Trump's Russian Collusion

[seacoaster]

So here is a Post story on the town halls in which Democrats are faced with explaining why they have or are supporting the impeachment inquiry:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics ... story.html

"Only once — after one constituent suggested that Trump “can’t trust the FBI or the CIA right now” — did Slotkin flash impatience: “I know exactly what those people are doing, risking their life every day alongside our military. And, frankly, I have a hard time hearing that, I’ll be honest with you.”

Marcia Dicks, a 71-year-old Republican retiree from nearby Tyrone Township, started her question with a compliment: She was pleasantly surprised by a recent appearance Slotkin made on Fox News Channel and by the letter her office had sent in response to an immigration question.

“But when you fell off the cliff for me was when you joined the coup against our president,” Dicks said, echoing a word Trump himself had used in a tweet earlier that week. “Give me a break: The election’s coming up. If you don’t like him, vote him out if you can.”

“Well, that’s where I was for many, many months,” Slotkin responded. “And I can just tell you my own decision-making, and I know that it’s clearly not popular. But I just felt compelled to do it because I just don’t know where this ends.”

In an interview afterward, Slotkin said she believed her constituents remained more concerned about other issues, pointing to conversations she’s had in more spontaneous settings. At her three public events this week, she spent as much or more time talking about her efforts to lower prescription drug prices and keep the toxic chemicals known as PFAS out of Michigan’s water.

But Slotkin said she had a responsibility to stand in front of her constituents and explain her positions — a view shared by the close-knit group of national security freshmen, who are now comparing notes on the responses they’re getting.

“All of us pretty much knew that this decision was going to be controversial,” Slotkin said. “But coming out and hearing it from your constituents is another thing.”

[MDlaxfan76]

Trump cutting NSA staff.

Oh yeah. No problems here. Let's get rid of the CIA and FBI while we're at it.....and anyone else who was mean to Trump.

Excited to hear the spin when people start getting killed because of this stuff. It's not like we have to worry about terrorism, or threats to our

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... RKFfd_2CRI

Have you read Bill Burns book yet ?

https://foreignpolicy.com/2019/04/17/th ... diplomacy/
Burns recounts how the NSC grew in size and influence during his 30 years in government. It frequently crowds out the diplomatic voices coming from the State Department, as happened during deliberations surrounding the expansion of NATO and the war in Iraq.

So now Trump read this book, and that's why he did it? (I know you're not saying that)

Appreciate the optimism, but seeing as how Jared Kushner is the "diplomatic voice", I'm going with a hard pass on NSA firings.

How will the nation survive without propellerheads like Ben Rhodes, Evelyn Farkas & Elise Jordan whispering in the CinC's ear (& leaking to the media).

I thought the conflict you were describing was over the 'militarization' of national security, as opposed to the diplomatic corps of State holding sway.

Are Rhodes, Farkas, and Jordan part of that 'militarization'?

You do realize that Trump simply wants to neuter all expertise and professionalism in government, including the IC?
""I'm smarter than the generals".

[jhu72]

So here is a Post story on the town halls in which Democrats are faced with explaining why they have or are supporting the impeachment inquiry:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics ... story.html

"Only once — after one constituent suggested that Trump “can’t trust the FBI or the CIA right now” — did Slotkin flash impatience: “I know exactly what those people are doing, risking their life every day alongside our military. And, frankly, I have a hard time hearing that, I’ll be honest with you.”

Marcia Dicks, a 71-year-old Republican retiree from nearby Tyrone Township, started her question with a compliment: She was pleasantly surprised by a recent appearance Slotkin made on Fox News Channel and by the letter her office had sent in response to an immigration question.

“But when you fell off the cliff for me was when you joined the coup against our president,” Dicks said, echoing a word Trump himself had used in a tweet earlier that week. “Give me a break: The election’s coming up. If you don’t like him, vote him out if you can.”

“Well, that’s where I was for many, many months,” Slotkin responded. “And I can just tell you my own decision-making, and I know that it’s clearly not popular. But I just felt compelled to do it because I just don’t know where this ends.”

In an interview afterward, Slotkin said she believed her constituents remained more concerned about other issues, pointing to conversations she’s had in more spontaneous settings. At her three public events this week, she spent as much or more time talking about her efforts to lower prescription drug prices and keep the toxic chemicals known as PFAS out of Michigan’s water.

But Slotkin said she had a responsibility to stand in front of her constituents and explain her positions — a view shared by the close-knit group of national security freshmen, who are now comparing notes on the responses they’re getting.

