Tuesday, January 16, 2018

Cotton, Perdue Keep Lying About Trump's S---hole

James Hohmann, Washington Post: Three White House officials said Perdue and Cotton told the White House that they heard 's---house' rather than 's---hole,' allowing them to deny the president's comments on television over the weekend, Credibility is like virginity. You only get to lose it once. Cotton and Perdue will be defined by this moment, in part, because other senators will remember their attacks on Durbin. This will make them less trustworthy as potential partners and thus less effective as members of Congress.

More

"Colleagues on both sides of the aisle should keep these two Republican senators' rampant, flippant dishonesty in mind going forward," argues conservative blogger Jennifer Rubin. "Should either come before the Senate for a confirmable position, the Senate should reject the nomination. If they lied about this, they'd lie about anything."

"Trump's remark was an important symbolic low-point of his presidency," writes The Daily Beast's Michael Tomasky. "The outrages are so numerous that we can't always know which ones will make the history books. We can be certain that this one will. A moment of national humiliation and disgrace. Cotton and Perdue have chosen to go out of their way to align themselves with this humiliation."

Comments

Oh, it was '--------- countries'. That makes no sense.

At least '-------- countries' made sense, ya know, for racists and other kinds of haters.

#1 | Posted by kudzu at 2018-01-16 01:12 PM

Tom Cotton is a long time traitor to the United States.

#2 | Posted by 726 at 2018-01-16 02:04 PM

Tom Cotton is a long time traitor to the United States.

#2 | POSTED BY 726

And yet, they have all their voters convinced that they are the patriots, and that liberals hate America.

"War is Peace / Freedom is Slavery / Ignorance is Strength"

#3 | Posted by WhoDaMan at 2018-01-16 11:15 PM

Tom Cotton is a long time traitor to the United States.

#2 | POSTED BY 726

Based on what?

#4 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-01-16 11:29 PM

Tom Cotton is a long time traitor to the United States.

#2 | POSTED BY 726

Based on what?

Posted by JeffJ at 2018-01-16 11:29 PM | Reply

Colluding with Israel to derail the Iran deal

#5 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2018-01-16 11:33 PM

He sent an open letter to Iran warning them that no deal was binding if it wasn't ratified by the Senate. Nothing traitorous about that.

#6 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-01-16 11:39 PM

He sent an open letter to Iran warning them that no deal was binding if it wasn't ratified by the Senate. Nothing traitorous about that.

Posted by JeffJ at 2018-01-16 11:39 PM | Reply

You're intellectual dishonesty is showing.

www.mintpressnews.com

#7 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2018-01-16 11:45 PM

Call it unsavory if you wish, but it's not traitorous, unless you consider Israel to be an enemy country to the US (it isn't).

#8 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-01-16 11:47 PM

Call it unsavory if you wish, but it's not traitorous, unless you consider Israel to be an enemy country to the US (it isn't).

Posted by JeffJ at 2018-01-16 11:47 PM | Reply

The Logan act called. It said to look them up.

#9 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2018-01-16 11:49 PM

"Call it unsavory if you wish"

So Senator Warren can tell North Korea whatever she wants, about what a Democratic WH will do favorably for them?

#10 | Posted by Danforth at 2018-01-16 11:50 PM

Tom Cotton and President* Trump Deserve Each Other

Here in the shebeen ('illicit whiskey' bar), we've been keeping a weather eye on the career of Senator Tom Cotton, the bobble-throated slapdick from Arkansas.

www.esquire.com

#11 | Posted by Corky at 2018-01-16 11:52 PM

$1,000,000 for an open letter.

Not bad.

#12 | Posted by bruceaz at 2018-01-16 11:52 PM

Nobody has ever even been prosecuted via the Logan Act.

So Senator Warren can tell North Korea whatever she wants, about what a Democratic WH will do favorably for them?

#10 | POSTED BY DANFORTH

You need a different hypothetical - something more analogous to what Cotton (and 46 other Senators who signed the letter) did.

#13 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-01-16 11:57 PM

Also, a Logan Act violation is not a traitorous act.

#14 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-01-16 11:58 PM

You need a different hypothetical - something more analogous to what Cotton (and 46 other Senators who signed the letter) did.

Posted by JeffJ at 2018-01-16 11:57 PM | Reply

It wasn't their right to do slick. The President dictates foreign policy NO ONE else.

#15 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2018-01-17 12:02 AM

"You need a different hypothetical - something more analogous"

Cotton wrote Israel, telling them the GOP WH would be more favorable to them, and less to Iran. How much closer an analogy were you seeking?

