Trump's Russian Collusion

[jhu72]

You think this secret star chamber, with no due process or rights for the accused is a PR winner ?

TBD. Right now, if you believe the polls, it seems to be. Long way to go, of course. Seems clear he will be impeached by the House, but acquitted in the Senate. I think it is way too early to know how this will impact the 2020 election. Trump will certainly claim he is exonerated if he is acquitted in the Senate. His base will believe that, but will the independent swing voters? My sense is the impeachment will hurt him. The question is by how much?

Agreed. No way you will get something like 20 republican Senators to vote for removal. From my perspective this is about doing what is right. Seeing wrong and calling it out. The latest polling continues to see a rise in independents in favor of both impeachment and removal. This is the battle for the last remaining voters who's minds can be changed.

The "with no due process" BS is a dog that won't hunt. It is clear and should be clear to anyone not blind that once public hearings begin no one will care about this phase of the investigation. Either the democrats will have a case or they won't. If they have one, they win and will be rewarded. If they don't have one, they lose and will be punished. All else is just whining.

The only aspect of your post that I'd question is the meaning of "win". If you mean that majority of people will believe that impeachment was righteous rather than partisan, perhaps.

If you mean that Trump will be convicted in the senate, that may prove a bridge too far, regardless of the overwhelming evidence of the case.

Not unlike trials in our history in the south of very obvious killers of a black man, nevertheless acquitted by an all white male jury.

Already stated that I do not believe there is any chance of conviction, but that is not the real goal.

Agreed; getting to the majority believing "righteous not partisan" would be a victory.
Post Taylor's testimony, it seems really difficult for any rational, informed person not to see it as "righteous" but then again, we live in strange times.

When this goes to open sessions rather than closed, it will be quite interesting.
Will R's really try to dirty these serious folks up??? Will that not create a backlash???
What happens when Bolton, no shrinking violet, lets rip?

There are so few people who's mind can be changed, how do you tell a backlash? I really don't like Bolton, never have, but I would pay to see this!

[tech37]

I agree PB. Some people worry that Trump has started some sort of downhill slide and succeeding POTUSs will be worse. I don't see that at all...he's an aberration.

Trump hopefully/probably is an aberration. And despite his frontal assault, the institutions so far are holding up to the stress test.

The more troubling question is whether we can dial back the over-the-top negative partisanship and tribalism. That pre-dated Trump and will survive him too. It does make the country basically ungovernable. Trump's contribution may ultimately be that he caused that intensely negative partisan divide to be laid out so obviously.

Look at Bandito's posts from earlier today as exhibit A. He's roasting me as a Hillary loving liberal fool that he just hates. As long time posters on here know, I'm a swing voter who happily voted for Romney. IIRC in 2014 I voted for R Corey Gardner over incumbent D Mark Udall -- I didn't like Udall much and I do like to support somewhat reasonable Republicans when I can. When posting, I try to back up my opinions with facts and data rather than talking points. But the data says there's hardly anyone like me out there any more.

Again, I'd point you to the eye popping numbers in that PRRI survey the other day. 82% of Reps think the Dems have been taken over by socialists. 80% of Dems think the Reps have been taken over by racists. 40% of Dem and Rep parents would be alarmed if one of their kids married a person from the other party; that number used to be 5%.

Politics is now tightly bundled up with identity -- race, class, religion, culture. It was not that way even just a short time ago. Reagan won 49 states in 1984. If Jesus ran against Hitler in 2020, no way Jesus would win 49 states. Basically, Hatfields vs. McCoys where facts, reason, expertise just don't matter. Just seething hatred of the other -- which is how Bandito sees me.

Pretty depressing. And I don't think Trump's inevitable passing will change it.

Hear, hear!

They don't seem to get that Trump is a symptom of partisanship, rather than some aberration. Our partisan environment yielded Trump.

And that partisanship is getting worse by the day.

But that has no bearing on a Nikki Haley, for example, stepping up next for the GOP.

[tech37]

Why Congress Might Impeach Trump and Actually Remove Him From Office
By Jonathan Chait

http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/10/ ... e-him.html

Interesting read - he makes a parallel with the Joe Pesci character in Casino...