“All of us pretty much knew that this decision was going to be controversial,” Slotkin said. “But coming out and hearing it from your constituents is another thing.”

Sounds like these freshmen did OK with their constituents.

[njbill]

https://assets.amuniversal.com/77fee340 ... 5056a9545d

You might think it odd to get facts from a comic strip, but I bet Mr. Gary is fastidiously accurate with his research.

[youthathletics]

Much like schiffs (non)facts and TWP giving him 4 Pinocchio's. https://www.instagram.com/p/B3N1KnkHnay ... dF7b3gwo0/

[DocBarrister]

An attorney for the whistleblower who raised the alarm about President Trump’s communications with Ukraine said Sunday that “multiple” whistleblowers have come forward.
The news, which comes as House Democrats have launched an impeachment inquiry and are subpoenaing the White House for documents, adds to the deepening political crisis facing the president.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics ... story.html

Seems like multiple career professionals in the intelligence community are coming forward to offer evidence against Trump.

If your own intelligence agents are warning you about the president, maybe it’s time to put the nation above one’s own racism, bigotry, and misogyny and support the patriotic effort to impeach and remove Trump from office.

DocBarrister

[MDlaxfan76]

An attorney for the whistleblower who raised the alarm about President Trump’s communications with Ukraine said Sunday that “multiple” whistleblowers have come forward.
The news, which comes as House Democrats have launched an impeachment inquiry and are subpoenaing the White House for documents, adds to the deepening political crisis facing the president.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics ... story.html

Seems like multiple career professionals in the intelligence community are coming forward to offer evidence against Trump.

If your own intelligence agents are warning you about the president, maybe it’s time to put the nation above one’s own racism, bigotry, and misogyny and support the patriotic effort to impeach and remove Trump from office.

DocBarrister

While I agree with your fundamental point, Doc, your last sentence is very off-putting, indeed counter productive. Those who are truly racist, bigoted, misogynists will not be able to perceive removal of Trump as a priority, patriotic or otherwise. That's ok.

But those who simply hoped that Trump would shake things up, yet ultimately behave rationally and dare we say it, Presidentially, can be reached. Are there enough of these to make a sufficient difference? I sure hope so.

The door needs to be open, indeed welcoming.

[Trinity]

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/2nd-whi ... d=66092396

Deeper Whistle talks to IG and lawyers up.

[seacoaster]

So here is a Post story on the town halls in which Democrats are faced with explaining why they have or are supporting the impeachment inquiry:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics ... story.html

"Only once — after one constituent suggested that Trump “can’t trust the FBI or the CIA right now” — did Slotkin flash impatience: “I know exactly what those people are doing, risking their life every day alongside our military. And, frankly, I have a hard time hearing that, I’ll be honest with you.”

Marcia Dicks, a 71-year-old Republican retiree from nearby Tyrone Township, started her question with a compliment: She was pleasantly surprised by a recent appearance Slotkin made on Fox News Channel and by the letter her office had sent in response to an immigration question.

“But when you fell off the cliff for me was when you joined the coup against our president,” Dicks said, echoing a word Trump himself had used in a tweet earlier that week. “Give me a break: The election’s coming up. If you don’t like him, vote him out if you can.”

“Well, that’s where I was for many, many months,” Slotkin responded. “And I can just tell you my own decision-making, and I know that it’s clearly not popular. But I just felt compelled to do it because I just don’t know where this ends.”

In an interview afterward, Slotkin said she believed her constituents remained more concerned about other issues, pointing to conversations she’s had in more spontaneous settings. At her three public events this week, she spent as much or more time talking about her efforts to lower prescription drug prices and keep the toxic chemicals known as PFAS out of Michigan’s water.

But Slotkin said she had a responsibility to stand in front of her constituents and explain her positions — a view shared by the close-knit group of national security freshmen, who are now comparing notes on the responses they’re getting.

“All of us pretty much knew that this decision was going to be controversial,” Slotkin said. “But coming out and hearing it from your constituents is another thing.”

Sounds like these freshmen did OK with their constituents.

Yeah, that was my basic takeaway too. But you can see, in the article's text and between the lines, that there is a battle going on for the minds of Americans on this issue, and that the flood of right-wing disinformation is a rising tsunami that will have to be fought at every step. The woman who called the impeachment inquiry a coup will vote for whomever Trump and FNC select for her, but Democrats have to educate the large centrist voting block and convince them that an inquiry and impeachment itself are warranted by both the facts that the President so desperately wants to obfuscate and spin and deflect, and by the consequences of letting this sort of conduct pass unchecked by the law. In that sense, I think the article is the harbinger of the tribalism to come.

