleasantonWeekly.com |

Local Blogs

Raucous Caucus

By Tom Cushing

E-mail Tom Cushing

About this blog: The Raucous Caucus shares the southpaw perspectives of this Boomer on the state of the nation, the world, and, sometimes, other stuff. I enjoy crafting it to keep current, and occasionally to rant on some issue I care about deeply...  (More)

View all posts from Tom Cushing

The Meetings That Nobody’s Talking About

Uploaded: Jul 12, 2017

Predictably, the West Wing’s walls are steadily crumbling under the crush of lies intended to sustain them, and Americans are transfixed by each new revelation*. In this era of attention-deficit, there is a risk of getting ahead of the actual evidence (although each new lie-revealed clears more pathway) – Americans like their political potboilers to arrive in binge-watchable chunks. Sober, thorough investigation takes time. That’s no fun, and it may never conclude.

That’s because the meetings that nobody’s talking about may overtake the gum-shoe ploddings of Mr. Mueller, et al. It seems that, over the course of recent weeks, Vice President Pence has convened and hosted** an ongoing series of four dinner meetings with major GOP donors and traditional supporters, at the Vice Presidential residence. More are planned.

As reported in the New York Times last week (remember last week?), “each has drawn roughly 30 to 40 guests, including a mix of wealthy donors, as well as Republican fund-raisers and executives from companies like Dow Chemical and the military contractor United Technologies. …”

“Mr. Pence typically kicks off his dinners with a cocktail hour at which he recounts the history of the taxpayer-funded residence, followed by a brief assessment of his administration’s legislative and foreign policy agendas and a question-and-answer session, according to guests. After people are seated for dinner at four or five separate tables, they said, Mr. Pence makes his way around the room, chatting for a few minutes with each guest.”

Now, the argument can be made that this is just Mr. Pence “the ultimate team player” according to a fellow Hoosier, dutifully shoring-up support for his boss, who largely eschewed fealty to the donor class as part of his faux-populist persona.

But wait, there’s more.

Mr. Pence was also summoned to a private tete-a-tete with Charles Koch in Colorado Springs last month, as part of the Koch Brothers secretive annual convention of Dark Money legionnaires. The vaunted Kochtopus, whose resources rival those of the GOP itself, has famously distanced itself from Mr. Pence’s boss, who belittled his primary opponents as they supplicated for its organizational and financial assistance.

Further, the Koch front group Americans for Prosperity (AFP) skillfully supported Mr. Pence during his troubled gubernatorial administration in Indiana. In the midst of an internal GOP budget battle, AFP “staged town hall meetings in the districts of vulnerable lawmakers, convened raucous rallies outside the Capitol and ran hundreds of thousands of dollars-worth of ads against Republicans. The resulting deal was Mr. Pence’s first major victory as governor.”

“‘Americans for Prosperity made a difference in the Hoosier State,’ Mr. Pence told an audience at the group’s national conference in 2014, calling it ‘the finest grass-roots organization in the United States of America.’”

And finally, just yesterday, the Veep put out a press release reminding the American People that DiJiTs Jr.’s matinee with the Russian lawyer occurred prior to Mr. Pence joining the ticket. Marc Lotter, Pence’s press secretary, said, “The vice president was not aware of the meeting.” “He is not focused on stories about the campaign, particularly stories about the time before he joined the ticket,” the press statement said.

So sure, maybe those meetings, ties and the timely press release are all simply in service to the Administration. But maybe they are groundwork for a succession to the Oval Office - long before Mr. Mueller connects all the dots with Russian oligarchs dating back two decades, and leading inexorably to the recent shameless attack on American democratic institutions.

For the “follow the money” crowd in which I stand, maybe the donors meetings and the Koch session are designed to position Mr. Pence as the sane alternative to the current chaos - a traditional Republican with traditional GOP values, who can be trusted with the traditional GOP agenda they have worked so hard to craft.

Those donors and the Kochtopus have invested strategically, and heavily, over several decades in the creation of the current GOPer majorities. Those majorities are precious, may be fleeting, and are currently being squandered by the self-obsessed flailer of the free world. I continue to believe that the puppet masters, as Mr. Trump calls them, will shortly pull the strings on the plug of his tenure.

Mr. Pence appears to be doing his best to help his President circle the drain.


* Very separately, the Labor Department has been at a loss to explain a recent stall in the economy’s productivity. They need look no further than the country’s rapt pre-occupation with the serial calamities of the Trump administration. It’s awfully tough to keep-up, And turn-out new widgets at the same time.

