HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Nevermypresident » Journal
Page: « Prev 1 2 3 4 Next »


Profile Information

Member since: Thu Jan 26, 2017, 03:19 PM
Number of posts: 781

Journal Archives

Russia propaganda machine likes Tulsi Gabbard

An NBC News analysis of the main English-language news sites employed by Russia in its 2016 election meddling shows Rep. Tulsi Gabbard of Hawaii, who is set to make her formal announcement Saturday, has become a favorite of the sites Moscow used when it interfered in 2016.

Several experts who track websites and social media linked to the Kremlin have also seen what they believe may be the first stirrings of an upcoming Russian campaign of support for Gabbard.

Since Gabbard announced her intention to run on Jan. 11, there have been at least 20 Gabbard stories on three major Moscow-based English-language websites affiliated with or supportive of the Russian government: RT, the Russian-owned TV outlet; Sputnik News, a radio outlet; and Russia Insider, a blog that experts say closely follows the Kremlin line. The CIA has called RT and Sputnik part of "Russia's state-run propaganda machine."


Posted by Nevermypresident | Thu Jun 27, 2019, 07:28 PM (4 replies)

Top WMD Official Quietly Leaves Pentagon


"Guy Roberts, the U.S. Defense Department’s top civilian in charge of nuclear, chemical, and biological defense programs, quietly stepped down in April for reasons that remain murky, one of the latest in a series of high-profile exits from the Pentagon over the past six months."
Posted by Nevermypresident | Mon Jun 24, 2019, 02:00 PM (1 replies)

"Using nuclear weapons could create conditions for decisive results and the restoration of strategic


“Specifically, the use of a nuclear weapon will fundamentally change the scope of a battle and create conditions that affect how commanders will prevail in conflict.”

"The Joint Chiefs of Staff briefly published and then removed from public access a new edition of their official doctrine on the use of nuclear weapons. But a public copy was preserved."

DoD Doctrine on Nuclear Operations Published, Taken Offline
Posted on Jun.19, 2019 in Dept of Defense, Military Doctrine by Steven Aftergood


Posted by Nevermypresident | Wed Jun 19, 2019, 11:16 PM (13 replies)

She (Hope Hicks) even refused to identify the location of her West Wing Office to the House!

But if the hearing had the potential to kick-start Democrats’ stalled investigations into Mr. Trump, it quickly veered toward an increasingly familiar outcome. Under the direction of White House and her private lawyers, Ms. Hicks declined to answer questions about her time working in the administration and on the presidential transition, citing instructions from the president that she was “absolutely immune” from answering, lawmakers from both parties said.


Same old, same old....

Posted by Nevermypresident | Wed Jun 19, 2019, 04:02 PM (18 replies)

"Push to impeach Trump stalls amid Democrats' deference to -- and fear of -- Pelosi


"The reluctance to oppose the speaker, according to interviews with more than 20 lawmakers and aides, has undermined the push for impeachment despite the growing support for ousting Trump among the party’s liberal base and several 2020 presidential candidates.

Thus far, impeachment proponents in the caucus have been unwilling to call Pelosi out by name or rally support to begin proceedings. Consequently, the campaign has slowed, with a caucus minority of just over 60 lawmakers backing impeachment — at least for now.

But Pelosi’s aptly timed announcements have also played a major role in easing tensions. When the clamor for impeachment grows louder following some explosive news about Trump defying Congress, Pelosi has made a point to echo the frustration of a pro-impeachment base by accusing Trump of a “coverup” or saying he should be “in prison.” Those remarks, her allies say, SHIELD HER as she pumps the brakes on impeachment.

Pelosi has also made a conscious effort to “let the air out of the balloon before it pops,” according to one aide. Last week, she greenlighted a civil contempt vote on the House floor to give frustrated members an outlet TO VENT."


Based on the above, I understand why she has been accused of running out the clock re Impeachment.

IMO, Pelosi will not change her mind on Impeachment. Her soundbites indicating the possibility is still on the table are designed to placate those majority of Democrats in this country that are Pro-Impeachment.

Only Nadler and/or more and more House Dems rebelling against Pelosi's position can change this.

Posted by Nevermypresident | Tue Jun 18, 2019, 02:25 PM (6 replies)

Make that 66 House Dems for Impeachment - Swalwell comes out Pro-Impeachment

June 13, 11:14am

"65 House Democrats want to open an impeachment inquiry into Trump"

and now Eric Swalwell:

Eric Swalwell

Verified account

Jun 13

After hearing the president say, flat-out, that he would accept a foreign power’s offer of dirt on an electoral competitor and probably not inform the FBI of such an effort, I believe that Congress must pursue impeachment.
Posted by Nevermypresident | Fri Jun 14, 2019, 05:22 PM (2 replies)

Poll: Nearly 70 percent of Americans say sitting president should be subject to criminal charges



"The national survey, which was released Wednesday by Quinnipiac University, found that 69 percent of Americans polled support charging a sitting president. Meanwhile, 24 percent of respondents said that a president should face charges for alleged crimes only after they leave the White House.

