What has TRUMP told us the truth about…???

..What has TRUMP told us the truth about…???

In the Trump administration, the truth comes out after vigorous denials

In a memo revealed over the weekend, Trump’s lawyers said the president dictated a statement on behalf of his oldest son — something he denied doing last year. The statement proved to be inaccurate.

By Ashley Parker  •  Read more »


WE are foolish to allow this rigged game to continue … as we all lose…

..WE are foolish to allow this rigged game to continue … as we all lose…

Minority Lawyers Face Crushing Debt As They Fight Trump Administration Policies

They’re taking an enormous gamble in a rigged game.

By Erin L. Thompson / TomDispatch…….June 5, 2018, 8:21 AM GMT

Law school applications are up this year in what some are calling a “Trump Bump,” since around a third of applicants were inspired to apply by Trump’s election. Nearly half of them identify themselves as members of a minority group. They’ve seen lawyers fighting Trump administration policies that discriminate against their communities and want to do the same. If these minority applicants succeed, they could change the balance of power in American society. If they fail, they will find themselves crushed under a lifetime of debt. But few are aware that they are taking this enormous gamble in a rigged game.





Is Donald Trump Above the Law? He Clearly Thinks So — and the Threat to Democracy is Real

By Chauncey DeVega, Salon

That letter from Trump’s lawyers isn’t bluster: Our president thinks he’s a king, and holds the law in contempt READ MORE»


President Trump said he had the power to pardon himself. It’s a sign that he could take extreme action to shield himself in the Russia inquiry.

Monday, June 4, 2018 9:20 AM EST


President Trump said on Monday that he had the power to pardon himself, raising the prospect that he might take extraordinary action to immunize himself from the Russia investigation even as he asserted that he has “done nothing wrong.”

Read More »



Over the weekend, Trump declared an autocracy


Mark Sumner  ……Daily Kos Staff,……..Monday June 04, 2018 · 6:25 AM PDT

On Saturday, the New York Times published information from a letter that had been sent by Trump’s attorneys to the special counsel’s office. In the letter, Trump’s legal team asserted not just that Trump can’t be prosecuted for obstruction, but that it’s impossible for Trump to obstruct—because Trump has the ability to nip any investigation in the bud. And should Trump not act quickly enough to prevent the start of an investigation, he can always act retroactively by pardoning anyone caught up in its findings.

Under this interpretation, Trump need not respond to a request for an interview by the special counsel. Or a subpoena from the grand jury. Or … anything at all. He is utterly exempt from legal actions.

If reporting around the letter seemed most focused on Trump’s ability to shrug off the Russia investigation, Trump’s principle public representative on these matters, Rudy Giuliani, went forth over the weekend to clarify the limits of Trump’s legal authority. What Giulani made clear is … there aren’t any. The interpretation of the White House is that Trump is not only immune from providing testimony, but based on a conversation Giulani held with the Huffington Post, Trump is completely above legal recourse. So far above it that he can do anything he wants.

Renowned Economist Turns Psychologist on Donald Trump: ‘He’s a Delusional, Psychopathic Threat’

By Hal Brown , Daily Kos

Jeffrey Sachs wants to remove the president using the 25th Amendment  READ MORE»

Technology in which America excels … KILLER DRONES…

…Technology in which America excels … KILLER DRONES…

Remote controlled killing


… drone warfare reduces horrors of conflict for those who can afford itTechnology gives us the opportunity to wage war from afar at a greatly reduced risk to our armed forces. But is removing the horror of war a slippery slope to reducing the threshold for conflict?Going to war usually boosts a politician’s approval ratings and can be a useful distraction from domestic problems. Yet public opinion typically turns sour when a steady stream of soldiers start returning in body bags and candid reportage…
Read full article at NexusNewsfeed.com website »




Three Pinocchios ….


Fact-Checking Bill Clinton’s meltdown on NBC’s ‘Today Show’  The former president made a number of claims on NBC’s "Today Show" that do not pass scrutiny…


5 at 3:00 AM

 “Yes [I have apologized to Monica Lewinsky], and nobody believes I got out of that for free. I left the White House $16 million in debt, but you typically have ignored gaping facts in describing this, and I bet you don’t even know them. This was litigated 20 years ago. Two-thirds of the American people sided with me. They were not insensitive to that. I had a sexual harassment policy when I was governor in the ’80s. I had two women chiefs of staff when I was governor. Women were overrepresented in the attorney general’s office in the ’70s, for their percentage in the bar. I have had nothing but women leaders in my office since I left. You are giving one side and omitting facts.”

— Former president Bill Clinton,
in an interview on NBC’s “Today Show,” June 4, 2018

The former president, challenged about how his sexual transgressions look in the #MeToo world, responded with a defense that stressed how much he had done for women as a politician. To a considerable extent, that is besides the point in today’s context, where putative supporters of women’s rights (such as New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman) have been forced to step down because of disturbing allegations about their treatment of women.