** with his wife, of course – in case stray ladies might be present.

Comments

 +   11 people like this
Posted by American, a resident of Danville,
on Jul 12, 2017 at 10:38 am

"with his wife, of course-in case stray ladies might be present".
What is that suppose to mean???

By all accounts, Mike Pence is a proud devout Christian, who is happily married to his long time wife, and in a loving and loyal marriage. There is ZERO evidence or even rumors or fake news that Mike Pence is anything but a dedicated and loyal and loving husband. You may not like his political views, but suggesting he is Bill Clintonesque and committing adultery with everything that moves, is even beneath your usual false ramblings.


 +   9 people like this
Posted by Karl Aitken, a resident of Pleasanton Valley,
on Jul 12, 2017 at 10:47 am

I guess we are starting the transition from Trump Hate to Pence Hate.

I really enjoyed your last post - a much more positive and worthwhile topic.


 +   10 people like this
Posted by Tom Cushing, a resident of Alamo,
on Jul 12, 2017 at 11:12 am

Am: please settle down. Unlike others, I do not have Mr. Clinton-on-the-brain.

Perhaps you missed it, but there was a Lot of coverage a few months ago (granted that that's several epochs in this Administration) about the agreement between Mr. and Mrs. Pence that he would not meet alone, or dine with women unless his wife was present. Here's a link:Web Link

Personally, I think that's asymmetrical, untrusting, antediluvian and a silly impediment to the equal treatment of women professionally. But I do not think it implies any history of infidelity - they appear to be happy together. Too bad you got the wrong impression - try to keep up!

Karl: glad you enjoyed the other column. I actually think that these developments are a pretty canny set of moves by Mr. Pence, and I believe he would/will, in fact, be a better steward of GOP interests. I also think he's wrong about many policy choices, but opposition is far from "hate." I do admire the deft positioning that he's undertaking.


 +   1 person likes this
Posted by Scott Hale, a resident of San Ramon,
on Jul 12, 2017 at 11:59 am

Scott Hale is a registered user.

Is this Pence's way of distancing himself from Trump. Maybe to avoid the whole tar and feather routine? Won't work. He's done little to rein in Trump from constant shooting himself in the foot and bad PR. Pence does have a few brain cells that do spark and he seems to know how to do the whole politician dance whereas Trump and his crew are quite clueless.
No matter, Pence is tainted by Trump and no amount of meetings and/or hand shaking with zillionaires he will still be part of whatever the next chaos drip drip will be.


 +   5 people like this
Posted by Karl Aitken, a resident of Pleasanton Valley,
on Jul 12, 2017 at 1:10 pm

Tom - fair enough.

I am a recovering Republican, actually registered non-partisan due to having concerns with both major parties.

I know we see lots of details around BIG BUSINESS dollars influencing elections, etc. Have you ever done any research on the BIG UNION dollars influencing elections?

I'm always trying to get my head around why some people (not necessarily you) think Union money is OK but not Big Business.

After all, they are both special interest groups trying to influence with there big bank accounts.

I'd appreciate your sharing your thoughts.


 +   10 people like this
Posted by American, a resident of Danville,
on Jul 12, 2017 at 3:06 pm

So much for Tom's prior pledge to stop the "personal attacks" and focus on the actual issues. With Trump you attack his skin color and hair, and now with Mike Pence you attack his marriage and marital decision with his wife as " silly". What possible relevance does that have to do with anything, other than to serve as a cheap personal attack on a man of character who is happily married to his FIRST wife. Should you, Tom, be giving advice on the keys to a lasting and happy marriage, and deciding what is " silly"? It is especially ironic that as a proud liberal privacy rights are suppose be your mantra, so where do you get off on criticizing someone else's marriage relationship?

Again, if you have an issue with Mike Pence's political views and issues, that is fair game, criticize away. But if you want to have any credibility with your non liberal readers, try to stay away from cheap personal attacks, and stay on the actual issues.


 +  Like this comment
Posted by Sam, a resident of Oak Hill,
on Jul 12, 2017 at 3:16 pm

Tom, I like your essays but sometimes it seems that you're just out of sync with what's going on in the news. Why are you writing about "The Meetings That Nobody's Talking About" when the much, much bigger story now is the "Meeting that Everyone is Talking About"?

You know what I'm referring to. It's been front page news on all the major news sites.


 +   1 person likes this
Posted by Sam, a resident of Oak Hill,
on Jul 12, 2017 at 3:32 pm

@American

If you're a Trump supporter (as I think that you are) then I'm amazed that you can claim with a straight face to be taking the high road and be offended by someone else engaging in "cheap personal attacks". What color is the sky in your world?


