monitoring Trump and relevant contemporary events

Guess you flunked that course on obstructing in law school huh?

****...now I know you flunked law school... Hahahaha.

Yeah, exactly! That's not the kind of thing a deputy director who worked closely with Comey and who is quite familiar with the FBI's resources would ever know. Comey would never tell his deputy that the department needed more funds.

The only person who could possibly know that is an anonymous source who is actually "familiar with the situation," eh?

I stand corrected...I did not know the language was omitted from the statue.

I know a guy who owns a small farm and who raises some livestock like pigs, sheep, etc. I will not disclose this guy's name, out of concern for his privacy.

He is familiar with the situation on his farm. He tells me that Obama stops in regularly to **** sheep, so, then, there ya have it, eh?

He has chosen not to disclose this information to the FBI, so McCabe isn't aware of it.

11 year cycle, huh?


Global annual average temperature measured over land and oceans. Red bars indicate temperatures above and blue bars indicate temperatures below the 1901-2000 average temperature. The black line shows atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration in parts per million.
Source: NOAA

I take it all back. I should never have posted that in this forum.

I need to sell that information to the National Inquirer, not give it away for free on an internet message board.

Either that or use it to get a $200,000/year job as a journalist for the NYT maybe.

They'll probably pay even more once I add some details. For example, Obama pays $200 a throw for these sessions, but only if the sheep involved are all rams, with no ewes.

Nice chart there, eh, Ollie.

Kinda strange that it shows CO2 levels going up while temperatures go down, staying flat when temperatures go up, and ****, though, eh?

I think you are correct in that Coney didn't actually investigate personally but received the results; likely was considered the top person, but wasn't one of the professional investigators.

Last night, I nearly got dizzy reading article after article about Coney. Lotta confusion going on there, articles going back and forth and sideways.

Which reminds me of your recent claim that my "mommy" should have taught me (like yours presumably taught you) to never read scientific articles if there is any suggestion that the content of those articles would in any way challenge what I have already declared to be indisputable fact, but to instead immediately denounce them as "lies," eh?

What's missing from the chart is any illustration of the typical changes that have occurred over longer time spans due to the host of other geological & solar factors involved. That omission creates the deceptive and incorrect impression that ONLY CO2 concentrations are driving the changes we see now, and deprives us of any basis on which to see if the changes indicated are indeed significant in the long term.

I believe the CO2 effect is real and likely persistent. However the warming seen so far, about 1.5 deg. F over a 125 year period is by no means catastrophic. We need the continued improvements (already underway) in our energy technologies to address the combined CO2/economic welfare issues. That comes from freedom and innovation, not the dead, bureaucratic hand of government.

The real issue here is the wrongheaded recommendations persistently advocated by the zealots who seek to control the world economy in pursuit of their goals. They oppose the most effective means at hand to sustain human life and welfare, while minimizing CO2 emissions - emission free nuclear power and far more efficient use of abundant natural gas - while insisting on the subsidized use of very inefficient and relatively primitive technologies like wind power and photo-voltaic solar cells, that promise to retard human welfare and development.

For me, a breath of fresh air, via a former senator whom I've liked, Russ Feingold:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/may/11/donald-trump-illegitimate-president-james-comey

Opinion
Donald Trump acts like an illegitimate president for a reason
Russ Feingold
Thursday 11 May 2017 14.19 BST
Last modified on Thursday 11 May 2017 15.12 BST

In the firing of FBI director James Comey, the US president seems not to care about how Americans view him. Is that because most didn’t vote for him?

The American people did not really choose Donald Trump. His presidency exists without the support of the majority of voters and, in turn, without a true mandate from the American people. Trump walks and talks instead like an authoritarian, and seems to believe he is above the people and the law, and need not answer to either. He wants to be untouchable. He behaves with impunity and acts as if legal standards like obstruction of justice don’t apply to him.

Firing the director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, James Comey, demonstrates a whole new level of defiance of the rule of law and our foundational system of checks and balances. More bluntly, it proves just how dangerous an illegitimate president is to our democracy. His actions do not only undermine the legitimacy and credibility of his presidency; they are a direct threat to our constitutionalism and our democratic legitimacy.

Our democratic legitimacy comes from the “power of the people”. When a president is duly elected by the people, that person is accountable to those people. After a president is elected by a majority of the people, it is self-evident that the people who gave them power can also take it away. But when a president wins the White House while losing the popular vote, this accountability to the people is lost.