We are not going to fact-check the entire statement. Clinton later in the interview admitted he had not personally apologized to Lewinsky, the intern with whom he had an affair while president. He had simply apologized in general, which is not what the interviewer originally asked. We were amused that Clinton slipped in the phrase “for their percentage in the bar” when he bragged that women were overrepresented in his office when he was  attorney general in 1977-1979.

That’s a low bar. Between 1918 and 1970, 164 women gained Arkansas law licenses; 22 percent of law licenses were held by women by 1998, two decades after Clinton was attorney general. We could not find an exact figure, but one could imagine the percentage would have been far lower in the late 1970s.

But two of his statements stand out as worthy of deeper fact-checking.

‘I left the White House $16 million in debt’

This was a curious claim, because in 2014, after Hillary Clinton was criticized for saying the couple was “dead broke” when they left the White House, the former president had a much lower number: “It is factually true that we were several million dollars in debt.”

A Clinton spokesman did not respond to a request to explain the discrepancy. But Senate financial disclosure forms filed by Hillary Clinton in May 2001, a few months after he left the presidency, indicate “several million” is closer to the truth.

Senate financial disclosures show broad ranges (i.e., $1 million to $5 million). But the highest possible assets added up to $1.8 million while the lowest possible debts were $2.3 million. That works out to about $500,000 in negative net worth.

The biggest problem with calculating the overall debt is that the form shows the Clintons owed $1 million to $5 million to two law firms, Skadden Arps and Williams & Connolly. (Lesser amounts were owed to three other law firms.) So legal debts to the two firms could have been as low as $2 million or as high as $10 million. At the high end, the couple’s net worth would have been as negative at $9.8 million at the time, though that appears unlikely.

The dictionary definition of “several” is “more than two but not many.” That sounds like $4 or 5 million, which is the midpoint of the two options.

There’s another wrinkle. The disclosure forms do not require the listing of homes used for personal use, and the Clintons had two — a $1.7 million, five-bedroom home in Chappaqua, N.Y., and a $2.85 million, five-bedroom home in the District. The first one was bought in 1999 with a big loan by their pal (and later Virginia governor) Terry McAuliffe. But the Clintons put $855,000 of equity into the second one, the White House said at the time.

If Clinton was adding his mortgages to his overall debt, it still would not add up to $16 million — and it hardly seems kosher to count such fancy lodgings. [Update: After this fact check was published, a Clinton spokesman noted The Washington Post in 2007 reported Clinton had an “estimated $12 million" in legal debts, though the article provides no source for this figure.]

In any case, Hillary Clinton had already signed an $8 million book deal by the time the couple left the White House, and Bill Clinton was set to hit the lecture circuit, earning more than $125,000 per speech. Clinton’s 2001 Senate disclosure shows they paid $1.3 million in legal fees, with the amount owed to Skadden Arps falling below $1 million.

Meanwhile, the Clintons’ 2001 tax return shows they earned $16 million in income that year. Maybe that’s the $16 million Clinton had in mind.

‘I had a sexual harassment policy when I was governor in the ’80s’

This document came up in the Paula Jones lawsuit against Clinton for, yes, sexual harassment. Discovery in Jones’s case, of course, exposed Clinton’s affair with Lewinsky and led to his impeachment.

As far as we can tell, the document is not public on the Internet and we could not locate a copy, as it appears to be sealed under court order. It is just listed as “Deposition Exhibit No. 5 — Office of the Governor Sexual Harassment Policy.”

But this exchange in Clinton’s deposition on Jan. 17, 1998, is telling. The president is being questioned by Jones’s lawyer, James A. Fisher.

Q. Is this a copy of a sexual harassment policy that you signed when you were the governor of the state of Arkansas?
A. It is. I signed it in 1987, and I’m fairly sure that I was, we were, the first or one of the very first states to actually have a clearly defined sexual harassment policy.
MR. FISHER: Objection, nonresponsive beginning with the words, “I’m fairly sure.”
Q. Mr. President, the criteria there under Roman numeral III were actually federal guidelines that you were adopting as the policy in the state, correct?

Yikes, quite a burn by Fisher.

In other words, Clinton is bragging today about a state policy that merely implemented new federal guidelines, probably as a result of the 1986 Supreme Court ruling in Meritor Savings Bank v. Vinson that sexual harassment, including a hostile work environment, was indeed sexual discrimination. It’s not as if he was a trendsetter.

Indeed, a state-by-state guide published in 1987 by the NOW Legal Defense and Education Fund listed Arkansas as among the dozen worst places to live for any woman concerned with equal rights under the law.

It’s also worth recalling the allegations made by Jones that led to her sexual harassment lawsuit in federal court.