If Warren did something similar, your head would explode.

#16 | Posted by Danforth at 2018-01-17 12:05 AM

If Warren did something similar, your head would explode.

Posted by Danforth at 2018-01-17 12:05 AM | Reply

That's an understatement and a half.

#17 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2018-01-17 12:08 AM

Cotton wrote Israel, telling them the GOP WH would be more favorable to them, and less to Iran. How much closer an analogy were you seeking?

Your alternate example was Warren telling N Korea a Dem WH would be more favorable to them.

Currying favor with an enemy state is not the same thing as currying favor with an ally.

An op-ed written by Cotton, co-signed by the other 46 GOP Senators, written almost verbatim as to how this letter was crafted, and then published in the WSJ - would that be bad too?

#18 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-01-17 12:17 AM

An op-ed written by Cotton, co-signed by the other 46 GOP Senators, written almost verbatim as to how this letter was crafted, and then published in the WSJ - would that be bad too?

Posted by JeffJ at 2018-01-17 12:17 AM | Reply

For someone who declares their adherence to the Constitution you sure have a problem with it regarding Obama.

#19 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2018-01-17 12:21 AM

"Currying favor with an enemy state is not the same thing as currying favor with an ally. "

Stepping in to foreign policy is stepping into it. Telling ANY country a different WH would treat them differently is parallel.

"An op-ed written by Cotton, co-signed by the other 46 GOP Senators, written almost verbatim as to how this letter was crafted, and then published in the WSJ - would that be bad too?"

Are the goalposts heavy when you have to move them that far, that fast?

#20 | Posted by Danforth at 2018-01-17 12:24 AM

For someone who declares their adherence to the Constitution you sure have a problem with it regarding Obama.

#19 | POSTED BY LAURAMOHR

Nope. I don't support what they did. Doesn't make it traitorous though - it wasn't.

Are the goalposts heavy when you have to move them that far, that fast?

#20 | POSTED BY DANFORTH

I was just curious as to how you would differentiate the 2 scenarios.

#21 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-01-17 12:26 AM

Let's don't leave William Kristol out of this discussion. He was the liaison between AIPAC and the U.S. Senate and the one who penned that infamous letter to Iran in an effort to subvert the U.S. government and the Nuclear Accords. Tom Cotton was the leader of the parade to get 46 other Senators to sign the letter. So yes, Tom Cotton engaged in an act of subversion.

It was reported at the time, in exchange, Kristol promised Cotton that Cotton would be top on the list of vice president choices for Jeb Bush.

So yes, Tom Cotton is a snake.

Now, in exchange for lying for Trump, Cotton is again being baited with a cabinet level job in the Trump administration, namely, Director of the CIA.

I wouldn't put it past Cotton to do or say anything to advance himself. He's shown himself to be a seasoned liar and yes, even a traitor. That puts him right in Trump's ballpark.

#22 | Posted by Twinpac at 2018-01-17 12:29 AM

Say what you want about Cotton, but he's not a traitor. That word has a very specific legal definition and it gets thrown around way too casually.

#23 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-01-17 12:42 AM

Nope. I don't support what they did. Doesn't make it traitorous though - it wasn't.

How come you seem to spend your time always defending or deflecting from things or people you don't agree with or like?

#24 | Posted by jpw at 2018-01-17 12:48 AM

Say what you want about Cotton, but he's not a traitor. That word has a very specific legal definition and it gets thrown around way too casually.

Posted by JeffJ at 2018-01-17 12:42 AM | Reply

I disagree. He betrayed his country when he tried to influence her foreign policy.

#25 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2018-01-17 12:48 AM

en.wikipedia.org's_leaders

Also, the letter wasn't to Israel, it was to the leaders of Iran.

The Israel debacle was the next pile of BS the GOP squeezed out to disrespect the office of POTUS by inviting Netanyahu to speak before Congress without the authorization to do so by the POTUS.

#26 | Posted by jpw at 2018-01-17 12:53 AM

"I was just curious as to how you would differentiate the 2 scenarios."

Well, in one, a member of the party out of the WH writes to foreign leaders undermining the party IN the WH, and suggests ignoring the sitting President.

While in the other, a member of the party out of the WH writes to foreign leaders undermining the party in the WH, and suggests ignoring the sitting President.

So far, the only difference is how you react, based on the letter after the name.

#27 | Posted by Danforth at 2018-01-17 01:09 AM

JEFF

Call it subversion if it makes you feel better. Either way, Tom Cotton is still a snake.