The president took power in defiance of the people, and expects to be able to do so again. So the will of the people becomes irrelevant in the mind – and decision making – of an illegitimate president. An illegitimate president can fire the FBI director in order to impede an investigation into his own campaign, and believe there will be no consequences. If he can fire the head of the FBI, what else can he do?

This seems like an obvious demand at this point, but it’s worth stating clearly that now, more than ever, we need a special prosecutor appointed to look into the continuing drip, drip, drip revelations about Russia. But even more than that, the United States must regain our democratic legitimacy by ensuring that no citizen, president or otherwise, is above the law or above the American people.

The case for obstruction of justice by the Trump administration is being built right now, and we must demand that Republicans and Democrats join together so that the grave danger to our democracy is called out for what it is and remedied – and not swept under the rug.

We also must not lose sight of the larger fight at hand. Tuesday’s events stem directly from our own illegitimate electoral system, which produced Trump the president. They are the result of voter suppression, dark money in politics, and the esoteric electoral college – all of which serve to silence the American people. To restore our democratic legitimacy, together, we must overcome these more entrenched challenges that strengthen those elected officials who opt to be silent when it is time to speak out.

We must make the national popular vote determinative, Congress must pass a 21st-century Voting Rights Act and we need to keep up the pressure in favor of comprehensive campaign finance reform. If we fail to do this, we are a nation at risk of the Trump-Pence administration becoming a catastrophic precedent, rather than a one-time phenomenon that our democracy overcame.

Russ Feingold was a 16-year member of the US Senate judiciary committee

Yeah, George. I made an earlier post which addressed the (lagging) relationship of CO2 to surface temperatures over the last 850,000 years. I don't know if you saw it or not.

I have also seen the scientific claim made that if the USA disappeared today, with all it's auto's, industry, power plants, etc., then the effect on temperatures 50 years from now would be less than 100th of 1 percent of 1 degree.

No one denies that the climate is changing. No one denies that more greenhouse gases will have some warming effect (which could be more than offset by other relevant factors). But the question remains--so what? Many scientists have claimed that increased CO2 levels, within reason, would be a great benefit to humanity.

Looks like a lot more of the all-too-familiar Democrat/Clintonian denial of their defeat inn the last election. It couldn't possibly be their fault: it must be the result of voter fraud; voter suppression; flaws in our constitution; and the stupidity of Americans who don't like the standard liberal prescriptions. The refusal to deal directly with facts and the outcomes of one's actions usually leads to bad results for those who engage in it so assiduously.

The thing of it is that the distrust of Trump is more than those who voted for Hillary as she only got 40% (somewhere along there) of the vote. What both sides end up fighting for all the time is the percent between the partisan divide. That percent has soured on Trump but he has managed to keep his base. I say that because according to latest polls, Trump's disapproval numbers are all over fifty percent, even those favorable to conservatives. (of which I left earlier from realclearpolitics with all the polls.)

One thing I will concede, we can't really impeach Trump over firing Comey despite his motives in doing it, because he is allowed to fire the head of the FBI for any reason. Trump's stated reason is more bull crap, but it is what we come to expect from him. I just hope the Russian investigation keeps going no matter who ends up in charge, but I have my doubts.

I'm much more interested to see what Trump manages to accomplish (or not) than any poll regarding "public approval" that was ever taken. Such polls are, in fact, totally irrelevant as far as I'm concerned

Who cares? It wasn't my point. My point is that it is not only the left/or those who voted for Hillary who disapprove of Trump.

Well, unfortunately, your "point" has no bearing on the issue raised which you were purporting to respond to.

That may, or may not, be true. We'll find out in the next election. However the persistent, almost pathological, denial on the election outcome exhibited by the candidate (Hillary) in her recent assertions that timing and external events alone caused her defeat is very telling. Additionally the persistence on the part of other Democrat apologists, including former Senator Feingold, in blaming it all on various conspiracies, wrongdoing by others, and the stupidity of some voters - and not at all on their own policies and the actions of their candidate - suggests they still have their heads in the sand and may be somewhat deranged.

I'm confident the Democrats will persist in their theorizing about an assumed Trump Russian conspiracy to steal the election. However as the months continue to pass, still without any substance to support these unsupported theories, it will all get a bit stale, possibly backfiring on them. Even ordinary people can readily detect whining and the childish refusal to accept a deserved adverse outcome on the part of those who should know better. Increasingly it appears to me that the Democrat leaders and their media claques have become the chief consumers of their own bullshit ( but then, they are not ordinary people.)

Classic NPD symptoms.

Like some pundits here, still banging on about the popular vote, as if that means anything.