Thanks for this. I think murf posted it last night here as well. Here is an interesting passage:

"Yet for all his typical disingenuous smarm, denouncing the process in the other chamber is much weaker brew than defending Trump’s conduct, which he has largely failed to do. Indeed, McConnell’s argument opens the door to finding guilt through a “fair” process McConnell runs. Even the sycophantic Lindsey Graham left the door open more than a crack when asked by Jonathan Swan if he could imagine voting to convict. “Sure. I mean … show me something that … is a crime,” he said. “If you could show me that, you know, Trump actually was engaging in a quid pro quo, outside the phone call, that would be very disturbing.” A “very well-connected Republican in Washington” estimated to Chris Wallace that there is a 20 percent chance the Senate votes for removal."

So far, the humbug is about the process. And Graham is the human embodiment of a goalpost that just will not stay still for the kick.

euchre!

[a fan]

But that has no bearing on a Nikki Haley, for example, stepping up next for the GOP.

No. But it has all the bearing in the world on her policies.... and bills she will or won't sign.

[wahoomurf]

No wonder the POMPEO smoochers and McCarthyites decided to slide down the bannister outside the SCIF and staged a protest. (No...Mary Poppins wasn't there)

The Benghazi investigation, run by the Republicans, was open to all. ANY member of congress or their toadies could attend and ask any questions they wished.

We can you can't.

I JUST CAN'T GET IT THROUGH MY BRAIN THAT POMPEO HAS TURNED SO VICIOUSLY ON BILL TAYLOR.DUTY, HONOR COUNTRY IS EVANESCENT.

[foreverlax]

I agree PB. Some people worry that Trump has started some sort of downhill slide and succeeding POTUSs will be worse. I don't see that at all...he's an aberration.

Trump hopefully/probably is an aberration. And despite his frontal assault, the institutions so far are holding up to the stress test.

The more troubling question is whether we can dial back the over-the-top negative partisanship and tribalism. That pre-dated Trump and will survive him too. It does make the country basically ungovernable. Trump's contribution may ultimately be that he caused that intensely negative partisan divide to be laid out so obviously.

Look at Bandito's posts from earlier today as exhibit A. He's roasting me as a Hillary loving liberal fool that he just hates. As long time posters on here know, I'm a swing voter who happily voted for Romney. IIRC in 2014 I voted for R Corey Gardner over incumbent D Mark Udall -- I didn't like Udall much and I do like to support somewhat reasonable Republicans when I can. When posting, I try to back up my opinions with facts and data rather than talking points. But the data says there's hardly anyone like me out there any more.

Again, I'd point you to the eye popping numbers in that PRRI survey the other day. 82% of Reps think the Dems have been taken over by socialists. 80% of Dems think the Reps have been taken over by racists. 40% of Dem and Rep parents would be alarmed if one of their kids married a person from the other party; that number used to be 5%.

Politics is now tightly bundled up with identity -- race, class, religion, culture. It was not that way even just a short time ago. Reagan won 49 states in 1984. If Jesus ran against Hitler in 2020, no way Jesus would win 49 states. Basically, Hatfields vs. McCoys where facts, reason, expertise just don't matter. Just seething hatred of the other -- which is how Bandito sees me.

Pretty depressing. And I don't think Trump's inevitable passing will change it.

Hear, hear!

They don't seem to get that Trump is a symptom of partisanship, rather than some aberration. Our partisan environment yielded Trump.

And that partisanship is getting worse by the day.

But that has no bearing on a Nikki Haley, for example, stepping up next for the GOP.

There are plenty of reasonable Rs...more so it seems then Ds.

[foreverlax]

No wonder the POMPEO smoochers and McCarthyites decided to slide down the bannister outside the SLIP room and staged a protest. (No...Mary Poppins wasn't there)

The Benghazi investigation, run by the Republicans, was open to all. ANY member of congress or their toadies could attend and ask any questions they wished.

We can you can't.

I JUST CAN'T GET IT THROUGH MY BRAIN THAT POMPEO HAS TURNED SO VICIOUSLY ON BILL TAYLOR.DUTY, HONOR COUNTRY IS EVANESCENT.

A lot of roads end at Pompeo's desk...He should quit when he can and help out as a Senator.

[Trinity]

Trump knew in advance Matt Gaetz Clown Caravan would invade the SCIf. Cooper is talking now but I imagine she might be intimidated.

[tech37]

I agree PB. Some people worry that Trump has started some sort of downhill slide and succeeding POTUSs will be worse. I don't see that at all...he's an aberration.

