The Many Faces of US Politics...

[whitey]

You said they sued after the election and after the votes had been cast

That is incorrect....they sued before the election

And based on what the PA Supreme Court ruled they were dead right to sue


"In its ruling, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court said that ballots could be counted if they were received by 5 p.m. Nov. 6, as long as they were mailed by Election Day, Nov. 3. It also said that ballots without a postmark would "be presumed to have been mailed by Election Day" unless there was strong evidence to the contrary."

You, yourself said that ballots received after the election should have a valid postmark

I said they "tried... to disqualify the votes " after the election.

Which is exactly what they did, despite the rules having already been approved.

And how many votes were in question over the postmark issue?

Was it the millions that Trump and Giuliani were suing left right and centre for weeks to get thrown out?

You'd be better off picking a better hill to die on than the GOP conduct in PA the election just past.

The standards the Republicans were arguing for before the election were identical to standards for mail in ballots that Democratic Secretaries of State had agreed upon in several other states.

The Democrats brought a lawsuit arguing that ballots with non matching signatures, missing/illegible postmarks should be counted

You yourself said the signatures should match and the postmark should be legible.

I guess following that logic, you are in favor of voter suppression

And the measures the GOP are attacking have already been in place in many red states for years.

On the signatures and postmarks, yes, I did say that.

Without thinking too much about it, beyond saying that variations in signature must be taken into account.

I hadn't thought about people who are disabled, injured or otherwise unable to normally replicate their signature, which is what the groups in PA were arguing for when they said that questions about the perceived validity of the signature, ALONE, should not be enough to invalidate a vote. Especially in a state where there were/are no standardized, objective protocols for assessing signatures .

On the postmarks, if the ballot is received by the Friday deadline and the postmark is smudged for whatever reason, chances are that is was mailed by the Tuesday, at least given my own personal experience of the US Postal Service. I don't see much of an issue as long as everything else about the ballot is legit. Is it fair to discount someone's vote because of the failures of USPS and their processes? Obviously its not hard to imagine a scenario where there is a small margin and a similar number of smudged postmarks in question. But  we're talking about a tiny number of votes relative to the margin in PA. Trump and Giuliani still tried to undermine the entire election and have ALL of the PA vote thrown out. They tried to have the votes of those who voted by mail thrown out. They tried to have the votes of all those who submitted late ballots thrown out. They didn't care about a few smudged postmarks or a few questionable signature matches.

Smudged or MISSING postmarks

Should ballots with missing postmarks be accepted?

Why would you sue to have ballots with missing postmarks counted if you weren't planning to cheat?

[J70]

You said they sued after the election and after the votes had been cast

That is incorrect....they sued before the election

And based on what the PA Supreme Court ruled they were dead right to sue


"In its ruling, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court said that ballots could be counted if they were received by 5 p.m. Nov. 6, as long as they were mailed by Election Day, Nov. 3. It also said that ballots without a postmark would "be presumed to have been mailed by Election Day" unless there was strong evidence to the contrary."

You, yourself said that ballots received after the election should have a valid postmark

I said they "tried... to disqualify the votes " after the election.

Which is exactly what they did, despite the rules having already been approved.

And how many votes were in question over the postmark issue?

Was it the millions that Trump and Giuliani were suing left right and centre for weeks to get thrown out?

You'd be better off picking a better hill to die on than the GOP conduct in PA the election just past.

The standards the Republicans were arguing for before the election were identical to standards for mail in ballots that Democratic Secretaries of State had agreed upon in several other states.

The Democrats brought a lawsuit arguing that ballots with non matching signatures, missing/illegible postmarks should be counted

You yourself said the signatures should match and the postmark should be legible.

I guess following that logic, you are in favor of voter suppression

And the measures the GOP are attacking have already been in place in many red states for years.

On the signatures and postmarks, yes, I did say that.

Without thinking too much about it, beyond saying that variations in signature must be taken into account.

I hadn't thought about people who are disabled, injured or otherwise unable to normally replicate their signature, which is what the groups in PA were arguing for when they said that questions about the perceived validity of the signature, ALONE, should not be enough to invalidate a vote. Especially in a state where there were/are no standardized, objective protocols for assessing signatures .

