Blog powered by Typepad

« Your Monday Funnies: 30.10.17 | Main | 'It's been just one of those days' »

Monday, 30 October 2017


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

I'm interested in seeing who is allowed to collude with Russia and who isn't. Who must be prosecuted and who shall never be. The charges against Manafort could easily apply to both Clintons and even Obama...Conspiracy against the US--Iran deal, the uranium deal for payoffs, and then money laundering--Clinton Foundation, and finally lying to the FBI--Hillary, Comey.

Let this run and see who and what falls where. If it is all one sided like some believe...God help us.


My sympathies, David, you have to keep swatting this irritating gnat when I am sure you have better things to do and words of wisdom to impart...

Troll alert David.


Piss poor effort on your part Pompous, I see no mention of either "The Republicans" generally or, Trump specifically in the indictment; charges are enumerated beginning on page 23 of the indictment hereon:

Too - media reports indicate the charges laid by the Mueller Team were laid at this time so as to avoid the statute of limitations running out and further, as the enumerated charges (per the indictment) run from 2006 through 2014 in the main, though it must be illuminated that "certain of the ongoing enterprise did extend into 2017" - there is absolutely no tie-in to either agents of the RNC generally or, Trump specifically.

Try harder Pompous.

I have, er, edited the remarks from 'PompousG'.

Okay David if, I [Yawn] too?

So far, Papadopoulos' guilty plea is the worst news for the Trump administration:

"Papadopoulos is the first person to face criminal charges that cite interactions between Trump campaign associates and Russian intermediaries during the 2016 presidential campaign."

In another word, "collusion". The shit has hit the fan.

Be my guest, JK!

Sorry, Bob, we crossed in the ether! Yes, that story is already splashed in The Telegraph - why am I not surprised? Trump is a get rich quick, duck 'n' dive merchant and I have no doubt that there are bodies to be found. In the meantime, Uranium One continues to send out its deadly rays.

Goddammit, isn't there one reasonably straight arrow in the American political quiver?

David, there are questions about why the Democrats lied about funding the Steele dossier, but there's little chance the Uranium One story will amount to anything other than a distraction. If you're interested in why you can read this:

Basically, it's a conspiracy theory cooked up in the book 'Clinton Cash: The Untold Story of How and Why Foreign Governments and Businesses Helped Make Bill and Hillary Rich' by Peter Schweizer, who is a Republican partisan and Breitbart News Senior Editor. The story was debunked years ago:

There are some straight arrows in our politics in both parties. Honesty is seldom part of the media story line, though. It's usually the political equivalent of a plane landing safely.

All I can say, Bob, is that if I shook hands with any of them I would count my fingers afterwards!

Well, David: Blair, Cameron, May, Johnson and Farage. Though you can probably make a case all but one or two are more bungling than malicious.

National Review's take so far:

Snopes, factcheck and McClatchey be damned for dirty after the Obama years.

None of those, Bob, are anywhere near the level of corruption of today's American politicians, although Blair *after* he left office swam in some stinking pools!


"When it comes to Manafort, Trump didn’t drain the swamp. He hired the swamp. If anyone thought Mueller’s investigation wasn’t necessary before today, the revelations from the special counsel’s office should dispel all doubt."

Read more at:

And damn the New York Times, which never met a Clinton "scandal" it didn't love:

Uhm Bob?

In all our dealings here on David's site, do you recall me ever expressing "the hope" Hillary ought/should be held criminally liable (with perhaps, the exception being Emailgate)?

I might be wrong but I think not: however Bob I do expect you can readily find in the archives me, expressing primarily that, Hillary be defeated in the only poll that mattered, (that poll being concluded last November 8th with Trump taking the Electoral College accomplished, what further could be reasonably expected)?

Emailgate I contend was [is] something the nature of which, probably ought been more assiduously contended and which, except for Holder and Lynch (and of course, The Executive branch) would have, but for the alternate universe y'all have us currently situated, would have in earlier times turned out seriously different.

But that having passed all that could be reasonably hoped happened.

Will all this "current foofaraw" continue? Yep.