Fifty-two percent of Republican respondents voiced support for charging a sitting president, while 83 percent of Democrats said they'd favor charging a sitting president.

When it comes to President Trump, respondents were evenly split on whether he has committed crimes while in office, with 45 percent saying he did, and the same amount saying he did not. Ten percent said they did not know."

Posted by Nevermypresident | Wed Jun 12, 2019, 02:11 PM (3 replies)

What is the actual PROCESS of Impeachment in the House​?

1-Any Representative in the House can make a suggestion to pursue Article(s) of Impeachment.

2-Then it is up to the Speaker of the House to decide whether to forward it to the House Judiciary Committee.

3-House Judiciary Committee investigates (no time limit imposed), has hearings, etc.

4-House Judiciary Committee then votes whether to approve each Article of Impeachment. (simple majority needed)

5-Then each Article of Impeachment is voted on by the full House. A simple majority vote is required. If yes, then he is IMPEACHED.

6-Trial is held in the Senate presided over by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.


Posted by Nevermypresident | Tue Jun 4, 2019, 06:23 PM (1 replies)

Let's review the FACTS re election results after Clinton Impeachment.


10/8/98 - House votes to formally conduct Impeachment Inquiry

11/3/98 - Mid-term Election:

House results:
"in November 1998, the Democrats picked up FIVE seats in the House although the Republicans STILL MAINTAINED MAJORITY CONTROL.[12]

Senate results:
3 Democrat seats gain and 3 Republican seats gain. Net effect was ZERO.

12/19/98 Impeachment by House - 2 articles of impeachment: obstruction and perjury

2/12/99: Clinton was acquitted by Senate.

11/7/2000 Election results:

Narrow "win" by Bush over Gore.

House: Repubs lost 2 seats, Dems gained 1 seat and Independents gained 1 seat.

"Six senators were defeated in the November 2000 election. The five defeated Republicans included Spencer Abraham of Michigan, John Ashcroft of Missouri, Slade Gorton of Washington, Rod Grams of Minnesota, and William V. Roth of Delaware. The single defeated Democrat was Charles S. Robb of Virginia.[6]"


***Now, contrary to what you hear, there can be MANY factors which impacted why Democrats beat the 5 Republican Senate candidates in 2000. It would be foolish to surmise that Clinton's impeachment was the ONLY reason. I just looked at 2 examples of the 5 Republican senators that lost in 2000 (after Clinton's impeachment and acquittal in Feb. 1999).

Republican Rod Grams:

Grams ran for re-election in 2000 as the incumbent, losing to Mark Dayton. During the campaign, Grams' wife Christine Gunhus was revealed to have written anonymous disparaging emails about Grams' potential Democratic rival, Mike Ciresi, from her home computer.[2] She received a fine and suspended sentence for violating political advertising regulations.[3] The Grams campaign also ran a commercial during the campaign featuring the mother of Rod Grams. The spot ended with Audrey Grams uttering, "Uffda, vote for Rod."

Republican Spencer Abraham:
State Republicans attributed (Republican Senator Abraham) loss (to Debbie Stabenow) to the often scathing advertisements by a wide range of special-interest groups, including advertisements that criticized Mr. Abraham's support for a relaxation of some immigration restrictions.

Posted by Nevermypresident | Sun Jun 2, 2019, 03:11 PM (3 replies)

Sometimes, the truth hurts.

Like it or not, if we continue down this road of giving conman more and more chances to comply with the House's oversight requests, we look weak. While we meet "in a few days" to develop our next strategy of asking again (and again), meanwhile trump is winning. The deplorables are cheering and we are wringing our hands.

Just a few examples of trump's (life long) strategy, in case you might have forgotten:

Opposed testimony by current and former staffers

Filed a lawsuit against the House Oversight and Reform Committee over his tax returns

Refused to respond to congressional requests to Treasury

Refused to permit former White House Counsel Don McGahn to testify

Refused to respond to congressional subpoenas in 2020 census investigation

Ordered former staffers not to testify in the security clearance investigation

Sued to stop Congress from subpoenaing his bank records


FGS, please at the very least form a Special Committee to Investigate trump as they did with Nixon- the Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities.

...and please don't accuse me , a lifelong passionate Democrat, of being disloyal just because I'm calling it as I see it. Those DUer's who have and will complain about this - have you ever had a loved one who disappointed you or made a bad decision? Did you still love them, support them, and attempt to help them make better choices?!?!
Posted by Nevermypresident | Sat May 4, 2019, 01:10 PM (0 replies)
Go to Page: « Prev 1 2 3 4 Next »