In 1991, while Jones was working at a state-sponsored conference, a state trooper asked her to meet with then-Arkansas Gov. Bill Clinton in his hotel room. When she arrived, she says, Clinton tried to kiss her and then dropped his pants and underwear and asked her to “kiss it.” She refused and quickly left the hotel room.

Her account was backed up by people who said she told them at the time about the alleged encounter. Pamela Blackard, a state employee sitting at the registration desk with Jones, said she noticed Clinton staring intently at Jones and witnessed a state trooper asking Jones to go to Clinton’s hotel room. She recalled that about 10 minutes later, Jones returned, “shaking,” and she told Blackard in detail about Clinton’s actions. Blackard told her to tell no one, as she was afraid they would lose their jobs.

Ultimately, the Jones case was dismissed by a federal judge, who ruled that even if her allegations were true, such “boorish and offensive” behavior would not be severe enough to constitute sexual harassment under the law. That ruling was under appeal when Clinton in 1998 settled the suit for $850,000, with no apology or admission of guilt.

The Pinocchio Test

In both cases, Clinton skirts close to Four Pinocchios. He did have large legal debts, perhaps several million as he once said, but $16 million is clearly wrong. In any case, he and his wife were able to quickly dig themselves out of that hole. As for the sexual harassment policy, he was simply implementing federal guidelines — and it’s an odd thing to brag about, given the circumstances.


Bill Clinton’s very Trump-like response to questions about sexual misconduct

Asked about his sexual relationship with Monica Lewinsky, Clinton followed a script from which Trump has read, too.

By Callum Borchers  •  Read more »

so far I sure as hell don’t see anyone stopping him…!!!

..It may be a FARCE to you … but… TRUMP believes he is endowed with imperial unfettered absolute power to do anything he damn well pleases … and so far I sure as hell don’t see anyone stopping him…!!!

Stephen Colbert Exposes Trump’s Ridiculous ‘Self-Pardon’ Idea for the Farce that It Is

By Cody Fenwick, AlterNet

"Why are you bringing it up if you’re not going to do it?" READ MORE»


Abbreviated pundit roundup: The president is not a king


Georgia Logothetis Community   ,,,,2018/06/05 · 04:33

We begin today’s roundup with The New York Times editorial board:

The monarchical grandeur of Mr. Trump’s assertion that he has the power to pardon himself raised eyebrows and prompted sputtering among his critics, but it shouldn’t really have shocked anyone. It has long been clear that Mr. Trump confuses the role and powers of the president with those of a king. His legal team, regrettably, seems to be actively fueling this confusion, as revealed in the recently leaked memos that it sent to the special counsel, Robert Mueller, the theme of which more or less boils down to the Nixonian musing: “When the president does it, that means that it is not illegal.” Arguably more noteworthy, and more troubling, is the president’s emerging effort to pre-emptively place the blame for what promises to be a tough election cycle for congressional Republicans on what he now regularly denounces as the partisan, “rigged,” “unconstitutional” machinations of Mr. Mueller and his investigative team. Message to the nation: Don’t blame me if my party takes a beating in November. The Witch Hunters are busy manipulating the system.

Eugene Robinson adds his take on the president’s pardon power:

On Monday, following disclosure of the letter, Trump was defiant on Twitter: “As has been stated by numerous legal scholars, I have the absolute right to PARDON myself, but why would I do that when I have done nothing wrong?”

Pardon himself? Is he President Trump or His Majesty Czar Donald I?

Trump has flagrantly abused his power. The Constitution gives Congress the authority to constrain or remove him, but Republicans in both chambers refuse to act or even speak out. We the people must take our stand in November.


‘A tremendous abuse’: Senate Republicans warn Trump not to pardon himself

With claim of “absolute” power, the president once again forces members of his own party into an uncomfortable position.

By Seung Min Kim  •  Read more »


How to get a pardon from President Trump

Philip BumpJune 5 at 3:53 PMEmail the author

President Trump, left, the actor Sylvester Stallone and former boxing heavyweight champion Lennox Lewis in the Oval Office at the White House on May 24, 2018, when Trump granted a posthumous pardon to Jack Johnson, boxing’s first black heavyweight champion. (Susan Walsh/AP)

Very few parts of President Trump’s job give him the same unilateral power as the authority to grant pardons. He came to the White House from Trump Tower in New York, where he was for decades, essentially, a corporate monarch. A privately held company with one boss is a fiefdom in many ways, and Trump was used to being lord of the manor. Ninety-nine percent of the time, the presidency is not like that. When it comes to pardons, though, it is.

The Washington Post reported  Tuesday afternoon that Trump is exploring more opportunities to use that power.

“A White House official this week said Trump is ‘obsessed’ with pardons,” our report indicates, “describing them as the president’s new ‘favorite thing’ to talk about. He may sign a dozen or more in the next two months, this person added.” He has granted five so far, with a possible sixth looming.

