President Donald Trump's Final Days...

[Devius]

Post-election communications of Donald Trump's team were swept up in an "incidental collection" by intelligence agencies, a Republican lawmaker says.

House intelligence committee chairman Devin Nunes said individuals were named in "widely disseminated" reports, which he said was "totally inappropriate".

Mr Nunes said this did not back Mr Trump's claim Barack Obama had ordered Trump Tower wiretapped before the poll.

But when asked if he felt vindicated, Mr Trump said: "I somewhat do."

Trump supporters may point to this "startling revelation", in press secretary Sean Spicer's words, as evidence that the president correctly suspected his communications were being intercepted. They will also probably question who "unmasked" the names of Trump advisers, when the default is to avoid revealing the identities of US citizens communicating with monitored foreign nationals.

Mr Trump's critics are sure to wonder what kind of interactions the Trump team was having with individuals worthy of US intelligence surveillance. Were these communications authorised, and what topics did they cover? It was just such intelligence intercepts that revealed that former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn had been lying about the nature of his phone discussions with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak, after all.

Details:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-39358363

[martynz]

Donald Trump Jr criticises London mayor after terror attack
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-39361079
Arseholes both.
Wes Streeting MP‏Verified account @wesstreeting 9h9 hours ago

@DonaldJTrumpJr You use a terrorist attack on our city to attack London's Mayor for your own political gain. You're a disgrace

[Arturo2nd]

Originally Posted by Devius

Post-election communications of Donald Trump's team were swept up in an "incidental collection" by intelligence agencies, a Republican lawmaker says.

House intelligence committee chairman Devin Nunes said individuals were named in "widely disseminated" reports, which he said was "totally inappropriate".

Mr Nunes said this did not back Mr Trump's claim Barack Obama had ordered Trump Tower wiretapped before the poll.

But when asked if he felt vindicated, Mr Trump said: "I somewhat do."

Trump supporters may point to this "startling revelation", in press secretary Sean Spicer's words, as evidence that the president correctly suspected his communications were being intercepted. They will also probably question who "unmasked" the names of Trump advisers, when the default is to avoid revealing the identities of US citizens communicating with monitored foreign nationals.

Mr Trump's critics are sure to wonder what kind of interactions the Trump team was having with individuals worthy of US intelligence surveillance. Were these communications authorised, and what topics did they cover? It was just such intelligence intercepts that revealed that former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn had been lying about the nature of his phone discussions with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak, after all.

In some ways, this is all a tempest in a teapot. It is routine practice for foreign countries to have discussions with the team of an incoming administration.

Paul Manafort's activities are very suspicious and one has to wonder about Trump's judgment in employing such a person. Lobbying for a foreign power without properly registering may cause him grief. Mostly he appears to be a flim-flam artist who succeeded in bilking a Russian oligarch out of several million dollars. If Putin's crew is as unforgiving as they appear to be, he ought to invest heavily in bodyguards.

Michael Flynn's continuing employment by the Russian government while sitting in with Trump during briefings of sensitive classified intelligence was ill advised, if not downright treasonous. I am still wondering how this twerp got to be a lieutenant general with major command authorities.

James Comey's actions of revealing investigations of Mrs. Clinton, while concealing the existence of investigations of the Trump camp will cause great outcry. One can understand that the FBI would not want to compromise the investigations into the Trump camp, while there was little danger that disclosure would compromise the Clinton probe. Still, he was warned to keep his mouth shut and one has to question either his intelligence or his motives for the course of actions he took.

I am no big fan of Donald Trump and expect him to bump one of the current names on the list of our worst presidents. He is a crook and a liar. But, I really wish all the partisan posturing would go away and some sort of dialogue would start.

I saw today that Schumer is planning a filibuster against the Gorsuch nomination. Why? Neil Gorsuch is a first rate judge and legal mind. The Democrats do not have the votes to stop his appointment. It is time for the schoolyard antics to stop. Sooner or later, one party has to take the high road to move the country forward. I believe that crybaby antics do not play well in the heartland. As a partisan Democrat, I want to see us choose battles that can expand our base.

I have learned a couple of things in life. First, I am quite often wrong as hell. Second, a person who disagrees with me is not necessarily bad. In fact, some men whose politics or religion are quite different than mine are men I trust the most.

[Devius]

CNN are claiming the FBI has information that indicates associates of President Donald Trump communicated with suspected Russian operatives to possibly coordinate the release of information damaging to Hillary Clinton's campaign.

Details:
http://edition.cnn.com/2017/03/22/po...ans/index.html

How big a game-changer is this?

[SanteeFats]

Originally Posted by Devius

CNN are claiming the FBI has information that indicates associates of President Donald Trump communicated with suspected Russian operatives to possibly coordinate the release of information damaging to Hillary Clinton's campaign.
How big a game-changer is this?

Since he is now the elected POTUS it won't make any difference unless there is enough support for an impeachment procedure but since both houses are R that won't go any where IMO.

[scoundrel]

Originally Posted by SanteeFats

Since he is now the elected POTUS it won't make any difference unless there is enough support for an impeachment procedure but since both houses are R that won't go any where IMO.

Was it to be proven that Mr Trump colluded with the Russian government and its secret service to subvert the democratic process, the Republican senators and congressmen would be in a serious bind. Mr Trump is detested by many lifelong Republican voters, not to mention big money donors to the GOP, and it might not be such a smart play to be seen to support him if he is shown to be patently guilty.

But as far as I know, the FBI is not a "special prosecutor" such as the egregious Ken Starr. It has a remit to investigate alleged federal law violations and wont be sidetracked into whose DNA is on whose dress. If Mr Trump does have a case to answer they will either arrest him in the Oval Office or, if he is immune from prosecution when serving as president, arrest him at the inauguration ceremony of his successor. Otherwise, not.

As far as impeachment goes, the Democrats in Congress will not relish any such debates or discussions, and in fact it could work to the advantage of the GOP in House elections. The real scandal in the 2016 presidential election cycle was not the (alleged) involvement of the Russian spies. It is what came out, whether uncovered by Russian spying or not uncovered by Russian spying. The Democrat's nomination contest was blatantly and intentionally rigged to make sure Hillary Clinton won against Bernie Sanders. The leaked emails proved this. If the Russian secret services exposed these facts, quite a few Americans (including many Sanders supporters) will feel that their role was not the real story at all; what they exposed was the real story. Some will even feel that (no doubt for its own reasons) Russia has done the American people a service.

I doubt if Mr Trump will be impeached. The impetus is going to come from some more traditional Republicans such as John McCain. I am sure that John McCain could watch Mr Trump rolling on the floor in flames, screaming in agony, and tears of joy would roll down John McCain's cheeks. But there are many Democrats who would much rather not have their role in the DNC handling of the nomination contest discussed in hearings.

[Devius]

A vote on US President Donald Trump's healthcare bill has been withdrawn at the last minute after it failed to gain enough support to pass in Congress.

House Speaker Paul Ryan said he and Mr Trump agreed to pull the vote, after it became apparent it would not get the minimum of 215 Republican votes needed.

The withdrawal is seen as a huge blow to Mr Trump.

Repealing and replacing the programme known as Obamacare was one of his major election pledges.

"We're going to be living with Obamacare for the foreseeable future," said Paul Ryan.

Details:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-39387550

[diamelsx]

Let the Paul Ryan blame game begin...

[LadyLuck]

Originally Posted by scoundrel

But there are many Democrats who would much rather not have their role in the DNC handling of the nomination contest discussed in hearings.

That's the dilemma. All of the leaked information is true. None of it was fabricated and all of it is damning. "Look how sneaky and underhanded they were leaking all of this information that shows how sneaky and underhanded we were". That won't fly long.

[scoundrel]

If Mr Trump is really committed to repealing the Affordable Care Act then he will be back. But the failure of the House Republicans to unite behind a replacement healthcare proposal of any description sheds a strong light on the 2013 budget crisis, when they perversely refused to pass a federal budget in a bizarre attempt to blackmail Mr Obama into delaying (ir stopping for good) the implementation of the new healthcare law. The Republicans can only agree that they dislike "Obamacare". They can't agree on anything they would like instead. Left to themselves they would replace the ACA and replace it with nothing.

It must have been tempting to Mr Trump to let them do this. He could take the high ground and point out that they disobeyed him and acted independently. He wouldn't be the first president to win re-election while his party got buried in the House elections. But if he chooses, Mr Trump can dish them in a more subtle way now. He can simply put the onus on them to come back to him with a bill they can pass and which he can agree to sign. This could well mean having to build a shared and bi-partisan alliance with some moderate and fiscally conservative democrats to thwart the Republican far right.

Believe it or not, but Mr Trump is a moderate on some social policy issues, in some ways much more progressive than most House Republicans; for example he is in favour of better paid maternity leave and child care provision for working mothers. It might suit him to make the House Republicans produce a healthcare reform which is less conservative and more consensus seeking in its ethos without being seen to have caused this to happen. Alternatively he might not be all that troubled if nothing actually changes and the Affordable Care Act soldiers on (subject to minor tweaking somewhere down the line), provided he can lay off the blame for the failure on the House Republicans.