[Trinity]

Former Rep Joe Walsh (R) called Trump a traitor this morning on CNN. Nobody from the WH or the GOP was willing to appear on the Sunday shows to push back.

[old salt]

Trump cutting NSA staff.

Oh yeah. No problems here. Let's get rid of the CIA and FBI while we're at it.....and anyone else who was mean to Trump.

Excited to hear the spin when people start getting killed because of this stuff. It's not like we have to worry about terrorism, or threats to our

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... RKFfd_2CRI

Have you read Bill Burns book yet ?

https://foreignpolicy.com/2019/04/17/th ... diplomacy/
Burns recounts how the NSC grew in size and influence during his 30 years in government. It frequently crowds out the diplomatic voices coming from the State Department, as happened during deliberations surrounding the expansion of NATO and the war in Iraq.

So now Trump read this book, and that's why he did it? (I know you're not saying that)

Appreciate the optimism, but seeing as how Jared Kushner is the "diplomatic voice", I'm going with a hard pass on NSA firings.

How will the nation survive without propellerheads like Ben Rhodes, Evelyn Farkas & Elise Jordan whispering in the CinC's ear (& leaking to the media).

I thought the conflict you were describing was over the 'militarization' of national security, as opposed to the diplomatic corps of State holding sway.

Are Rhodes, Farkas, and Jordan part of that 'militarization'?

You do realize that Trump simply wants to neuter all expertise and professionalism in government, including the IC?
""I'm smarter than the generals".

Burns complaint was that a bloated NSC, dominated by political hacks & academics, with little real world national security or diplomatic experience overseas, due to acess, was marginalizing State, DoD, DNI & DHS in the traditional decision making process.

Burns served at all levels of both State & the NSC.

[MDlaxfan76]

Trump cutting NSA staff.

Oh yeah. No problems here. Let's get rid of the CIA and FBI while we're at it.....and anyone else who was mean to Trump.

Excited to hear the spin when people start getting killed because of this stuff. It's not like we have to worry about terrorism, or threats to our

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... RKFfd_2CRI

Have you read Bill Burns book yet ?

https://foreignpolicy.com/2019/04/17/th ... diplomacy/
Burns recounts how the NSC grew in size and influence during his 30 years in government. It frequently crowds out the diplomatic voices coming from the State Department, as happened during deliberations surrounding the expansion of NATO and the war in Iraq.

So now Trump read this book, and that's why he did it? (I know you're not saying that)

Appreciate the optimism, but seeing as how Jared Kushner is the "diplomatic voice", I'm going with a hard pass on NSA firings.

How will the nation survive without propellerheads like Ben Rhodes, Evelyn Farkas & Elise Jordan whispering in the CinC's ear (& leaking to the media).

I thought the conflict you were describing was over the 'militarization' of national security, as opposed to the diplomatic corps of State holding sway.

Are Rhodes, Farkas, and Jordan part of that 'militarization'?

You do realize that Trump simply wants to neuter all expertise and professionalism in government, including the IC?
""I'm smarter than the generals".

Burns complaint was that a bloated NSC, dominated by political hacks & academics, with little real world national security or diplomatic experience overseas, due to acess, was marginalizing State, DoD, DNI & DHS in the traditional decision making process.

Burns served at all levels of both State & the NSC.

I haven't read his book, but this is how the article you link characterized it:

Burns, the assistant secretary of state for Near Eastern affairs, composed four pages that he later handed to Secretary of State Colin Powell, outlining ideas for the “imaginative and hard-nosed diplomacy” necessary to drain the Middle East of the terrorism that had now reached the United States. Burns’s advice was prescient; its rejection by the White House, Congress, and much of the American public reveals the debilitating “militarization of diplomacy”—the subject of Burns’s compelling memoir, The Back Channel.

“What was unfolding,” Burns writes, “was less a clash of civilizations than a clash within a civilization, a deeply battered Islamic world in the midst of a desperate ideological struggle. There were limits to what we could do directly to shape that debate. What we could do, however, was to help create a sense of geopolitical order that would deprive extremists of the oxygen they needed to fan the flames of chaos, and give moderate forces the sustained support they needed to demonstrate that they could deliver for their people.”