#28 | Posted by Twinpac at 2018-01-17 01:13 AM

From the wiki link:

President Barack Obama mocked the letter, referring to it as an "unusual coalition" with the Army of the Guardians of the Islamic Revolution as well as an interference with the then-ongoing negotiations of a comprehensive agreement on the Iranian nuclear program. In addition, during a Vice News interview, President Barack Obama said, "I'm embarrassed for them. For them to address a letter to the Ayatollah – the Supreme Leader of Iran, who they claim is our mortal enemy – and their basic argument to them is: don't deal with our President, 'cause you can't trust him to follow through on an agreement... That's close to unprecedented."

#29 | Posted by Danforth at 2018-01-17 01:14 AM

"the letter wasn't to Israel, it was to the leaders of Iran."

My error. Thanks for the correction.

#30 | Posted by Danforth at 2018-01-17 01:17 AM

It's pertinent for more reasons than correctness.

One, it means the Warren/NK analogy is spot on.

Two, most importantly, it's essentially what Trump and his people did during the election-undermining of foreign policy by the POTUS for political purposes.

Seems the 'snake in the grass' pattern with the GOP is strong.

#31 | Posted by jpw at 2018-01-17 01:22 AM

Well, in one, a member of the party out of the WH writes to foreign leaders undermining the party IN the WH, and suggests ignoring the sitting President.
While in the other, a member of the party out of the WH writes to foreign leaders undermining the party in the WH, and suggests ignoring the sitting President.
So far, the only difference is how you react, based on the letter after the name.

#27 | POSTED BY DANFORTH

My hypothetical went from being a massive moving of the goalposts to now being the exact same thing.

I guess I'm trying to figure out where the line is drawn. Example, in the '90's Jimmy Carter, who didn't hold any position on the Clinton administration, flew to N Korea and negotiated a nuclear weapon deal that was contrary to Clinton policy. Due to pressure from his party, Clinton went along with it, but privately he was furious. Is that along the same lines as to what Cotton did? Maybe it is, maybe it isn't.

How about another hypothetical: What if Cotton and those other Senators penned a similar letter to the signatories of the Paris Accord climate deal?

How come you seem to spend your time always defending or deflecting from things or people you don't agree with or like?

#24 | POSTED BY JPW

All I said is he's not a traitor, and he's not. My beef was with the casual way in which that word gets thrown around. You probably despise George W Bush, but if someone accused him of a crime that was impossible to commit - a crime which required him to be in 2 places at once - you'd probably call it out, or at least, I hope you would.

#32 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-01-17 07:00 AM

Two, most importantly, it's essentially what Trump and his people did during the election-undermining of foreign policy by the POTUS for political purposes.

How so?

#33 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-01-17 07:11 AM

Just to keep things in perspective, Tom Cotton wasn't the only subversive.

Here's the entire list:

www.washingtonpost.com ~ 47 U.S. Senators

You'll notice a few of the better known names who are still in the headlights today:

McConnell ... Sessions ... Grassley ... Graham ... Perdue ... Rubio

So there's more than one snake still slithering around the Capitol Building ~ sticking their head up once in while to see which way the wind is blowing.

#34 | Posted by Twinpac at 2018-01-17 07:21 AM

Writing a letter of this nature to a hostile foreign country in the middle of negotiations was just wrong. And it was stupid. They could have written a letter to President Obama. Said letter could have made all of the same arguments, including: "The Iranian government would be foolish to agree to any deal that won't be binding and given what we know about this deal it has no chance of being ratified - and thus binding - by the Senate."

Heck, I could take their letter, change very few words, address it to Obama, and it wouldn't have been nearly as controversial. Obviously, would need to make sure copies of the letter are provided to the press so that it gets talked about. Doing it that way would have achieved the exact same result, and Obama supporters and Democrats really wouldn't have a ton to gripe about, certainly not in the sense of calling it subversion or treason or a Logan Act violation.

#35 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-01-17 08:19 AM

"Writing a letter of this nature to a hostile foreign country in the middle of negotiations was just wrong. And it was stupid."

And it was illegal, he should have been charged, tried and convicted. Tom Cotton is a dangerous cannon and needs to be defused.

#36 | Posted by danni at 2018-01-17 08:36 AM

Some Republican politicians are so desirous of power and fame that they will even commit treason to accomplish their goals....like all of the last Republican Presidents since Nixon and now Tom Cotton. Despicable.