On the postmarks, if the ballot is received by the Friday deadline and the postmark is smudged for whatever reason, chances are that is was mailed by the Tuesday, at least given my own personal experience of the US Postal Service. I don't see much of an issue as long as everything else about the ballot is legit. Is it fair to discount someone's vote because of the failures of USPS and their processes? Obviously its not hard to imagine a scenario where there is a small margin and a similar number of smudged postmarks in question. But  we're talking about a tiny number of votes relative to the margin in PA. Trump and Giuliani still tried to undermine the entire election and have ALL of the PA vote thrown out. They tried to have the votes of those who voted by mail thrown out. They tried to have the votes of all those who submitted late ballots thrown out. They didn't care about a few smudged postmarks or a few questionable signature matches.

Smudged or MISSING postmarks

Should ballots with missing postmarks be accepted?

Why would you sue to have ballots with missing postmarks counted if you weren't planning to cheat?

I don't know.

I would have to have knowledge of what the normal rate of missing postmarks is on ballots i.e. how serious of a concern it is that post might be delivered without the machine having left a postmark.

I presume you know this given your certainty that its all a ploy to somehow cheat?

[whitey]

A party who collaborated with Russian intelligence to  fabricate a dossier, would be well capable of cheating

[J70]

A party who collaborated with Russian intelligence to  fabricate a dossier, would be well capable of cheating

So you don't have any details or background on the issue. Just your usual loose use of terms and poorly-based certainty when it comes to the motives of liberals and Democrats.

Suit yourself.

[whitey]

A party who collaborated with Russian intelligence to  fabricate a dossier, would be well capable of cheating

So you don't have any details or background on the issue. Just your usual loose use of terms and poorly-based certainty when it comes to the motives of liberals and Democrats.

Suit yourself.

Well they did collaborate with Russian intelligence via Steele

And they did concoct a dossier

And they did feed it through back channels to rogue FBI agents who have since been fired/demoted/prosecuted

[J70]

A party who collaborated with Russian intelligence to  fabricate a dossier, would be well capable of cheating

So you don't have any details or background on the issue. Just your usual loose use of terms and poorly-based certainty when it comes to the motives of liberals and Democrats.

Suit yourself.

Well they did collaborate with Russian intelligence via Steele

And they did concoct a dossier

And they did feed it through back channels to rogue FBI agents who have since been fired/demoted/prosecuted

No, they hired Steele, a private intelligence investigator with long-standing intelligence ties in Russia to continue the work started earlier by a conservative group. And he was the one to first approach the FBI and British intelligence with the concerns raised, having worked with them on the FIFA investigations in previous years.

Its like Groundhog Day going over the same old shite over and over again with you.

But by all means, if you have actual evidence that the DNC or Clinton campaign "concocted" the dossier and decided which FBI agents would handle it, go ahead and present it.

[whitey]

 https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.wsj.com/amp/articles/the-fbis-dossier-deceit-11595027626



WSJ OPINION  REVIEW & OUTLOOK
The FBI's Dossier Deceit
New evidence that the bureau knew the Russia info was phony in 2017.
The Justice Department's release of documents from the Obama Administration's 2016-17 Trump-Russia investigation is beginning to paint a picture, and the more we learn the worse the FBI looks.

The latest evidence comes from Friday's declassification via the Senate Judiciary Committee of the FBI's interviews, over three days in January 2017, with the primary source for the infamous Steele dossier. The bureau used the dossier's accusations as the basis for four warrants to surveil Trump aide Carter Page during the 2016 campaign and early months of the Trump Presidency. The 57 pages of notes from the source interviews make clear that the FBI knew the dossier was junk as early as January 2017.


ustice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz disclosed some of this in his December report on the FBI's surveillance warrants, but the interview transcript adds more color—as in red for embarrassment.

Former British spy Christopher Steele, whose dirt-digging was financed by the Hillary Clinton campaign, based nearly all of his dossier allegations on information from one unidentified "primary subsource." The FBI didn't corroborate the Steele dossier's claims prior to its first application to surveil Mr. Page in October 2016, and it didn't get around to interviewing the source until nearly four months later.