[Trinity]

“Somebody please wake up Mitt Romney and tell him that my conversation with the Ukrainian President was a congenial and very appropriate one, and my statement on China pertained to corruption, not politics. If Mitt worked this hard on Obama, he could have won. Sadly, he choked!”

Trump asking China for help was not a joke. He repeated it in the above tweet.

[old salt]

Trump cutting NSA staff.

Oh yeah. No problems here. Let's get rid of the CIA and FBI while we're at it.....and anyone else who was mean to Trump.

Excited to hear the spin when people start getting killed because of this stuff. It's not like we have to worry about terrorism, or threats to our

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... RKFfd_2CRI

Have you read Bill Burns book yet ?

https://foreignpolicy.com/2019/04/17/th ... diplomacy/
Burns recounts how the NSC grew in size and influence during his 30 years in government. It frequently crowds out the diplomatic voices coming from the State Department, as happened during deliberations surrounding the expansion of NATO and the war in Iraq.

So now Trump read this book, and that's why he did it? (I know you're not saying that)

Appreciate the optimism, but seeing as how Jared Kushner is the "diplomatic voice", I'm going with a hard pass on NSA firings.

How will the nation survive without propellerheads like Ben Rhodes, Evelyn Farkas & Elise Jordan whispering in the CinC's ear (& leaking to the media).

I thought the conflict you were describing was over the 'militarization' of national security, as opposed to the diplomatic corps of State holding sway.

Are Rhodes, Farkas, and Jordan part of that 'militarization'?

You do realize that Trump simply wants to neuter all expertise and professionalism in government, including the IC?
""I'm smarter than the generals".

Burns complaint was that a bloated NSC, dominated by political hacks & academics, with little real world national security or diplomatic experience overseas, due to acess, was marginalizing State, DoD, DNI & DHS in the traditional decision making process.

Burns served at all levels of both State & the NSC.

I haven't read his book, but this is how the article you link characterized it:

Burns, the assistant secretary of state for Near Eastern affairs, composed four pages that he later handed to Secretary of State Colin Powell, outlining ideas for the “imaginative and hard-nosed diplomacy” necessary to drain the Middle East of the terrorism that had now reached the United States. Burns’s advice was prescient; its rejection by the White House, Congress, and much of the American public reveals the debilitating “militarization of diplomacy”—the subject of Burns’s compelling memoir, The Back Channel.

“What was unfolding,” Burns writes, “was less a clash of civilizations than a clash within a civilization, a deeply battered Islamic world in the midst of a desperate ideological struggle. There were limits to what we could do directly to shape that debate. What we could do, however, was to help create a sense of geopolitical order that would deprive extremists of the oxygen they needed to fan the flames of chaos, and give moderate forces the sustained support they needed to demonstrate that they could deliver for their people.”

.. ...the topic is the role & growth of the NSC. I pointed out Burn's thoughts on that issue.

[seacoaster]

Much like schiffs (non)facts and TWP giving him 4 Pinocchio's. https://www.instagram.com/p/B3N1KnkHnay ... dF7b3gwo0/

I posted the article a few days ago. Schiff appears to have dissembled a bit about his committee's interactions with the whistleblower. He didn't use the slow-walking or withholding of appropriated dollars as a carrot to euchre cheap political favors out of a vulnerable foreign leader for his reelection campaign. But sure, bad boy Adam.

[seacoaster]

Trump cutting NSA staff.

Oh yeah. No problems here. Let's get rid of the CIA and FBI while we're at it.....and anyone else who was mean to Trump.

Excited to hear the spin when people start getting killed because of this stuff. It's not like we have to worry about terrorism, or threats to our

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... RKFfd_2CRI

Have you read Bill Burns book yet ?

https://foreignpolicy.com/2019/04/17/th ... diplomacy/
Burns recounts how the NSC grew in size and influence during his 30 years in government. It frequently crowds out the diplomatic voices coming from the State Department, as happened during deliberations surrounding the expansion of NATO and the war in Iraq.

So now Trump read this book, and that's why he did it? (I know you're not saying that)

Appreciate the optimism, but seeing as how Jared Kushner is the "diplomatic voice", I'm going with a hard pass on NSA firings.

How will the nation survive without propellerheads like Ben Rhodes, Evelyn Farkas & Elise Jordan whispering in the CinC's ear (& leaking to the media).

I thought the conflict you were describing was over the 'militarization' of national security, as opposed to the diplomatic corps of State holding sway.