Trump hopefully/probably is an aberration. And despite his frontal assault, the institutions so far are holding up to the stress test.

The more troubling question is whether we can dial back the over-the-top negative partisanship and tribalism. That pre-dated Trump and will survive him too. It does make the country basically ungovernable. Trump's contribution may ultimately be that he caused that intensely negative partisan divide to be laid out so obviously.

Look at Bandito's posts from earlier today as exhibit A. He's roasting me as a Hillary loving liberal fool that he just hates. As long time posters on here know, I'm a swing voter who happily voted for Romney. IIRC in 2014 I voted for R Corey Gardner over incumbent D Mark Udall -- I didn't like Udall much and I do like to support somewhat reasonable Republicans when I can. When posting, I try to back up my opinions with facts and data rather than talking points. But the data says there's hardly anyone like me out there any more.

Again, I'd point you to the eye popping numbers in that PRRI survey the other day. 82% of Reps think the Dems have been taken over by socialists. 80% of Dems think the Reps have been taken over by racists. 40% of Dem and Rep parents would be alarmed if one of their kids married a person from the other party; that number used to be 5%.

Politics is now tightly bundled up with identity -- race, class, religion, culture. It was not that way even just a short time ago. Reagan won 49 states in 1984. If Jesus ran against Hitler in 2020, no way Jesus would win 49 states. Basically, Hatfields vs. McCoys where facts, reason, expertise just don't matter. Just seething hatred of the other -- which is how Bandito sees me.

Pretty depressing. And I don't think Trump's inevitable passing will change it.

Hear, hear!

They don't seem to get that Trump is a symptom of partisanship, rather than some aberration. Our partisan environment yielded Trump.

And that partisanship is getting worse by the day.

But that has no bearing on a Nikki Haley, for example, stepping up next for the GOP.

There are plenty of reasonable Rs...more so it seems then Ds.

So who impresses you in the current long D line up forever?

[foreverlax]

I agree PB. Some people worry that Trump has started some sort of downhill slide and succeeding POTUSs will be worse. I don't see that at all...he's an aberration.

Trump hopefully/probably is an aberration. And despite his frontal assault, the institutions so far are holding up to the stress test.

The more troubling question is whether we can dial back the over-the-top negative partisanship and tribalism. That pre-dated Trump and will survive him too. It does make the country basically ungovernable. Trump's contribution may ultimately be that he caused that intensely negative partisan divide to be laid out so obviously.

Look at Bandito's posts from earlier today as exhibit A. He's roasting me as a Hillary loving liberal fool that he just hates. As long time posters on here know, I'm a swing voter who happily voted for Romney. IIRC in 2014 I voted for R Corey Gardner over incumbent D Mark Udall -- I didn't like Udall much and I do like to support somewhat reasonable Republicans when I can. When posting, I try to back up my opinions with facts and data rather than talking points. But the data says there's hardly anyone like me out there any more.

Again, I'd point you to the eye popping numbers in that PRRI survey the other day. 82% of Reps think the Dems have been taken over by socialists. 80% of Dems think the Reps have been taken over by racists. 40% of Dem and Rep parents would be alarmed if one of their kids married a person from the other party; that number used to be 5%.

Politics is now tightly bundled up with identity -- race, class, religion, culture. It was not that way even just a short time ago. Reagan won 49 states in 1984. If Jesus ran against Hitler in 2020, no way Jesus would win 49 states. Basically, Hatfields vs. McCoys where facts, reason, expertise just don't matter. Just seething hatred of the other -- which is how Bandito sees me.

Pretty depressing. And I don't think Trump's inevitable passing will change it.

Hear, hear!

They don't seem to get that Trump is a symptom of partisanship, rather than some aberration. Our partisan environment yielded Trump.

And that partisanship is getting worse by the day.

But that has no bearing on a Nikki Haley, for example, stepping up next for the GOP.

There are plenty of reasonable Rs...more so it seems then Ds.

So who impresses you in the current long D line up forever?

I liked all the governors -former Colorado. John Hickenlooper, Washington Jay Inslee, Bullock from Mt, plus Bennet a Senator from Colorado.

As of now, Klobuchar, Mayor Pete....Yang/Tulsi to some extent.

How about you?

[wahoomurf]

The parade passing by. I was fascinated to see a number of U.S. Senators walk by the free press without answering a simple question. Interesting how many of them were either late for a meeting or hadn't read the notes.