When agents finally got around to it, the source made clear that there was no factual basis to the dossier's claims. The source noted he had mainly provided business intelligence to Mr. Steele, so he was "uncomfortable" when Mr. Steele in March 2016 asked him to investigate Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort, and later Donald Trump. The source said his friends and contacts were "too far removed" from these matters, but that he "felt like he had to report something back to Steele."

The source's attorney insists the source didn't have a "network" so much as a "social circle." The source didn't take notes, and he couldn't remember which information came from whom. He acknowledged that he even passed along information derived from a telephone call from an anonymous "Russian male" who "never identified himself."

The source said he warned Mr. Steele that his info was "rumor and speculation." The FBI interviewer writes: "Steele pushed [the source] to try and either follow-up with people or corroborate the reporting but [the source] wasn't able to do so."

Friday's disclosure also includes a February 2017 document in which leading FBI investigator Peter Strzok acknowledges the dossier is a bust, and that the FBI still had no evidence of any wrongdoing. The New York Times on Feb. 14, 2017 published a story with this headline: "Trump Campaign Aides Had Repeated Contacts With Russian Intelligence."

Mr. Strzok wrote an internal FBI analysis highlighting the story's numerous inaccuracies, explaining "we are unaware of ANY Trump advisors engaging in conversations with Russian intelligence officials." He also acknowledges: "Recent interviews" reveal "Steele may not be in a position to judge the reliability of his subsource network."


The FBI interview with Mr. Steele's source should have put an end to the surveillance and broader investigation. Instead, the FBI continued to tout Mr. Steele as a reliable source as it renewed its requests for surveillance warrants. Former FBI Acting Director Andrew McCabe expanded the investigation to include the President, and former Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein appointed Robert Mueller as special counsel.

Senate Judiciary Chairman Lindsey Graham gets credit for this declassification, and in an interview Friday he told us his next step will be "to go from the bottom of the pyramid to the top and find out just how many people were informed" about the source interview. "Those who knew about this exculpatory information, or should have known, and yet who continued—they are in legal jeopardy," Mr. Graham said.

Democrats and the press corps that touted the phony Steele dossier will say this is a pursuit of a conspiracy theory, but it's not a theory. The more evidence that is made public, the clearer it becomes that the Steele dossier and collusion narrative were dirty political tricks that became abuses of power

[Gabriel_Hurl]

He's still going on about Steele - HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

[J70]

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.wsj.com/amp/articles/the-fbis-dossier-deceit-11595027626



WSJ OPINION  REVIEW & OUTLOOK
The FBI's Dossier Deceit
New evidence that the bureau knew the Russia info was phony in 2017.
The Justice Department's release of documents from the Obama Administration's 2016-17 Trump-Russia investigation is beginning to paint a picture, and the more we learn the worse the FBI looks.

The latest evidence comes from Friday's declassification via the Senate Judiciary Committee of the FBI's interviews, over three days in January 2017, with the primary source for the infamous Steele dossier. The bureau used the dossier's accusations as the basis for four warrants to surveil Trump aide Carter Page during the 2016 campaign and early months of the Trump Presidency. The 57 pages of notes from the source interviews make clear that the FBI knew the dossier was junk as early as January 2017.


ustice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz disclosed some of this in his December report on the FBI's surveillance warrants, but the interview transcript adds more color—as in red for embarrassment.

Former British spy Christopher Steele, whose dirt-digging was financed by the Hillary Clinton campaign, based nearly all of his dossier allegations on information from one unidentified "primary subsource." The FBI didn't corroborate the Steele dossier's claims prior to its first application to surveil Mr. Page in October 2016, and it didn't get around to interviewing the source until nearly four months later.

When agents finally got around to it, the source made clear that there was no factual basis to the dossier's claims. The source noted he had mainly provided business intelligence to Mr. Steele, so he was "uncomfortable" when Mr. Steele in March 2016 asked him to investigate Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort, and later Donald Trump. The source said his friends and contacts were "too far removed" from these matters, but that he "felt like he had to report something back to Steele."

The source's attorney insists the source didn't have a "network" so much as a "social circle." The source didn't take notes, and he couldn't remember which information came from whom. He acknowledged that he even passed along information derived from a telephone call from an anonymous "Russian male" who "never identified himself."