Are Rhodes, Farkas, and Jordan part of that 'militarization'?

You do realize that Trump simply wants to neuter all expertise and professionalism in government, including the IC?
""I'm smarter than the generals".

Burns complaint was that a bloated NSC, dominated by political hacks & academics, with little real world national security or diplomatic experience overseas, due to acess, was marginalizing State, DoD, DNI & DHS in the traditional decision making process.

Burns served at all levels of both State & the NSC.

I haven't read his book, but this is how the article you link characterized it:

Burns, the assistant secretary of state for Near Eastern affairs, composed four pages that he later handed to Secretary of State Colin Powell, outlining ideas for the “imaginative and hard-nosed diplomacy” necessary to drain the Middle East of the terrorism that had now reached the United States. Burns’s advice was prescient; its rejection by the White House, Congress, and much of the American public reveals the debilitating “militarization of diplomacy”—the subject of Burns’s compelling memoir, The Back Channel.

“What was unfolding,” Burns writes, “was less a clash of civilizations than a clash within a civilization, a deeply battered Islamic world in the midst of a desperate ideological struggle. There were limits to what we could do directly to shape that debate. What we could do, however, was to help create a sense of geopolitical order that would deprive extremists of the oxygen they needed to fan the flames of chaos, and give moderate forces the sustained support they needed to demonstrate that they could deliver for their people.”

.. ...the topic is the role & growth of the NSC. I pointed out Burn's thoughts on that issue.

Actually, the topic, I thought anyway, was Trump removing people from the NSC staff, supposedly to make it leaner. I really doubt the folks Trump is removing are the folks to which Burns was objecting. So Burns's book is probably the red herring here, no?

[MDlaxfan76]

Trump cutting NSA staff.

Oh yeah. No problems here. Let's get rid of the CIA and FBI while we're at it.....and anyone else who was mean to Trump.

Excited to hear the spin when people start getting killed because of this stuff. It's not like we have to worry about terrorism, or threats to our

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... RKFfd_2CRI

Have you read Bill Burns book yet ?

https://foreignpolicy.com/2019/04/17/th ... diplomacy/
Burns recounts how the NSC grew in size and influence during his 30 years in government. It frequently crowds out the diplomatic voices coming from the State Department, as happened during deliberations surrounding the expansion of NATO and the war in Iraq.

So now Trump read this book, and that's why he did it? (I know you're not saying that)

Appreciate the optimism, but seeing as how Jared Kushner is the "diplomatic voice", I'm going with a hard pass on NSA firings.

How will the nation survive without propellerheads like Ben Rhodes, Evelyn Farkas & Elise Jordan whispering in the CinC's ear (& leaking to the media).

I thought the conflict you were describing was over the 'militarization' of national security, as opposed to the diplomatic corps of State holding sway.

Are Rhodes, Farkas, and Jordan part of that 'militarization'?

You do realize that Trump simply wants to neuter all expertise and professionalism in government, including the IC?
""I'm smarter than the generals".

Burns complaint was that a bloated NSC, dominated by political hacks & academics, with little real world national security or diplomatic experience overseas, due to acess, was marginalizing State, DoD, DNI & DHS in the traditional decision making process.

Burns served at all levels of both State & the NSC.

I haven't read his book, but this is how the article you link characterized it:

Burns, the assistant secretary of state for Near Eastern affairs, composed four pages that he later handed to Secretary of State Colin Powell, outlining ideas for the “imaginative and hard-nosed diplomacy” necessary to drain the Middle East of the terrorism that had now reached the United States. Burns’s advice was prescient; its rejection by the White House, Congress, and much of the American public reveals the debilitating “militarization of diplomacy”—the subject of Burns’s compelling memoir, The Back Channel.

“What was unfolding,” Burns writes, “was less a clash of civilizations than a clash within a civilization, a deeply battered Islamic world in the midst of a desperate ideological struggle. There were limits to what we could do directly to shape that debate. What we could do, however, was to help create a sense of geopolitical order that would deprive extremists of the oxygen they needed to fan the flames of chaos, and give moderate forces the sustained support they needed to demonstrate that they could deliver for their people.”

.. ...the topic is the role & growth of the NSC. I pointed out Burn's thoughts on that issue.

Which is why I asked the question, given what Burns' primary point on this has been.

I just don't see Burns as making the argument you wish to propound with such disdain.