 +   10 people like this
Posted by American, a resident of Danville,
on Jul 12, 2017 at 3:43 pm

@ Sam:
As I have noted repeatedly, I did not vote for Trump in the primary, I was a Marco Rubio supporter, and I was appalled at Trump's personal attacks on others, especially on war hero John McCain. His personal attacks on others are inexcusable. However, on the actual issues, such as supporting law enforcement, improving national security & our military capabilities, lowering taxes & regulations, and enforcing our immigration laws, I support Trump.


 +  Like this comment
Posted by Tom Cushing, a resident of Alamo,
on Jul 12, 2017 at 3:46 pm

Hi Karl - I have a few impressions of unions that might be useful. Their heyday was in the 1960s +/- when manufacturing was king and they represented more than 1/3 of the workforce. At the time, neither unions nor corps could contribute to federal elections, so their stroke came from being able to deliver a very large bloc of voters.

Now their influence is far less (9% or so nationally, more in CA) in a different economy, where most of their recent growth has been in the public sector (e.g., you can't outsource the DMV). They still deliver voters, esp. around here, although not so much in the Rust Belt recently. Open secrets.org has a massive amount of data on election money - a quick look indicated that together, unions contributed more than $150M last round - I'd like to have it, but it is dwarfed by the Koch Brothers who spent almost $1B all by themselves - plus all the many other business interests and sectors that spent big money. Which is not to imply that the Dems are penniless - the total giving was kind of balanced, but the distortions are rampant, including the favoring of incumbents and the drowning-out of voices who lack those resources.

Big money in campaigns is a scourge, but as long as the Supremes say money = speech, the distortions it causes will continue. Enough?


 +  Like this comment
Posted by Sam, a resident of Oak Hill,
on Jul 12, 2017 at 3:48 pm

@American

I understand. But if you're going to start taking people to task for "cheap personal attacks", then you know who to start with. No use trying to ignore the elephant in the room and trying to pretend he doesn't exist. Trying to ignore him or giving him a pass because you happen to agree with many of his policies just makes it look like you're applying double standards when it come to criticizing "cheap personal attacks".


 +   2 people like this
Posted by Tom Cushing, a resident of Alamo,
on Jul 12, 2017 at 4:06 pm

Sam - it's exactly because everybody else IS writing about those meetings. I don't have a different angle on it, and don't intend pure regurgitation of news. I try to do opinion stuff here. Besides, this thread will eventually devolve to a discussion of DiJiTs Jr., anyway (that one's for you, Am - surprised you've missed it so far!).

My other defense is that these ignored meetings may prove to be equally important in attempting to establish Mr. Pence's separate 'brand.' We'll see.

And Am: to be complete, I didn't say 'silly;' I said I think it's asymmetrical, untrusting, antediluvian AND a silly impediment to the equal treatment of women professionally (not the same thing as 'silly'). It's not private, but was volunteered as part of an in-depth interview in a widely read daily newspaper, with weeks of commentary thereafter about that factoid in particular. My note was not an 'attack,' either - just a snarky little footnote, to maybe delight a few and annoy the humor-impaired. Finally, I neither know nor care how many marriages either of them has had, although there's some evidence that he's her Number 2. You could look it up - I will not.


 +  Like this comment
Posted by Karl Aitken, a resident of Pleasanton Valley,
on Jul 12, 2017 at 4:26 pm

Thanks!


 +   8 people like this
Posted by Resident, a resident of Laguna Oaks,
on Jul 12, 2017 at 4:33 pm

Koch Industries political donations 2016: Web Link

Totals $11m+ via Open Secrets

It seems your number might include bundling but this is what Koch is directly contributing to political campaigns.


 +   12 people like this
Posted by Resident, a resident of Laguna Oaks,
on Jul 12, 2017 at 4:51 pm

4 of the top 5 individual donors in 2016 donated exclusively to Democrats.

Of the top 100 individual donors, Charles Koch came in at 53.
Web Link

His brother didn't make the list.

Your Koch fixation is not supported by the data.


 +  Like this comment
Posted by Tom Cushing, a resident of Alamo,
on Jul 12, 2017 at 4:55 pm

Hi Resident: yup - both numbers are in the ball park for 2016, and the dark money $900M total is more than what the two major parties each spent.

“It's no wonder the candidates show up when the Koch brothers call," said David Axelrod, a former senior adviser to Mr. Obama. “That's exponentially more money than any party organization will spend. In many ways, they have superseded the party."

Web Link

There's actually a whole, exhaustively researched book on the subject called "Dark Money." It's an impressive, ruthless enterprise.