Will it amount to much of anything (Hillary in an orange jumpsuit) very most likely Not?

Does it matter?

Emphatically Yes! - President Hillary is not.

Bob, exercise discretion when reading Snipes Snopes/FactCheck, they have a penchant for play on words making statements misleading to the extent of directing the narrative.

JK, it doesn't break my heart Hillary isn't president, but I'd rather not have Trump either. The silver linings are breaking the Clintons' hold on the Democratic party and possibly the end of the Republicans' "all politics all the time" chaos.

Up2L8, both stories have appeared in other sources. They were just convenient to link. It's a good idea to not trust any single source of news.

Perhaps we should keep in mind that Manafort has been charged but not convicted.

Well Bob,

"It goes as it goes" as a guy sending me into harm's way some years ago said to me just after I'd expressed some doubts as to whether, for one, the mission portended much good was to be accomplished and/or, my hopes of returning "in good shape" seemed to me, kinda unlikely.

I doubt I'll get any medal from Trump as I did then but, its relative I guess.

Actually Bob I figured you'd hit the archives whichupon you'd admit this'un:

Be that as it may ...

I will declare Bob on your behalf - you're not quite the Lefty "some" here would have you.

Too bad your "compatriot/co-conspirator" thinks it otherwise.

Bob: It's a good idea to not trust any single source of news.

I'm certainly not in disagreement, although multiple sources have an tendency to make one feel like they are in an echo chamber/house of mirrors.

Yup BOE, I see [a] Podesta guy has "resigned from something."

As his brother already did.

Manafort was Trump's campaign manager for what! three months? Doesn't seem a long time to have managed to influence the election. I have no idea as to why he was hired in the first place, except that 20/20 vision is always spot on, speaking from personal experience.


I'm a non-doctrinaire liberal and try to be a political pragmatist. Remember the Rockefeller Republicans? There were a lot of them I agreed with on a lot of issues. At this point the Republicans have driven out almost all the liberals and moderates. There are a few commenters here who believe not following the far right party line makes a person a lefty. That's their problem, not mine.


It's not hard to stay out of echo chambers. I read the newswires (AP, UPI, and Reuters), a few accumulators that draw from a wide variety of sources, and usually throw in the front page of a different newspaper every day. Google News makes it easy to get all the angles on a story. I don't read many opinion pieces. They're the worst for echo.

This has bugger all to do with modern politics but today is the 100th anniversary of the charge of the Australian Light Horse at Beersheba in modern day Israel. In this action the 4th Light Horse Brigade, approximately 800 men, captured Beersheba routing around 4000 Turkish troops and turning the left flank of the Turkish line and leading to the collapse of the Turkish front and the eventual taking of Jerusalem and a hundred year bond between Australia and what is now Israel.

There are many excellent books and articles which cover the desert war but one of the best by a Light Horseman who was there is The Desert Column by Ian Idriess. For a synopsis of his book see

JK, "President Hillary is not". In addition, on Instapundit this morning is a "pull" for a bigger picture:

THIS IS A FEATURE, NOT A BUG. Time: Trump’s Cabinet ‘Wrecking Crew’ Is ‘Dismantling Government As We Know It.’

Not surprisingly, just as they didn’t realize that comparing Obama to FDR and “The New, New Deal” in November of 2008 was in reality quite a damning statement, Time doesn’t understand that “dismantling government as we know it” is exactly what Trump was elected to do – and in Betsy DeVos’s case, it’s even Jerry Brown-approved.

Bob. You should widen your horizons. Try RT, lots of stuff about your great country and no more biased than the rest of them.

Heh heh heh BOE.

Bob? "Remember the Rockefeller Republicans?"

Man oh man do I! Matter of fact before the nation at large heard of 'em ...


Precisely. (Moonbeam approves? ... Well he would wouldn't he, given the state of affairs in California

Oh and Aussie D?

Anyway you fellers could mount an expedition these days and rout that Erdogan feller? I know the Kurds (an' me) would appreciate it.

Damned duplicitous Islamist bastard that Turk Erdogan.