How many Fanlax folks have read those notes or the 15-page document Bill Taylor,the anti-Pompeo distributed prior to his testimnony ? How many of you are U.S. Senators?

GOLEM.jpg (13.1 KiB) Viewed 1311 times

[foreverlax]

I meant to add that Pete is the only one that "impresses" me.

[ggait]

Sounds like a pretty reasonable and precedented way to proceed:

The Committee’s preference for private interviews over public hearings has been questioned. Interviews are a more efficient and effective means of discovery. Interviews allow witnesses to be questioned in depth by a highly prepared member or staff person. In a hearing, every member of a committee is recognized—usually for five minutes—a procedure which precludes in-depth focused questioning. Interviews also allow the Committee to safeguard the privacy of witnesses who may fear retaliation for cooperating or whose work requires anonymity, such as intelligence community operatives.

Both witnesses and members of Congress conduct themselves differently in interviews than when in the public glare of a hearing. Neither have an incentive to play to the cameras. Witnesses have no incentive to run out the clock as long-winded evasive answers merely extend the length of the interview. Likewise, Members have no need to interrupt witnesses to try to ask all their questions in five minutes. Perhaps more importantly, political posturing, self- serving speeches, and theatrics serve no purpose in a closed interview and, as a result, the questioning in interviews tends to be far more effective at discovering information than at public hearings. For these reasons, nearly all Executive Branch investigations are conducted in private and without arbitrary time constraints. This is no less true in a Legislative Branch investigation, yet the manner in which the media portrays these investigations is starkly different. Page 360

Congressional depositions allow Members and staff, as authorized by a committee, to interview witnesses under oath and, if necessary compel interview testimony by subpoena. The ability to interview witnesses in private allows committees to gather information confidentially and in more depth than is possible under the five-minute rule governing committee hearings. This ability is often critical to conducting an effective and thorough investigation. Committees rely on voluntary interviews to gather information and conduct investigations. If a witness refuses to be interviewed or if the witness’s employer—often the Executive Branch— refuses to allow the interview, however, most House committees have no recourse. Page 404

Trey Gowdy (R-SC), Chairman, H. Select Comm. on Benghazi.

H. Rept. 114-848 - FINAL REPORT OF THE SELECT COMMITTEE ON THE EVENTS SURROUNDING THE 2012 TERRORIST ATTACK IN BENGHAZI 114th Congress (2015-2016)

[seacoaster]

Sounds like a pretty reasonable and precedented way to proceed:

The Committee’s preference for private interviews over public hearings has been questioned. Interviews are a more efficient and effective means of discovery. Interviews allow witnesses to be questioned in depth by a highly prepared member or staff person. In a hearing, every member of a committee is recognized—usually for five minutes—a procedure which precludes in-depth focused questioning. Interviews also allow the Committee to safeguard the privacy of witnesses who may fear retaliation for cooperating or whose work requires anonymity, such as intelligence community operatives.

Both witnesses and members of Congress conduct themselves differently in interviews than when in the public glare of a hearing. Neither have an incentive to play to the cameras. Witnesses have no incentive to run out the clock as long-winded evasive answers merely extend the length of the interview. Likewise, Members have no need to interrupt witnesses to try to ask all their questions in five minutes. Perhaps more importantly, political posturing, self- serving speeches, and theatrics serve no purpose in a closed interview and, as a result, the questioning in interviews tends to be far more effective at discovering information than at public hearings. For these reasons, nearly all Executive Branch investigations are conducted in private and without arbitrary time constraints. This is no less true in a Legislative Branch investigation, yet the manner in which the media portrays these investigations is starkly different.

Trey Gowdy (R-SC), Chairman, H. Select Comm. on Benghazi.

H. Rept. 114-848 - FINAL REPORT OF THE SELECT COMMITTEE ON THE EVENTS SURROUNDING THE 2012 TERRORIST ATTACK IN BENGHAZI 114th Congress (2015-2016)

Page 360

Very nice catch, ggait.