The source said he warned Mr. Steele that his info was "rumor and speculation." The FBI interviewer writes: "Steele pushed [the source] to try and either follow-up with people or corroborate the reporting but [the source] wasn't able to do so."

Friday's disclosure also includes a February 2017 document in which leading FBI investigator Peter Strzok acknowledges the dossier is a bust, and that the FBI still had no evidence of any wrongdoing. The New York Times on Feb. 14, 2017 published a story with this headline: "Trump Campaign Aides Had Repeated Contacts With Russian Intelligence."

Mr. Strzok wrote an internal FBI analysis highlighting the story's numerous inaccuracies, explaining "we are unaware of ANY Trump advisors engaging in conversations with Russian intelligence officials." He also acknowledges: "Recent interviews" reveal "Steele may not be in a position to judge the reliability of his subsource network."


The FBI interview with Mr. Steele's source should have put an end to the surveillance and broader investigation. Instead, the FBI continued to tout Mr. Steele as a reliable source as it renewed its requests for surveillance warrants. Former FBI Acting Director Andrew McCabe expanded the investigation to include the President, and former Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein appointed Robert Mueller as special counsel.

Senate Judiciary Chairman Lindsey Graham gets credit for this declassification, and in an interview Friday he told us his next step will be "to go from the bottom of the pyramid to the top and find out just how many people were informed" about the source interview. "Those who knew about this exculpatory information, or should have known, and yet who continued—they are in legal jeopardy," Mr. Graham said.

Democrats and the press corps that touted the phony Steele dossier will say this is a pursuit of a conspiracy theory, but it's not a theory. The more evidence that is made public, the clearer it becomes that the Steele dossier and collusion narrative were dirty political tricks that became abuses of power

Nothing in there about the DNC/Clinton "concocting" the dossier and feeding it "through back channels to rogue FBI agents".

Nothing in there about the other sources that aroused FBI concerns in the summer of 2016 about connections between Russia and the Trump campaign (Papadopoulos, wikileaks for example)?

[whitey]

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.wsj.com/amp/articles/the-fbis-dossier-deceit-11595027626



WSJ OPINION  REVIEW & OUTLOOK
The FBI's Dossier Deceit
New evidence that the bureau knew the Russia info was phony in 2017.
The Justice Department's release of documents from the Obama Administration's 2016-17 Trump-Russia investigation is beginning to paint a picture, and the more we learn the worse the FBI looks.

The latest evidence comes from Friday's declassification via the Senate Judiciary Committee of the FBI's interviews, over three days in January 2017, with the primary source for the infamous Steele dossier. The bureau used the dossier's accusations as the basis for four warrants to surveil Trump aide Carter Page during the 2016 campaign and early months of the Trump Presidency. The 57 pages of notes from the source interviews make clear that the FBI knew the dossier was junk as early as January 2017.


ustice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz disclosed some of this in his December report on the FBI's surveillance warrants, but the interview transcript adds more color—as in red for embarrassment.

Former British spy Christopher Steele, whose dirt-digging was financed by the Hillary Clinton campaign, based nearly all of his dossier allegations on information from one unidentified "primary subsource." The FBI didn't corroborate the Steele dossier's claims prior to its first application to surveil Mr. Page in October 2016, and it didn't get around to interviewing the source until nearly four months later.

When agents finally got around to it, the source made clear that there was no factual basis to the dossier's claims. The source noted he had mainly provided business intelligence to Mr. Steele, so he was "uncomfortable" when Mr. Steele in March 2016 asked him to investigate Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort, and later Donald Trump. The source said his friends and contacts were "too far removed" from these matters, but that he "felt like he had to report something back to Steele."

The source's attorney insists the source didn't have a "network" so much as a "social circle." The source didn't take notes, and he couldn't remember which information came from whom. He acknowledged that he even passed along information derived from a telephone call from an anonymous "Russian male" who "never identified himself."

The source said he warned Mr. Steele that his info was "rumor and speculation." The FBI interviewer writes: "Steele pushed [the source] to try and either follow-up with people or corroborate the reporting but [the source] wasn't able to do so."

Friday's disclosure also includes a February 2017 document in which leading FBI investigator Peter Strzok acknowledges the dossier is a bust, and that the FBI still had no evidence of any wrongdoing. The New York Times on Feb. 14, 2017 published a story with this headline: "Trump Campaign Aides Had Repeated Contacts With Russian Intelligence."