[youthathletics]

Much like schiffs (non)facts and TWP giving him 4 Pinocchio's. https://www.instagram.com/p/B3N1KnkHnay ... dF7b3gwo0/

I posted the article a few days ago. Schiff appears to have dissembled a bit about his committee's interactions with the whistleblower. He didn't use the slow-walking or withholding of appropriated dollars as a carrot to euchre cheap political favors out of a vulnerable foreign leader for his reelection campaign. But sure, bad boy Adam.

Bottom line, Schiff lied and significantly bamboozled the world with his theatrical antics. And he is in charge of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. He apparently likes playing #whackamole

[MDlaxfan76]

Trump cutting NSA staff.

Oh yeah. No problems here. Let's get rid of the CIA and FBI while we're at it.....and anyone else who was mean to Trump.

Excited to hear the spin when people start getting killed because of this stuff. It's not like we have to worry about terrorism, or threats to our

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... RKFfd_2CRI

Have you read Bill Burns book yet ?

https://foreignpolicy.com/2019/04/17/th ... diplomacy/
Burns recounts how the NSC grew in size and influence during his 30 years in government. It frequently crowds out the diplomatic voices coming from the State Department, as happened during deliberations surrounding the expansion of NATO and the war in Iraq.

So now Trump read this book, and that's why he did it? (I know you're not saying that)

Appreciate the optimism, but seeing as how Jared Kushner is the "diplomatic voice", I'm going with a hard pass on NSA firings.

How will the nation survive without propellerheads like Ben Rhodes, Evelyn Farkas & Elise Jordan whispering in the CinC's ear (& leaking to the media).

I thought the conflict you were describing was over the 'militarization' of national security, as opposed to the diplomatic corps of State holding sway.

Are Rhodes, Farkas, and Jordan part of that 'militarization'?

You do realize that Trump simply wants to neuter all expertise and professionalism in government, including the IC?
""I'm smarter than the generals".

Burns complaint was that a bloated NSC, dominated by political hacks & academics, with little real world national security or diplomatic experience overseas, due to acess, was marginalizing State, DoD, DNI & DHS in the traditional decision making process.

Burns served at all levels of both State & the NSC.

I haven't read his book, but this is how the article you link characterized it:

Burns, the assistant secretary of state for Near Eastern affairs, composed four pages that he later handed to Secretary of State Colin Powell, outlining ideas for the “imaginative and hard-nosed diplomacy” necessary to drain the Middle East of the terrorism that had now reached the United States. Burns’s advice was prescient; its rejection by the White House, Congress, and much of the American public reveals the debilitating “militarization of diplomacy”—the subject of Burns’s compelling memoir, The Back Channel.

“What was unfolding,” Burns writes, “was less a clash of civilizations than a clash within a civilization, a deeply battered Islamic world in the midst of a desperate ideological struggle. There were limits to what we could do directly to shape that debate. What we could do, however, was to help create a sense of geopolitical order that would deprive extremists of the oxygen they needed to fan the flames of chaos, and give moderate forces the sustained support they needed to demonstrate that they could deliver for their people.”

.. ...the topic is the role & growth of the NSC. I pointed out Burn's thoughts on that issue.

Actually, the topic, I thought anyway, was Trump removing people from the NSC staff, supposedly to make it leaner. I really doubt the folks Trump is removing are the folks to which Burns was objecting. So Burns's book is probably the red herring here, no?

Indeed, Trump's objective, across the government is not "lean" but rather to remove all who are professional and experienced unless they can be determined to be 'loyal' to Trump the man. He demands pros to actually lie to support his lies...Problem is that the vast majority of the professionals and experienced folks have a loyalty to truth and the Constitution not any given POTUS...so, they need to go.

[seacoaster]

Much like schiffs (non)facts and TWP giving him 4 Pinocchio's. https://www.instagram.com/p/B3N1KnkHnay ... dF7b3gwo0/

I posted the article a few days ago. Schiff appears to have dissembled a bit about his committee's interactions with the whistleblower. He didn't use the slow-walking or withholding of appropriated dollars as a carrot to euchre cheap political favors out of a vulnerable foreign leader for his reelection campaign. But sure, bad boy Adam.

Bottom line, Schiff lied and significantly bamboozled the world with his theatrical antics. And he is in charge of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. He apparently likes playing #whackamole

Baloney; you relentlessly miss the "bottom line," YA, which is that the right is simply sanguine about a President who is abusing the powers and dignity of the office, after excoriating the prior President and administration for putting a binder clip on legislation. How about the rule of law and the country first for a while?