[tech37]

Politics is now tightly bundled up with identity -- race, class, religion, culture. It was not that way even just a short time ago. IMO, this is due to 8 years of Obama/Holder and allowing a platform for the likes of Al Sharpton and others. How often was that dope at the WH during BHO's time in office? There were some racial incidents that were blown waaaay out of proportion and that helped create a toxic political environment. It's why we now have the likes of the "the squad" and their toxic fallout. Rightly or wrongly, the Rs definitely dug in over BHO's time, based at first on their rejection of the enactment of ObamaCare. Any decorum was down hill from there (including a sh*tload of other issues), all leading to the current hatefest.

Pretty depressing. And I don't think Trump's inevitable passing will change it. I optimistically disagree.

[jhu72]

The following is the oft stated reason for holding congressional hearings in closed session.

The Committee’s preference for private interviews over public hearings has been questioned. Interviews are a more efficient and effective means of discovery. Interviews allow witnesses to be questioned in depth by a highly prepared member or staff person. In a hearing, every member of a committee is recognized—usually for five minutes—a procedure which precludes in-depth focused questioning. Interviews also allow the Committee to safeguard the privacy of witnesses who may fear retaliation for cooperating or whose work requires anonymity, such as intelligence community operatives. Both witnesses and members of Congress conduct themselves differently in interviews than when in the public glare of a hearing. Neither have an incentive to play to the cameras. Witnesses have no incentive to run out the clock as long-winded evasive answers merely extend the length of the interview. Likewise, Members have no need to interrupt witnesses to try to ask all their questions in five minutes. Perhaps more importantly, political posturing, self- serving speeches, and theatrics serve no purpose in a closed interview and, as a result, the questioning in interviews tends to be far more effective at discovering information than at public hearings. For these reasons, nearly all Executive Branch investigations are conducted in private and without arbitrary time constraints. This is no less true in a Legislative Branch investigation, yet the manner in which the media portrays these investigations is starkly different.

Both witnesses and members of Congress conduct themselves differently in interviews than when in the public glare of a hearing. Neither have an incentive to play to the cameras. Witnesses have no incentive to run out the clock as long-winded evasive answers merely extend the length of the interview. Likewise, Members have no need to interrupt witnesses to try to ask all their questions in five minutes. Perhaps more importantly, political posturing, self- serving speeches, and theatrics serve no purpose in a closed interview and, as a result, the questioning in interviews tends to be far more effective at discovering information than at public hearings. For these reasons, nearly all Executive Branch investigations are conducted in private and without arbitrary time constraints. This is no less true in a Legislative Branch investigation, yet the manner in which the media portrays these investigations is starkly different.

This was written by Trey Gowdy and can be found on page 360 of the Benghazi Final Report. The Benghazi hearings were held partially in closed session with open sessions only held after some closed sessions for the purpose of investigation. I do not recall hearing republicans complaining about the "process" at the time. I certainly didn't hear our whiney Trumpnista bootlickers raising any concerns of how unfair all this was.

The Final Report

[jhu72]

Sounds like a pretty reasonable and precedented way to proceed:

The Committee’s preference for private interviews over public hearings has been questioned. Interviews are a more efficient and effective means of discovery. Interviews allow witnesses to be questioned in depth by a highly prepared member or staff person. In a hearing, every member of a committee is recognized—usually for five minutes—a procedure which precludes in-depth focused questioning. Interviews also allow the Committee to safeguard the privacy of witnesses who may fear retaliation for cooperating or whose work requires anonymity, such as intelligence community operatives.

Both witnesses and members of Congress conduct themselves differently in interviews than when in the public glare of a hearing. Neither have an incentive to play to the cameras. Witnesses have no incentive to run out the clock as long-winded evasive answers merely extend the length of the interview. Likewise, Members have no need to interrupt witnesses to try to ask all their questions in five minutes. Perhaps more importantly, political posturing, self- serving speeches, and theatrics serve no purpose in a closed interview and, as a result, the questioning in interviews tends to be far more effective at discovering information than at public hearings. For these reasons, nearly all Executive Branch investigations are conducted in private and without arbitrary time constraints. This is no less true in a Legislative Branch investigation, yet the manner in which the media portrays these investigations is starkly different.

Trey Gowdy (R-SC), Chairman, H. Select Comm. on Benghazi.

H. Rept. 114-848 - FINAL REPORT OF THE SELECT COMMITTEE ON THE EVENTS SURROUNDING THE 2012 TERRORIST ATTACK IN BENGHAZI 114th Congress (2015-2016)

Page 360

You beat me to it.