Mr. Strzok wrote an internal FBI analysis highlighting the story's numerous inaccuracies, explaining "we are unaware of ANY Trump advisors engaging in conversations with Russian intelligence officials." He also acknowledges: "Recent interviews" reveal "Steele may not be in a position to judge the reliability of his subsource network."


The FBI interview with Mr. Steele's source should have put an end to the surveillance and broader investigation. Instead, the FBI continued to tout Mr. Steele as a reliable source as it renewed its requests for surveillance warrants. Former FBI Acting Director Andrew McCabe expanded the investigation to include the President, and former Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein appointed Robert Mueller as special counsel.

Senate Judiciary Chairman Lindsey Graham gets credit for this declassification, and in an interview Friday he told us his next step will be "to go from the bottom of the pyramid to the top and find out just how many people were informed" about the source interview. "Those who knew about this exculpatory information, or should have known, and yet who continued—they are in legal jeopardy," Mr. Graham said.

Democrats and the press corps that touted the phony Steele dossier will say this is a pursuit of a conspiracy theory, but it's not a theory. The more evidence that is made public, the clearer it becomes that the Steele dossier and collusion narrative were dirty political tricks that became abuses of power

Nothing in there about the DNC/Clinton "concocting" the dossier and feeding it "through back channels to rogue FBI agents".

Nothing in there about the other sources that aroused FBI concerns in the summer of 2016 about connections between Russia and the Trump campaign (Papadopoulos, wikileaks for example)?

You just can ever ever admit that the Democrats did anything wrong can you?

Former British spy Christopher Steele, whose dirt-digging was financed by the Hillary Clinton campaign, based nearly all of his dossier allegations on information from one unidentified "primary subsource."


The FBI interview with Mr. Steele's source should have put an end to the surveillance and broader investigation. Instead, the FBI continued to tout Mr. Steele as a reliable source as it renewed its requests for surveillance warrants. Former FBI Acting Director Andrew McCabe expanded the investigation to include the President, and former Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein appointed Robert Mueller as special counsel.

The more evidence that is made public, the clearer it becomes that the Steele dossier and collusion narrative were dirty political tricks that became abuses of power

I can put up more evidence of them shopping the dossier-ie Bruce and Nellie Ohr, but what's the point

[J70]

You just can ever ever admit that the Democrats did anything wrong can you?

Sorry, but that is not the case.

You are the one who is ALWAYS hyping up the worst possible interpretation of anything liberals or Democrats do, whether or not the facts support it, and ALWAYS finding excuses for stuff Trump and the GOP do because of the media or the Dems are worse.

The Dems are a normal political party, with all of the hypocrisy and corruption that goes with that. I've never denied that. I'm not here posting feats of mental gymnastics trying to excuse Andrew Cuomo's current predicament (not much word about, curiously, from you boys!) or defending some Dem politician caught with their hand in the till.

If only the GOP was a normal political party.

Former British spy Christopher Steele, whose dirt-digging was financed by the Hillary Clinton campaign, based nearly all of his dossier allegations on information from one unidentified "primary subsource."


The FBI interview with Mr. Steele's source should have put an end to the surveillance and broader investigation. Instead, the FBI continued to tout Mr. Steele as a reliable source as it renewed its requests for surveillance warrants. Former FBI Acting Director Andrew McCabe expanded the investigation to include the President, and former Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein appointed Robert Mueller as special counsel.

The more evidence that is made public, the clearer it becomes that the Steele dossier and collusion narrative were dirty political tricks that became abuses of power

I can put up more evidence of them shopping the dossier-ie Bruce and Nellie Ohr, but what's the point

I'm not disputing your interpretation of what the FBI should or shouldn't have done regarding Steele or Steele's supposedly nefarious contacts with Ohr which Trump was tweeting about at one point. As far as I'm concerned, the GOP have thrown tonnes of Justice Dept and congressional time and resources into investigating all of that over the past few years, with not a lot to show for it. We'll see what your man Durham comes up with, and then, I'm sure, have a discussion of what it all shows and see what the final count is in terms of who ends up in front of a judge.