 +   12 people like this
Posted by Resident, a resident of Laguna Oaks,
on Jul 12, 2017 at 5:11 pm

Bundling is not "dark" money.

Neither is it illegal.

The fact that conservatives (the Kochs are really libertarian) are getting better at fundraising and winning elections with less money should be a sign that the message from the democrat side is starting to wear thin with the American voter.


 +   13 people like this
Posted by Resident, a resident of Laguna Oaks,
on Jul 12, 2017 at 5:20 pm

Labor union contributions for 2015-2016
Web Link

$200m+ in donations, 99% to democrats from labor vs. $11m to republicans from Koch industries.


 +  Like this comment
Posted by Tom Cushing, a PleasantonWeekly.com blogger,
on Jul 12, 2017 at 5:27 pm

Tom Cushing is a registered user.

It is dark, and it is not illegal, as clearly indicated above.

It is, however, pernicious in my view. And if you Actually Read The Book, you may come to understand how the Dems have been badly out-played for decades on the strategy And the messaging. And the right-side money has been ample, to say the very least - pleadings of poverty, real or relative, are utterly absurd.

IOW, the Dems have been bad at politics, as indicated often in these epistles. That's not the same as saying they're wrong or out-of-step philosophically. The current 17% wealthcare bill might be considered Exhibit A.


 +   11 people like this
Posted by Resident, a resident of Laguna Oaks,
on Jul 12, 2017 at 7:40 pm

"IOW, the Dems have been bad at politics, as indicated often in these epistles. That's not the same as saying they're wrong or out-of-step philosophically."

Ok I'll bite, so what does it mean?

Is ACA bad politics, policy or philosophy? All three?
Same for the Iran deal or say Sanctuary City/State?

If you are saying that messaging would make any of these democrat ideas better, I'd really like to hear it.


 +   12 people like this
Posted by Jake Waters, a resident of Birdland,
on Jul 12, 2017 at 8:08 pm

Jake Waters is a registered user.

@Tom

There is no disguising the fact you dislike this administration, and you again get to use your column to bash them. This is typical San Jose Mercury writing, with never a positive observation unless it was the Obama administration. You went low this time Tom. For me, there really isn't anything here.


 +   2 people like this
Posted by Sam, a resident of Oak Hill,
on Jul 13, 2017 at 7:51 am

@Jake Waters :"There is no disguising the fact you dislike this administration, and you again get to use your column to bash them."

Wake up and smell the coffee. According to the polls, by a good margin most Americans dislike this administration. Even writers over at the conservative National Review dislike this administration and are writing articles harshly criticizing this administration. What, given the conduct of Trump and his administration so far you find that surprising?

I was going to say that if you don't like Tom's essays or some of those over at the National Review, then you can always go to Fox, Newsmax, and Breitbart. But the truth is that in the wake of the most recent Trump news about attempted collusion with the Russians, even a lot of people at those news places are starting to waver in their support of Trump and his administration.


 +   3 people like this
Posted by Tom Cushing, a resident of Alamo,
on Jul 13, 2017 at 8:25 am

Resident: all that 'it' means, in case it's a surprise, is that strategy, marketing and sales matter in any persuasion exercise, and the Dems have been out-played in all three. Botch the business and even the best product fails - such that ascribing Dem failures to a bad product is simplistic. Why do I suspect that you already know that (perhaps it's the willful deception in your comments about the Koch organization)?

Jake: what disguise? I've never pulled any punches about this blog's 'voice' - it's right there in the introductory description that I wrote now 300 columns ago. I think that applying terms like "dislike" and "hate" to policy disagreements cheapens the process. I try to present evidence and arguments for my opinions - agree or disagree is fine, no problem - but these blogs aren't based "like" or "dislike." Do you see the difference?


 +   9 people like this
Posted by Resident, a resident of Laguna Oaks,
on Jul 13, 2017 at 8:32 am

Poll claiming Clinton victory: Web Link

My point is the obsession with any poll is an act of confirmation bias. Read hometown favorite Scott Adams on the subject.

Can someone point to the law that says collusion is illegal? Darned if I can find any. And while you're at it, any evidence that anything illegal was done?

The blogger has a law degree, maybe he can opine?


 +   9 people like this
Posted by Jake Waters, a resident of Birdland,
on Jul 13, 2017 at 8:44 am

@ Sam
LOL! Yeah, we all know about your polls. I can find any poll to support my opinion. Again on the collusion: There are no facts to support your cause. I would ask the Dems to start working and stop playing sick from school with this agenda. You watch way too much CNN Sam. I will say this again, listen to your own kind: Allan Dershowitz.