#37 | Posted by danni at 2018-01-17 08:37 AM

"Heck, I could take their letter, change very few words, address it to Obama, and it wouldn't have been nearly as controversial."

But then, it was addressed to the Iranian leadership so your entire post is nonsense and a stupid attempt to forgive treason.

#38 | Posted by danni at 2018-01-17 08:39 AM

But then, it was addressed to the Iranian leadership so your entire post is nonsense and a stupid attempt to forgive treason.

Posted by danni at 2018-01-17 08:39 AM | Reply

AMEN!!!!!

#39 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2018-01-17 08:49 AM

How come you seem to spend your time always defending or deflecting from things or people you don't agree with or like? - #24 | Posted by jpw at 2018-01-17 12:48 AM

Because he has the moral strength to speak the truth regardless of his opinions on the people he's speaking it about. When someone says a lie about Trump or Clinton, he calls the lie a lie.

#40 | Posted by Avigdore at 2018-01-17 08:56 AM

#40 | Posted by Avigdore

1,000 funny flags...LOL!

#41 | Posted by Angrydad at 2018-01-17 09:18 AM

"Heck, I could take their letter, change very few words, address it to Obama, and it wouldn't have been nearly as controversial."

And if your Aunt had balls....

I mean, why not bring those goalposts home, if you're going to move them that far.

#42 | Posted by Danforth at 2018-01-17 09:22 AM

But then, it was addressed to the Iranian leadership

Yes, it was, and that is precisely why it was so wrong. It wasn't treasonous though.

#43 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-01-17 09:23 AM

I mean, why not bring those goalposts home, if you're going to move them that far.

#42 | POSTED BY DANFORTH

No goalposts. I was pointing out the stupidity of writing a letter directly to the Iranian government, when they could have achieved the same result by penning a letter to president Obama instead.

#44 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-01-17 09:24 AM

" I was pointing out the stupidity of writing a letter directly to the Iranian government,"

No, you were deflecting.

Again, how would you react if it were Warren, writing a letter to NK?

#45 | Posted by Danforth at 2018-01-17 09:25 AM

And it was illegal, he should have been charged, tried and convicted. Tom Cotton is a dangerous cannon and needs to be defused.

#36 | POSTED BY DANNI

For a Logan Act violation?

Please cite for me the people who have been indicted, much less convicted, under the Logan Act since it was passed in 1799.

I'll wait.

#46 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-01-17 09:27 AM

No, you were deflecting.

No, I wasn't.

Again, how would you react if it were Warren, writing a letter to NK?

#45 | POSTED BY DANFORTH

I'd call it stupid and denounce her for it. It wouldn't be an act of treason though. How would you react if Warren were to write a letter to NK?

#47 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-01-17 09:28 AM

"How would you react if Warren were to write a letter to NK?"

I'd make her head of the CIA, provided she'd be willing to lie for me repeatedly.

#48 | Posted by Danforth at 2018-01-17 09:40 AM

"Please cite for me the people who have been indicted, much less convicted, under the Logan Act since it was passed in 1799. "

So, the lack of enforcement makes it ok in your mind? Why bring up Elizabeth Warren, hypothetical questions with no basis in fact are stupid.

#49 | Posted by danni at 2018-01-17 09:54 AM

So, the lack of enforcement makes it ok in your mind?

Why do you think that in over 200 years it's never been enforced?

Why bring up Elizabeth Warren, hypothetical questions with no basis in fact are stupid.

#49 | POSTED BY DANNI

Take it up with Danforth. It was his hypothetical, not mine.

#50 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-01-17 09:56 AM

So, Jeff is ok with Jane Fonda. Who knew?

#51 | Posted by danni at 2018-01-17 09:58 AM

"Take it up with Danforth. It was his hypothetical, not mine."

Hypothetical? Try mirror image.

In one, a sitting senator writes a letter to a hostile foreign power telling them to ignore the sitting President, because the next President from the opposing party will treat them differently.

In the other, Tom Cotton.

#52 | Posted by Danforth at 2018-01-17 10:07 AM

Get over it, JEFF. You lost.

Tom Cotton, et al, sent a letter to the Ayatollah of Iran in an effort to subvert the foreign policy of a sitting president. It failed in that respect but it succeeded by showing Obama (and now the rest of us) that Tom Cotton is someone who would knife America in the back.

He's Trump's kinda guy. Since you mince words in Cotton's defense, he must be your kinda guy.

And now we know that, too.

#53 | Posted by Twinpac at 2018-01-17 10:17 AM

How so?

#33 | POSTED BY JEFFJ

LOL

#54 | