Lindsey looks stoned as hell.....
My my I seem to have the vapors......
Good for them great way to let off steam.Talk more about your friend Mazie and her Obama muppet buddies they look all wasted as hell
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s letter asking President Donald Trump to delay the State of the Union address is less a request and more of an order, says a top Congressional scholar.
Larry Tribe, professor of Constitutional law at Harvard Law School, says that as long as Pelosi is opposed to the State of the Union happening, as scheduled, on Jan. 29, it won’t happen.
“Pelosi was basically uninviting the President, but doing it diplomatically,” Tribe tells Fortune. “The form in which the State of the Union address is delivered isn’t constitutionally specified, but if it’s to be delivered as a Joint Session of Congress as has become the custom, the House and Senate must jointly adopt a resolution to schedule it. Without that, he can’t come. Neither chamber has adopted such a resolution yet, and as long as Pelosi opposes it, it’s DOA.”
In a letter to Trump Monday, Pelosi cited “security concerns” due to the partial government shutdown and asked Trump to either not deliver the address until the government had reopened or to deliver it in writing on Jan. 29, as was done regularly until the presidency of Woodrow Wilson in 1913.
While the Constitution requires the president deliver a State of the Union address, there’s no language in there that demands it be a speech or in person.
“Since the start of modern budgeting in Fiscal Year 1977, a State of the Union address has never been delivered during a government shutdown,” Pelosi wrote. “The extraordinary demands presented by [the security needs of the speech] require weeks of detailed planning with dozens of agencies working together to prepare for the safety of all participants. … However, both the U.S. Secret Service and the Department of Homeland Security have not been funded for 26 days now—with critical departments hamstrung by furloughs.”
The government shutdown is already the longest on record and shows no signs of stopping, even as the effects begin to ripple through the country in the form ofdelayed tax refunds, airport delays, and possibly worse in the future. Trump is demanding $5 billion to fund a wall along the Mexican border. Democrats are refusing to agree to that.
Rudolph W. Giuliani, President Trump’s personal lawyer, appears to be trapped in a rather unforgiving cycle.
In a string of recent interviews concerning the ongoing investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election, Giuliani has repeatedly made headlines for voicing startling claims about the president and his campaign’s alleged involvement in affairs related to Russia, and then quickly attempting to clarify or walk back his statements. Giuliani’s interview approach, punctuated by his contradictory comments, has sparked widespread confusion among the public as well as within the “Trump world.” The Washington Post’s Josh Dawsey reported Monday that a number of people associated with the president are “genuinely perplexed/befuddled/frustrated by Rudy Giuliani’s statements.”
But rather than stepping back from the public eye, Giuliani continued his media blitz on Monday, speaking at length to the New Yorker’s Isaac Chotiner, who wrote that he had called the former New York mayor “to try to understand what he was saying about the Moscow negotiations.”
In the wide-ranging, at times flippant, interview, Giuliani refuted a BuzzFeed report that Trump had told his former personal lawyer, Michael Cohen, to lie, saying he had listened to audiotapes, which he then promptly claimed did not exist. Additionally, Giuliani once again distanced himself from the comments he made Sunday in which he said the president and his team had been involved in discussions about the Moscow tower project well into the 2016 election, asserting that even if Trump had participated in those conversations “it wouldn’t be a crime.” Seeming to adopt a more tongue-in-cheek tone, Giuliani also touched on how his legacy could be affected by his job.
“I am afraid it will be on my gravestone," Giuliani told Chotiner. "‘Rudy Giuliani: He lied for Trump.’”
The piece began with Chotiner asking Giuliani about his response to the explosive BuzzFeed story. The report was published Thursday and has elicited a rare statement from special counsel Robert S. Mueller III’s office, which called it “not accurate.”
“There are no tapes, there are no texts, there is no corroboration that the President told him to lie,” Giuliani said. “That’s why the special counsel said that the story was inaccurate.”
Pressed by Chotiner about how he knew the story was “false,” Giuliani said, “I have been through all the tapes, I have been through all the texts, I have been through all the emails, and I knew none existed."
“Wait, what tapes have you gone through?” asked Chotiner. (The original BuzzFeed story by Jason Leopold and Anthony Cormier made no reference to tapes.)
“I shouldn’t have said tapes,” Giuliani responded, noting that BuzzFeed had reported the existence of texts and emails. “There were no texts, there were no emails, and the President never told him to lie.”
When asked to confirm that he had not listened to any tapes, Giuliani said: “No tapes. Well, I have listened to tapes, but none of them concern this.” Giuliani may have been referencing the 183 recordings seized by federal prosecutors in July, about a dozen of which, he said, contained audio of Cohen discussing the president.
[‘I want you to hear them,’ Giuliani says of other Cohen recordings discussing Trump]
Giuliani also took time to address his latest unexpected statements about Trump’s dealings with Russia, which were made over the weekend in an appearance on NBC’s “Meet the Press” and an interview with the New York Times. In the interviews, Giuliani said conversations about the tower project in Moscow continued much later into 2016 than previously believed, The Post’s Seung Min Kim reported.
In a statement Monday, Giuliani said his comments “about discussions during the 2016 campaign between Michael Cohen and then-candidate Donald Trump about a potential Trump Moscow ‘project’ were hypothetical and not based on conversations I had with the President."
The president’s lawyer added: “My comments did not represent the actual timing or circumstances of any such discussions."
To the New Yorker, Giuliani took his defense a step further, slamming the Times story as “absolutely wrong” and accusing the newspaper of wanting to “crucify the President” and “deliberately” misunderstanding his statements. The Times reported that Trump had said discussions about the Moscow tower project were “'going on from the day I announced to the day I won,'” attributing the quote to Giuliani, who spoke with reporters in a phone interview.
“I did not say that,” Giuliani said after being asked about the quote. “I don’t know if they made it up. What I was talking about was, if he had those conversations, they would not be criminal.”
A Times spokesperson told The Post in an email that “Mr. Giuliani was quoted fairly and accurately in our story. We stand by our reporting.”
Giuliani then proceeded to double down on his argument that even if Trump had participated in conversations about the tower, it would not be an illegal act.
“I am not saying that he did it,” he told the New Yorker. “I just told you he didn’t do it. I am telling you that their investigation is so ridiculous that, even if he did do it, it wouldn’t be a crime.”
He added: “I’m a criminal lawyer. I am not an ethicist. And I defend people against unfair criminal charges.”
Toward the end of the interview, Chotiner shifted focus to Giuliani’s legacy, asking, “Saying things for Trump, not always being truthful about it — do you ever worry that this will be your legacy? Does that ever worry you in any way?”
“Absolutely,” Giuliani said, mentioning his fear about what his epitaph could be. “Somehow, I don’t think that will be it. But, if it is, so what do I care? I’ll be dead."
“I figure I can explain it to St. Peter,” Giuliani continued, referencing the keeper of the keys to heaven. “He will be on my side, because I am, so far . . . I don’t think, as a lawyer, I ever said anything that’s untruthful.”
When Chotiner attempted to get Giuliani to elaborate on his “St. Peter” comment, the lawyer deflected.
“I was joking,” he said, later adding, “I don’t think about my legacy. All I think about is doing a good job and what I believe in.”
Rudy is a very creepy dude.
Talk more about your friend Mazie and her Obama muppet buddies they look all wasted as hell
This administration is the epitome of suck and shit
https://thehill.com/opinion/nationa...s-trumps-worldview-endangers-dci-coats-careerUS threat assessment challenges Trump's worldview, endangers DCI Coats' career
Shortly after the 2000 presidential election, then-Sen. Dan Coats (R-Ind.), a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, was considered the leading candidate for secretary of Defense in the new George W. Bush administration. After he met with the president-elect, however, it was clear that, for whatever reason, Bush decided to look elsewhere to fill the position. Upon the advice of Vice President Dick Cheney, the president instead chose Don Rumsfeld.
Coats subsequently was named ambassador to Germany, where he was unpopular with then-Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder, whose antipathy toward the United States showed itself most clearly in the run-up to, and during, the first stages of the Iraq War. After returning to the Senate in 2011, Coats retired from lawmaking six years later when President Trump appointed him as director of National Intelligence. And it is in that capacity that Coats probably has eliminated himself from having a second shot at becoming Defense secretary.
The Washington rumor mill for several weeks has opined that Coats, who has met with Trump on numerous occasions, not only once again is a candidate for leadership of the Department of Defense (DOD), but actually had something that might pass for a job interview with the president, whose method of hiring top officials is, at best, highly idiosyncratic. But Coats spoiled his copybook by releasing the intelligence community’s latest edition of its “Worldwide Threat Assessment.”
The Threat Assessment, a consensus product of the 16 agencies and an administrative office that comprise the intelligence community, hardly breaks new ground. Indeed, it reiterates some of Coats’ own prior statements, particularly regarding the North Korean threat. Nevertheless, its stark, unequivocal language shatters some of Trump’s most precious illusions. Ever since his unprecedented summit meeting with North Korea’s Kim Jong Un in June 2018, Trump argued that he had initiated the process of achieving a denuclearized North Korea.
Coats flatly contradicted the president on the state of North Korea’s nuclear program, however. His report to the Senate Intelligence Committee, emphasized — in boldface — that “we continue to assess that North Korea is unlikely to give up all of its nuclear weapons and production capabilities, even as it seeks to negotiate partial denuclearization steps to obtain key U.S. and international concessions.” In an additional slap at Trump’s diplomatic efforts, the report noted that “North Korea will continue its efforts to mitigate the effects of the U.S.-led pressure campaign, most notably through diplomatic engagement, counter-pressure against the sanctions regime, and direct sanctions evasion.”
Similarly, whereas Trump pulled the United States out of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), better known as the Iran nuclear deal, and since has continued to argue that Iran was proceeding with its nuclear weapons program, the report contradicted him, again in boldface print. It reported that “we continue to assess that Iran is not currently undertaking the key nuclear weapons-development activities we judge necessary to produce a nuclear device.”
Finally, while Trump justified pulling American forces out of Syria because ISIS had been defeated, the report bluntly stated, once more in boldface, that “ISIS still commands thousands of fighters in Iraq and Syria, and it maintains eight branches, more than a dozen networks, and thousands of dispersed supporters around the world, despite significant leadership and territorial losses.” It added that “the group will exploit any reduction in CT [counter-terrorism] pressure,” and, for good measure, postulated that “ISIS very likely will continue to pursue external attacks from Iraq and Syria against regional and Western adversaries, including the United States.”
None of the foregoing sits well with the president, who very much in character responded with an insulting tweetstorm, calling his intelligence community, and presumably the director he appointed to lead that community, “extremely passive and naive when it comes to Iran” and musing that “perhaps intelligence should go back to school!” Trump also tweeted that, thanks to his efforts, there was “a whole different relationship with North Korea … progress being made-big difference (sic).” Finally, he asserted that “tremendous progress” had been achieved “especially over the last 5 weeks” and promised that “the Caliphate will soon be destroyed.”
In fairness, Trump may have a point when it comes to Iran. International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) inspectors are prohibited from entering Iranian military bases, where all efforts to circumvent the JCPOA’s restrictions on nuclear-weapons development likely are taking place. Iran has been caught cheating on its prior commitments to curtail its weapons program; there is no evidence that it would not be attempting to do so again. Certainly, recurring statements on the part of Iranian leaders that they could destroy Israel could only be credible if Tehran were capable of firing nuclear-tipped missiles at the Jewish state.
On the other hand, those pronouncements could be nothing more than empty threats, while Iran, which seeks to maintain economic relations with Europe, recognizes that it can only do so if it were to adhere to the terms of the JCPOA.
On the other hand, Trump’s assessments regarding North Korea and ISIS are as illusory as his tweets are incoherent. Ongoing North Korean missile testing and continuing reports of secret North Korean nuclear sites belie Trump’s optimism about his diplomatic prospects. And reports from the field in Syria and Iraq flatly contradict his sunny assessment of the current state of ISIS.
It should be recalled that early in his administration, Trump demonstrated as much hostility toward the intelligence community as he did toward the media and the FBI. He toned down his rhetoric when Mike Pompeo took over the CIA. He even did not overreact when Coats contradicted him on North Korea a year ago, arguing after the summit that North Korea was unlikely to denuclearize within a year.
Nevertheless, perhaps because he sees himself beleaguered on many fronts, the president clearly has returned to his original instincts about the intelligence professionals, as well as his own appointees who defend and represent them. Dan Coats may well remain on his job for a while longer, but after the brouhaha that his report has stirred up, he should have no reason to expect that the president will name him to any other position in his chaotic administration.