@Tom
Keep telling yourself that.


 +   9 people like this
Posted by Resident, a resident of Laguna Oaks,
on Jul 13, 2017 at 8:52 am

My "willfull deception"? I have no idea how this accusation can be attributed to anything I wrote. Every link I posted was from a source you've cited before.

Not sure why you're on the attack, but ok.




 +  Like this comment
Posted by Sam, a resident of Oak Hill,
on Jul 13, 2017 at 8:52 am

@Resident :"Can someone point to the law that says collusion is illegal? Darned if I can find any. And while you're at it, any evidence that anything illegal was done?"

So after all the chants from Trump and all you Trump supporters that all the suspicions about collusion was just all "fake news" you're now going to the fall-back position that "OK, maybe it was collusion but at least it isn't technically illegal"? Yeah, that's a good way to appeal to voters in preparation for the next elections: "Hey! Yes, we tried to collude with a hostile foreign power in the last election to undermine our democratic institutions and traditions but at least it wasn't illegal!".

So much for all the high-minded talk about "draining the swamp" and we're not even 1/5 of the way through this Presidential term.


 +  Like this comment
Posted by Sam, a resident of Oak Hill,
on Jul 13, 2017 at 9:02 am

@Jake Waters: "Again on the collusion: There are no facts to support your cause."

You're flat out wrong and apparently haven't been following the recent news. There has been a clear case of attempted collusion with the Russians and the beauty of it all if that you can't even claim that it is "fake news" because the facts were freely supplied by none other than Trump, Jr., himself. Try to keep up.

Oh, and as far as Allan Dershowitz, it's really amusing that you Trump supporters seem to think that he's some sort of representative of liberal thought and keep cherry-picking his statements. Allan Dershowitz Is an oddball with unique views on a number of matters. The only person who consistently agrees with Allan Dershowitz is Allan Dershowitz. Even you don't agree with a lot of things that Allan Dershowitz says, either (although you like to cherry-pick the things that you do agree with).


 +   11 people like this
Posted by Resident, a resident of Laguna Oaks,
on Jul 13, 2017 at 9:04 am

@Sam: At first you claim illegality, then when asked which law was broken you completely avoid that question and instead, set up a strawman arguments in the name of Trump supporters?

You don't make a solid case for hating Trump.


 +  Like this comment
Posted by Tom Cushing, a resident of Alamo,
on Jul 13, 2017 at 9:04 am

Resident: google is your friend - you don't want my invoice. And kindly reread the part of the blog about proper investigations taking time, and that it's important not to get out ahead of the facts. DiJiTs Jr. just moved-up the schedule, but it's early, as Mueller's still in hiring phase - and it's interesting what kinds of expertise he's bringing aboard. That's for another edition of the blog - suffice it to say that the noose appears to be tightening.


 +   12 people like this
Posted by Resident, a resident of Laguna Oaks,
on Jul 13, 2017 at 9:24 am

As far as DJTjr emails, nothing would indicate a fraud was being perpetrated nor did I see any attempt of him obtaining anything that is prohited.

Did the blogger?


 +  Like this comment
Posted by Tom Cushing, a resident of Alamo,
on Jul 13, 2017 at 9:53 am

You see, Sam? The thread HAS devolved into a commentary on DiJiTs Jr. Poor Pence, I tried to get him his due.

Asked and answered, Res.


 +  Like this comment
Posted by Sam, a resident of Oak Hill,
on Jul 13, 2017 at 9:59 am

@Resident: "@Sam: At first you claim illegality...."

Making stuff up again? Where did I claim illegality? I've expressed no opinion on the legality.


 +   1 person likes this
Posted by Sam, a resident of Oak Hill,
on Jul 13, 2017 at 10:05 am

@Tom :"You see, Sam? The thread HAS devolved into a commentary on DiJiTs Jr. Poor Pence, I tried to get him his due."

Not to worry, Tom. You'll have plenty of time to talk about Pence after Trump is either impeached or he declares that he's quitting because everyone has been really mean to him.


 +   8 people like this
Posted by Resident, a resident of Laguna Oaks,
on Jul 13, 2017 at 11:41 am

Tom brings up DJTjr, then claims that the thread has devolved when someone legitimately calls him out.




 +   8 people like this
Posted by Resident, a resident of Laguna Oaks,
on Jul 13, 2017 at 11:45 am

@Sam

So now you admit there is no illegality. Then how do you get to impeachment?

Pretzel twisting or straw man in 3-2-1...