I watched RT television for a few weeks before deciding it's a propaganda outlet and not worth my time. A lot like Fox News.

And Rachel Maddow, Chris "Tingles" Matthews, MSNBC generally ...


I remember the Southern Rockefellers, but was thinking more about Nelson Rockefeller, Charles Percy, Jacob Javits, Lowell Weicker, and so on that resisted the Goldwater far right. Come to think of it, though, Goldwater seems centrist now. The Republicans would be a lot better off if they still had those types. They've painted themselves into a corner instead.

I'll admit to watching Chris Matthews for entertainment. His show should be called "Hardblow". He tied Trump up in knots during his interview. And you might have noticed he'll make fun of any politicians who deserve it, regardless of party.

Thanks for making my point, Bob.

You noticed that Ups?

Yeah Bob, kinda figured those were the guys you'd in mind.

A sidenote though Bob, my "first real job" was working as a wrangler at WinRock Farms - that's why I noted Win Rockefeller, my Dad and he enjoyed Jack Daniels while I (and Win's Regulars) worked up and loaded Mr. Rockefeller's Santa Gertrudis cattle.


For your enjoyment:

Santa Gertrudis cattle. Some very dangerous live stock. I've known of more than one man killed by a SG.

Damned straight Whitewall ... Besides wranglin' that was the job required me to learn welding - four strands of barbwire simply didn't stand a chance. Took tubular steel fencing to hold them evil beasts.

But. Hoo boy, man that breed could keep poachers outta our catfish ponds!

Yup, sure did JK.

Up2L8 and JK,

If you're pointing out I'm largely a product of my Chicago area upbringing you've got a valid point.


You got me curious about how RT would spin Brexit. They want you to distrust your government for keeping secrets from you. Of course the Russians would never do that to their public:

Note they still want to lionize Farage, too.

Eh Bob?

Hope those hep.

Oh and Bob?

Did I ever mention my earliest memories feature Great Lakes Naval Base?

(Thankfully, Dad's request for transfer to Twentynine Palms was approved!)

Given the hysteria (for that is what is) about President Trump, I found myself reviewing my distant impressions, in no particular order, of various American Prezzies in my conscious lifetime. I don’t know how much other people share these uninformed views of these not so all-powerful people:

Kennedy: Like Elvis, best career move was, sadly and tragically for the poor man, dying young-ish. Definitely had courage, pretty loathsome and corrupt family and milieu. Could not have lived up to his billing.

LBJ: Limited, entertaining, darkly humorous and probably out of his depth and era. Upside is his earthy Texan worldview. Downside is his earthy…

Nixon: Seriously hard to warm to. Possibly an impressive ‘real-politicker’. Completely undone by nascent ‘liberal’ sentiment and hypocrisy post-Watergate, and revisionists might see him as a bit of a martyr. Still think he was a bit of a stinker, but possibly not as stinky as his erstwhile accusers.

Carter/Ford: Clearly, they must surely have been good at something to get where they were, just not obvious what. Dull, dull, dull. Genuinely untalented, and fortunately neither was tested further.

Clinton: Unworthy of the office. A shyster and moral coward. Nice hair. America’s Blair.

Obama: Just a silly manufactured thing. Notable feature; vaguely and only sort of black-ish. Opportunistic, to the extent he could really be bothered to do anything other than luxuriate.

Reagan: Unlikely hero. Flawed, but to his credit would admit it with genuine humour. Grew into office in the face of extraordinary opposition. Quite possibly a great President, on a several hundred-year view.

Trump: Who’d have thought it or indeed welcomed it? Definitely not me! Carries the abundant hair meme to a ridiculous degree. Could though, just possibly, be seriously great. Realistically more likely, though, to end up like Gulliver tied down by Lilliputians. A lovely breath of fresh air, for all that.


Thank you. There are so many people on both the left and right who don't want to admit what the Russians are up to it's downright weird.


"A lovely breath of fresh air, for all that."
Your own remarks are lovely breaths of fresh air in our midst.


The comments to this entry are closed.