In typical administrations, those pardons are filtered through the Office of the Pardon Attorney at the Department of Justice. A 28-page form is filled out to begin a review process, assuming that it has been at least five years since the applicant’s conviction or release from confinement. Then there are necessary character witnesses and background checks, with recommendations for or against clemency eventually passed on to the president.

That is the typical process. That is not the Trump process.

To help people navigate the new system for obtaining a pardon, we have created the following flowchart, which is explained below.

1. Are you a darling of conservative politics?

This seems to be the most effective way of obtaining a pardon from Trump. Three of Trump’s five pardons — Joe Arpaio, Scooter Libby and Dinesh D’Souza — have all worked in Republican politics, conservative media or both. Arpaio was once the sheriff of Maricopa County, Ariz., and was convicted of contempt of court for ignoring a mandate to respect the civil rights of immigrant detainees. Libby was convicted of obstruction of justice, perjury and making false statements in relation to the leaking of information about a confidential CIA informant during the administration of President George W. Bush. D’Souza pleaded guilty to campaign finance violations.

All three were pardoned by Trump. In at least D’Souza’s case, the pardon was granted without a direct appeal from D’Souza himself. (The idea apparently came from Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Tex.).

2. Are you a celebrity?

Actually, let’s refine that.

2b. Are you a celebrity who was on some iteration of “The Apprentice”?

Last week, Trump told reporters that he was considering pardons for former Illinois governor Rod Blagojevich and interior-design expert Martha Stewart. What’s the common theme there? Both appeared on Trump’s signature television franchise.

If you are a celebrity who wasn’t an “Apprentice” host or contestant, your fate is murkier. But it bodes well for Joe and Teresa Giudice.

3. The next best thing: If you’re not a celebrity, do you know one?

Trump’s pardon of Jack Johnson, the first black man to win the heavyweight boxing title, came as a direct result of advocacy by the actor Sylvester Stallone. The sixth pardon that Trump is reportedly considering — of Alice Marie Johnson, a 69-year-old given a life sentence for drug and money laundering charges — was brought to Trump’s attention during an Oval Office meeting with Kim Kardashian West last month. (Jared Kushner, also in that meeting, is apparently enthusiastic about the idea.)

4. Can you get on Fox News?

One of the more remarkable pardons granted by Trump was that of Kristian Saucier, a Navy sailor convicted of taking photos of classified areas of a submarine. Saucier’s strategy was deliberate: He appeared on Fox News expecting that Trump was likely watching and pleaded his case. It worked.

That strategy has not always worked. Blagojevich’s wife has appeared on the network in an effort to have her case heard by Trump. The wife of George Papadopoulos, a Trump campaign adviser who pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI, made a similar pitch Monday night. Neither Blagojevich nor Papadopoulos has yet been granted a pardon.

5. Do you have any friends who know Trump?

The Post’s report includes this detail:

“Trump has begun asking friends who else he should pardon, according to an adviser who frequently speaks to the president, and some have offered suggestions. The president has asked [White House counsel Don] McGahn to prepare a list of other pardons for him to consider for signature, administration officials said.”

This is what Trump does: He asks for the input of people around him on a broad range of topics, pardons apparently included. If you have a friend who has membership at Mar-a-Lago, now’s the time to call in that old favor.

6. Are you in the sights of special counsel Robert S. Mueller III?

Speaking of Papadopoulos: It seems pretty likely at this point that at least one of the individuals who have been charged as part of the Mueller investigation might get a pardon. Perhaps it will be former national security adviser Michael Flynn, the investigation of whom Trump allegedly once tried to curtail. Or perhaps it will be former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort, who, some believe, is avoiding cooperating with Mueller in the expectation that his charges will be waived. Or perhaps it will be some future individual who is charged by Mueller for crimes not yet made public. Having potential leverage over Trump seems a reasonably viable path to a pardon.

(It probably will not be Papadopoulos.)

It is possible, too, that some of those whose cases have been wending their way through the Justice Department’s official process might end up having their files dropped on Trump’s desk. But given how things have gone so far, we did not bother to add those people to the flowchart.

This from the GOP leader who spent 8 years shutting down every policy, program proposed by President Obama … to become nothing more than an OBSTRUCTIONIST…

..This from the GOP leader who spent 8 years shutting down every policy, program proposed by President Obama … to become nothing more than an OBSTRUCTIONIST…

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) announced on Tuesday that he has canceled three weeks of the chamber’s month-long August recess due to "historic obstruction" by Democrats. He said senators will spend the time working to approve nominees and spending bills. Senators are still expected to have the first week of August off.

Read more: https://www.politico.com/story/2018/06/05/mcconnell-cancels-most-of-august-recess-625905