 +  Like this comment
Posted by Sam, a resident of Oak Hill,
on Jul 13, 2017 at 12:01 pm

@Resident :"So now you admit there is no illegality. Then how do you get to impeachment?"

Did you not get enough sleep last night or did you not get your morning cup of coffee? I've given no opinion one way or the other concerning the legality or illegality of Trump Jr's actions. So, no, I've made no "claims" or "admissions" on the subject.

As for the "impeachment" quip, in case you didn't get it I was just joking with Tom. Or did you also think that in that same sentence I was seriously suggesting that Trump might quit because he thinks everyone is being mean to him?


 +   3 people like this
Posted by Tom Cushing, a resident of Danville,
on Jul 13, 2017 at 12:15 pm

Tom Cushing is a registered user.

We have reached diminishing returns; I suspect I recognize a trollery pattern. Enough with the niggling. It won't stay up long. Feel free to comment on the blog.


 +   6 people like this
Posted by Jake Waters, a resident of Birdland,
on Jul 14, 2017 at 7:20 am

@Sam

You keep telling yourself that the fact of collusion is just around the corner, we have been waiting months and months, and still no evidence. Maybe the planet you are on is of another civilization that you are watching. Here is the deal that most liberals and Dems are really trying to advance: "Intellectual Martial Law". Web Link

"Now, the question of motive. Why does the thinking class in America embrace ideas that are not necessarily, and surely not self-evidently, truthful, and even self-destructive? Because this class is dangerously insecure and perversely needs to insist on being right about its guiding dogmas and shibboleths at all costs. That is why so much of the behavior emanating from the thinking class amounts to virtue signaling " we are the good people on the side of what's right, really we are! Of course, virtue signaling is just the new term for self-righteousness. There is also the issue of careerism. So many individuals are making a living at trafficking in, supporting, or executing policy based on these dogmas and shibboleths that they don't dare depart from the Overton Bubble of permissible, received thought lest they sacrifice their status and incomes.

The thinking classes are also the leaders and foot-soldiers in American institutions. When they are unable or unwilling to think clearly, then you get a breakdown of authority, which leads to a breakdown of legitimacy. That's exactly where we're at today in our national politics " our ability to manage the polity."

Your theory is 'just keep repeating the lie,' and it may become true. The truth is, it is already imploding onto the Democratic Party.


 +  Like this comment
Posted by Sam, a resident of Oak Hill,
on Jul 14, 2017 at 8:13 am

@Jake Waters: "You keep telling yourself that the fact of collusion is just around the corner, we have been waiting months and months, and still no evidence."

Don't know where you've been but your saying that there is "no evidence" of collusion is ridiculously out of date. Everything has changed in the last week. Even writers over at the conservative National Review are now saying collusion.:

National Review: "Bungled Collusion is Still Collusion" Web Link

...............................


 +   1 person likes this
Posted by Jiminy, a resident of Birdland,
on Jul 14, 2017 at 8:43 am

NPR: Undisclosed Russian 'lobbyist' also attended Trump Jr.'s meeting: Web Link

Unconfirmed reports that these two Web Link were there, as well - but eez not spies - Nyet!


 +   7 people like this
Posted by Resident, a resident of Laguna Oaks,
on Jul 14, 2017 at 9:11 am

Sam yesterday to Jake: "Even you don't agree with a lot of things that Allan Dershowitz says, either (although you like to cherry-pick the things that you do agree with)."

Sam today to Jake: "Even writers over at the conservative National Review are now saying collusion..."

So you chastise Jake for cherry-picking and now you're linking a never-Trumper from National Review?

I'm sure you didn't read this before linking because if you had you would have seen this near the bottom: "There is no statute against helping a foreign hostile power meddle in an American election. What Donald Jr...did may not be criminal"

So even the opinion piece you linked does not agree that anything done has been illegal.


 +   1 person likes this
Posted by Scott Hale, a resident of San Ramon,
on Jul 14, 2017 at 9:48 am

Scott Hale is a registered user.

geez. Y'all know you get the info for the same exact source: the media. And each of you spin it as you like. sheesh. why not wait for all the various investigations complete. If they all come up with nothing, great lets move on. However, if there is a there there and they do find flames. Then the Trump admin apologists better accept the outcome (if any). Right now the drip drip of FACTS are getting quite annoying.


 +   1 person likes this
Posted by Sam, a resident of Oak Hill,
on Jul 14, 2017 at 9:51 am

@Resident

You just keep going on like a broken record about whether collusion is illegal and claiming that I said it was illegal when I said no such thing. Read the following very carefully: I have never expressed any opinion here on whether this collusion is illegal or not because I have no opinion on that particular subject. I'm not a lawyer, and I'll leave that matter to the lawyers to discuss and debate. What I will say is that I think that such collusion with a hostile foreign power is morally wrong and undermines our democratic institutions and traditions. Everything clear to you now?

