monitoring Trump and relevant contemporary events

Democrats’ behavior at the State of the Union was embarrassing

The address fulfills rules in Article II, Section 3 of the U.S. Constitution, requiring the President to periodically "give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient."[1] During most of the country's first century, the President primarily only submitted a written report to Congress. After 1913, Woodrow Wilson, the 28th U.S. President, began the regular practice of delivering the address to Congress in person as a way to rally support for his agenda.[1] With the advent of radio and television, the address is now broadcast live across the country on many networks,[4] and thus is also used by the President as a platform to speak directly to the American people.

MJ, that's quit tRumpian of him - he has the largest audience on A2K - yah know!

Pruitt explained. "No one has done more to advance the rule of law than President Trump. The president has liberated our country from the political class and given America back to the people."

If you take five white guys and put 'em with five black guys, and let 'em hang around together for about a month, and at the end of the month, you'll notice that the white guys are walking and talking and standing like the black guys do.

Democrats’ behavior at the State of the Union was embarrassing

Democrats need a simple, clear and effective counter to that claim, and it is not to be found in the unfocused protests and reflexive petulance they showed Tuesday and again Wednesday

On Wednesday morning, House Democratic leaders went before the cameras to give their thoughts on the State of the Union. They were discursive and aimless.

Rep. Joe Crowley (D-N.Y.) denounced Trump's "racist, demonizing comments on immigrants" and the absence of any mention of Russian election interference.

Rep. Linda Sánchez (D-Calif.) said that her "first step" would be the "dreamers."

Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) hopped from immigration to opioids, budget funding caps, Trump's self-congratulation and lack of vision. She briefly pivoted to the economy ("he pads the pockets of the top 1 percent") before returning to immigration, then Russia sanctions.

Rep. James Clyburn (D-S.C.) chipped in mentions of #MeToo, Trump's insults of African nations, African American unemployment, air safety, schools, broadband, the environment and clean energy.

All important issues. But when the whole thing was over, 40 long minutes later, the only message the Democratic leaders managed to convey was that they really do not like Trump.

I’ve been in the House chamber for many such addresses over the past couple of decades. There were highs (President George W. Bush’s speeches after the 9/11 attacks) and lows (South Carolina Rep. Joe Wilson’s “you lie!” moment). This was the most depressing, for it displayed a hopelessly divided government and people— and a president deepening the rift.

They applauded, as well, when Trump did his usual inconsistencies and rearranging of facts. Trump proclaimed that “we are now an exporter of energy to the world” (we were an exporter for years and are still not a net exporter), that “unemployment claims have hit a 45-year low” (Trump, before taking office, had said the unemployment figures he now cites were phony), and that “the stock market has smashed one record after another” (he alleged before taking office that the record-setting market was a “bubble” and “artificial”).

Republican lawmakers, clearly, have bound themselves tightly to Trump — and Trump, just as clearly, has no wish to heal the wounds he has caused.

New York’s Olivia Nuzzi, meanwhile, was interested in learning more about the president’s speechwriting team ahead of Trump’s State of the Union address. She received an interesting response from the White House:

“Unfortunately we will not be able to facilitate an interview with the speechwriting team,” Lindsay Walters, a deputy press secretary, told me in an email. “On record,” she added, “when President Trump communicates with the American people, his words are his own and come directly from his heart. His unparalleled ability to speak to and connect with people from across the country, including those who have felt forgotten by Washington for many years, will never waver.”

[...]

Perhaps Lindsay Walters used a creepy description of the president’s rhetorical abilities because, well, I’m not altogether sure why.

Congressional testimony by President Barack Obama’s former ambassador to the United Nations, Samantha Power, about the “unmasking” of U.S. citizens’ names she requested in hundreds of foreign intelligence intercepts by the National Security Agency, has raised new questions about how the sensitive information was ordered up, and subsequently handled.

Power spoke to the House Intelligence Committee on Oct. 13 behind closed doors, and what she said is still cloaked in secrecy. But on Oct. 17, House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Trey Gowdy, who also sits on the Intelligence Committee, told Fox News: “Her testimony is they [the unmasking requests] may be under my name, but I did not make those requests.” Gowdy said little else about the session.

The sheer volume of such requests submitted to U.S. intelligence authorities in her name was already unusual. But if she did not initiate them, then who did, and why?