My issue is your insistence that this is all some Democratic party conspiracy, when the evidence is yet to show that. Its perfectly plausible that the Dems hired this guy, he found shit (whether he was fed or not) that he found troubling, and he went to the FBI with it.

The only reason we're discussing this today is because you think that the liberal organizations in PA suing over ballot postmarks had to be an effort to cheat because, well, that's what liberals and Dems do. No evidence, no analysis of what exactly their reasoning was. It had to be cheating because... look at the Steele dossier.

[whitey]

I see the WaPo are covering themselves in glory again.....no better than Fox News or Breitbart imho


https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-call-georgia-investigator/2021/01/09/7a55c7fa-51cf-11eb-83e3-322644d82356_story.html#click=https://t.co/8We1LtgEhS


correction: Two months after publication of this story, the Georgia secretary of state released an audio recording of President Donald Trump's December phone call with the state's top elections investigator. The recording revealed that The Post misquoted Trump's comments on the call, based on information provided by a source. Trump did not tell the investigator to "find the fraud" or say she would be "a national hero" if she did so. Instead, Trump urged the investigator to scrutinize ballots in Fulton County, Ga., asserting she would find "dishonesty" there. He also told her that she had "the most important job in the country right now." A story about the recording can be found here. The headline and text of this story have been corrected to remove quotes misattributed to Trump.

[Gmac]

I see the WaPo are covering themselves in glory again.....no better than Fox News or Breitbart imho


https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-call-georgia-investigator/2021/01/09/7a55c7fa-51cf-11eb-83e3-322644d82356_story.html#click=https://t.co/8We1LtgEhS


correction: Two months after publication of this story, the Georgia secretary of state released an audio recording of President Donald Trump's December phone call with the state's top elections investigator. The recording revealed that The Post misquoted Trump's comments on the call, based on information provided by a source. Trump did not tell the investigator to "find the fraud" or say she would be "a national hero" if she did so. Instead, Trump urged the investigator to scrutinize ballots in Fulton County, Ga., asserting she would find "dishonesty" there. He also told her that she had "the most important job in the country right now." A story about the recording can be found here. The headline and text of this story have been corrected to remove quotes misattributed to Trump.

bit late now that the loons have taken over the asylum.

[J70]

I see the WaPo are covering themselves in glory again.....no better than Fox News or Breitbart imho


https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-call-georgia-investigator/2021/01/09/7a55c7fa-51cf-11eb-83e3-322644d82356_story.html#click=https://t.co/8We1LtgEhS


correction: Two months after publication of this story, the Georgia secretary of state released an audio recording of President Donald Trump's December phone call with the state's top elections investigator. The recording revealed that The Post misquoted Trump's comments on the call, based on information provided by a source. Trump did not tell the investigator to "find the fraud" or say she would be "a national hero" if she did so. Instead, Trump urged the investigator to scrutinize ballots in Fulton County, Ga., asserting she would find "dishonesty" there. He also told her that she had "the most important job in the country right now." A story about the recording can be found here. The headline and text of this story have been corrected to remove quotes misattributed to Trump.

So instead of "finding the fraud", she would find "dishonesty" and instead of being a "national hero" she had "the most important job in the country right now" finding the fraud dishonesty.

That puts a very strikingly different tone on the story there whitey.

[J70]

I see the WaPo are covering themselves in glory again.....no better than Fox News or Breitbart imho


https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-call-georgia-investigator/2021/01/09/7a55c7fa-51cf-11eb-83e3-322644d82356_story.html#click=https://t.co/8We1LtgEhS


correction: Two months after publication of this story, the Georgia secretary of state released an audio recording of President Donald Trump's December phone call with the state's top elections investigator. The recording revealed that The Post misquoted Trump's comments on the call, based on information provided by a source. Trump did not tell the investigator to "find the fraud" or say she would be "a national hero" if she did so. Instead, Trump urged the investigator to scrutinize ballots in Fulton County, Ga., asserting she would find "dishonesty" there. He also told her that she had "the most important job in the country right now." A story about the recording can be found here. The headline and text of this story have been corrected to remove quotes misattributed to Trump.

bit late now that the loons have taken over the asylum.

Loons with high approval ratings. The country is liking what it is seeing so far.