As for cherry-picking, there's no cherry picking on my part. Quite a few conservative writers for the National Review are coming out against Trump on this latest news of collusion. Here are some of the other article titles currently on the National Review website:

Don Jr.'s Disgraceful Meeting (The Editors of the NR)

Trump, Russia, and the Misconduct of Public Men (by Andrew McCarthy)

Conspiracies Abound in Deep Pro-Trump Circles Desensitized to Outrage (Tiana Lowe)

16 Things You Must Believe to Buy the "Witch Hunt" Russia Narrative (Mona Charen)

Trump Jr.'s Meeting Might Not Rise to Treason (David Harsanyi)


 +   10 people like this
Posted by Resident, a resident of Laguna Oaks,
on Jul 14, 2017 at 12:24 pm

"As for cherry-picking, there's no cherry picking on my part. "

It's right there in text and you follow up with more!

And let's get this straight, Alan Dershowitz is speaking from a legal pov, the rest are giving philosophical opinions.

Huge difference.


 +   3 people like this
Posted by Tom Cushing, a resident of Danville,
on Jul 14, 2017 at 12:25 pm

Tom Cushing is a registered user.

Sam: I admire your stamina, but I just saw a pretty insightful quote from an excellent source I'll be writing about soon. It bears on your toil:

"You cannot reason a person away from a position that reason did not lead him to." The arguments you're answering are make-weights to rationalize the demands of an insistent amygdala.

Good luck to us all.


 +   1 person likes this
Posted by Sam, a resident of Oak Hill,
on Jul 14, 2017 at 12:58 pm

@Tom

I hear you, Tom. I'll just have to let "Resident" continue his debate with his imaginary friend because it's pretty much clear by now that he's not reading or comprehending anything that I've written here.


 +  Like this comment
Posted by check cashing , a resident of Diablo Vista Middle School,
on Jul 16, 2017 at 4:41 am

Are you trying to money right into a financial institution account, the whole quantity commonly cannot be immediately accessed; there could also be a waiting amount for the check to clean?


 +   4 people like this
Posted by Jake Waters, a resident of Birdland,
on Jul 16, 2017 at 9:09 am


@Tom: "You cannot reason a person away from a position that reason did not lead him to." The arguments you're answering are make-weights to rationalize the demands of an insistent amygdala."

@Sam ...the National Review has become the Bible.

Guys, you have the Trump family in jail without evidence. You can quote your 'cherry-picked' sources all day, ; however, at least you name a source as opposed to most of the mainstream media who make them up and keep them anonymous. I get you hate the Trumps and think he is the next thing to Hitler, but you are allowing your anger to override the facts of the case. I despise Hillary and believe they have more than enough evidence to convict than Trump, but it hasn't happened yet. Please stop being overzealous in your need to destroy the President, when in fact, both of you were silent in judging Obama for 8 years. Where are you on Obama and Lynch basically hand holding this Russian Lawyer into the country? Was this a set up?


 +   4 people like this
Posted by Tom Cushing, a resident of Alamo,
on Jul 16, 2017 at 3:42 pm

Aw Jake: I think a problem to which both ends of the spectrum are prone is lumping - and 'othering' - everybody with whom you disagree together as some uniform unwashed "they." One commenter here is particularly fond of sermonizing on liberals "all" believe or do this-or-that. It just ain't so - either way.

So I'll guess that Sam will want to develop his own response, but as for me, I meant it, above, when I wrote: "... there is a risk of getting ahead of the actual evidence (although each new lie-revealed clears more pathway)." That doesn't sound like premature conviction to me.

It's fair to conclude that I think the noose is tightening - for a few reasons. 1 - that June '16 meeting evidence and related timeline, and the serial lies that preceded, it all look pretty bad as interim findings, 2 - even the conservative panelists (individually) on the Sunday talkies were not defending la Cosa Trumpsta - the WH is losing GOP support, and 3 - those Fox News feeds like your "set-up" innuendo are becoming ever more preposterous - they smell like desperation.


 +   6 people like this
Posted by Resident, a resident of Laguna Oaks,
on Jul 16, 2017 at 4:34 pm

"It's fair to conclude that I think the noose is tightening"

That's great, but for what? Tom does not say, interestingly enough.

Tom them then says '...interim findings" but then does not say say for what?