[tech37]

I agree PB. Some people worry that Trump has started some sort of downhill slide and succeeding POTUSs will be worse. I don't see that at all...he's an aberration.

Trump hopefully/probably is an aberration. And despite his frontal assault, the institutions so far are holding up to the stress test.

The more troubling question is whether we can dial back the over-the-top negative partisanship and tribalism. That pre-dated Trump and will survive him too. It does make the country basically ungovernable. Trump's contribution may ultimately be that he caused that intensely negative partisan divide to be laid out so obviously.

Look at Bandito's posts from earlier today as exhibit A. He's roasting me as a Hillary loving liberal fool that he just hates. As long time posters on here know, I'm a swing voter who happily voted for Romney. IIRC in 2014 I voted for R Corey Gardner over incumbent D Mark Udall -- I didn't like Udall much and I do like to support somewhat reasonable Republicans when I can. When posting, I try to back up my opinions with facts and data rather than talking points. But the data says there's hardly anyone like me out there any more.

Again, I'd point you to the eye popping numbers in that PRRI survey the other day. 82% of Reps think the Dems have been taken over by socialists. 80% of Dems think the Reps have been taken over by racists. 40% of Dem and Rep parents would be alarmed if one of their kids married a person from the other party; that number used to be 5%.

Politics is now tightly bundled up with identity -- race, class, religion, culture. It was not that way even just a short time ago. Reagan won 49 states in 1984. If Jesus ran against Hitler in 2020, no way Jesus would win 49 states. Basically, Hatfields vs. McCoys where facts, reason, expertise just don't matter. Just seething hatred of the other -- which is how Bandito sees me.

Pretty depressing. And I don't think Trump's inevitable passing will change it.

Hear, hear!

They don't seem to get that Trump is a symptom of partisanship, rather than some aberration. Our partisan environment yielded Trump.

And that partisanship is getting worse by the day.

But that has no bearing on a Nikki Haley, for example, stepping up next for the GOP.

There are plenty of reasonable Rs...more so it seems then Ds.

So who impresses you in the current long D line up forever?

I liked all the governors -former Colorado. John Hickenlooper, Washington Jay Inslee, Bullock from Mt, plus Bennet a Senator from Colorado.

As of now, Klobuchar, Mayor Pete....Yang/Tulsi to some extent.

How about you?

I liked Hickenlooper too, and Tulsi is certainly interesting. Even more now that she is a Russian asset

[a fan]

Politics is now tightly bundled up with identity -- race, class, religion, culture. It was not that way even just a short time ago. IMO, this is due to 8 years of Obama/Holder and allowing a platform to the likes of Al Sharpton and others. How often was that dope at the WH during BHO's time in office? There were some racial incidents that were blown waaaay out of proportion and that helped create a toxic political environment. It's why we now have the likes of the "the squad" and their toxic fallout. Rightly or wrongly, the Rs definitely dug in over BHO's time, based at first on their rejection of the enactment of ObamaCare. Any decorum was down hill from there (including a sh*tload of other issues), all leading to the current hatefest.

Pretty depressing. And I don't think Trump's inevitable passing will change it. I optimistically disagree.

The partisan environment is entirely Obama's fault, eh? Followed by AOC, eh?

Are you trying to break into the Guinness Book of World Records for the "most ironic comment in the history of the internet"??

[HooDat]

The solipsist-in-chief has cut both the State Department AND the Pentagon, out of inclusion in the process of Governing the United States.

not to overly pick nits, but I don't believe the State Department or the Pentagon are SUPPOSED to be part of governing the United States:?

Last I checked, they are supposed to operate under the direction of the president of the United States, who along with Congress, is supposed to govern the United States....

You make an excellent point. Call me naive and/or dumber than Trump. Poor wording on my part. I went to a cow college in the south. As such, I admit my education may have left me lacking the proper communication skills so necessary to scribe cogent posts on various blogs.

I always thought the State Department and the Pentagon were in existence to offer input & opinions to the POTUS to ASSIST HIM in making decisions that benefit ALL the PEOPLE of the United States of America as well as our ALLIES throughout the world. Of course, under the clear and astute direction of whoever is President of the United States of America.

Time for me to re-check the Constitution.

Thanks for the heads up.

given your moniker I wouldn't peg you as a Hokie! That is the only cow college I know of in Virginia! You wanna talk horses, then we can add Sweet Briar to the list...