Then Tom does the same thing Sam does and starts to quote ((cherry-pick) "never-Trump' opinion.

But, as Tom says, let's not rush to judgement...

It's a good thing you won't give one legal opinion about so-called collusion and how anything you know up to date measures up to the fraud aspect.




 +   10 people like this
Posted by Tom Cushing, a resident of Alamo,
on Jul 16, 2017 at 5:32 pm

Purposely obtuse comment - you won't get anyone to take the bait with stuff like that. I'm done.


 +   2 people like this
Posted by Scott Hale, a resident of San Ramon,
on Jul 17, 2017 at 11:11 am

Scott Hale is a registered user.

not cherry picking, but Trump's approval rating down to 36%. Lowest percent at 6 months in 70 years. Trump says that is almost 40% (in his world) and not so bad.

I guess Trump supporters say 'fake news'? I say 'what a mess'.

hum


 +   2 people like this
Posted by Sam, a resident of Oak Hill,
on Jul 17, 2017 at 12:34 pm

@Scott Hale : "not cherry picking, but Trump's approval rating down to 36%. Lowest percent at 6 months in 70 years. "

Yup, and can you believe that he's only about 1/8 the way through the 4-year Presidential term? There were those who thought that once Trump was in office he would transform himself into a more disciplined, more Presidential individual and selflessly dedicate himself to the duties of the Office of the President. Heck, I myself thought that there was a slight chance that once he realized the gravity and enormous responsibilities of the Office of the Presidency that he might undergo some transformation for the better. But, no, no change. This is the guy we are stuck with for the next four years. A shockingly vain, immature, and shallow individual whose one and only real talent and gift is his ability to market himself. Not too hard to see the general direction that he's going to go for the next four years.


 +   3 people like this
Posted by Scott Hale, a resident of San Ramon,
on Jul 17, 2017 at 12:43 pm

Scott Hale is a registered user.

Sam: Oh, you can count me as one who thot Trump would become 'presidential' when he locked up the GOP nomination. OK, that didn't happen. I then pushed it out if he became President he'd become presidential. Well, that hasn't happened yet. He's same ole Trump: a blowhard, attention needing junky.

And his 'supporters' still love him, but that crowd is thinning. 36% approval rate. Lowest in 70 years (at 6 months). No way to spin that. Will fall to single digits if the silly repeal/replace actually is voted on and sent to his desk for signature. His supporters will be among those losing what health care they have. oops


 +   4 people like this
Posted by Jiminy, a resident of Birdland,
on Jul 17, 2017 at 6:47 pm

OMG - Fake News?? Web Link

Nope - it's the real no-deal.


 +  Like this comment
Posted by I wonder....., a resident of Pleasanton Village,
on Jul 19, 2017 at 3:37 pm

I wonder if Donald Trump shops at Costco? Should we ask him what he thinks about Pleasanton having one?

I hope this comment gives Kelly K. another forum to communicate her obsession with Costco.

Sorry Tom - given how ridiculous this discussion has become, how about a new interesting blog?


 +  Like this comment
Posted by Sam, a resident of Oak Hill,
on Jul 19, 2017 at 8:52 pm

@"Wonder"

Good going, "Wonder". Yes, your posting here about a completely unrelated topic on another forum has definitely convinced us that Kelly is the one who has an unhealthy obsession about Costco.


 +   12 people like this
Posted by Sam, a resident of Oak Hill,
on Jul 20, 2017 at 9:49 am

Trump is now publicly attacking his own Attorney General? Bizarre.


 +   3 people like this
Posted by I wonder....., a resident of Pleasanton Village,
on Jul 20, 2017 at 6:25 pm

Sarcasm........maybe you need to get a sense of humor, Sam


 +  Like this comment
Posted by check casher , a resident of Del Amigo Continuation High School,
on Aug 13, 2017 at 5:24 am

We are able to serve you what you are wanting like take a look at cashing near American nation it's very smooth to are searching for out U.S.A. At your nearest locations. Our workplace is opened 24/7.


 +  Like this comment
Posted by Adam009, a resident of Diablo,
on Oct 10, 2017 at 3:21 am

Adam009 is a registered user.

Web Timer Chrome tracks how you spend time on the Internet,
and presents statistics in a convenient and intuitive way.
Web Link


Sorry, but further commenting on this topic has been closed.

A tale of two creeks
By Tim Hunt | 4 comments | 444 views

 

Send us your Santa photos

'Tis the season for sharing — so share your holiday snap shots of Santa with your kids, grandkids or fur-kids, and we'll enter you into our annual holiday prize drawing. Photos due Dec. 11.

Contest Details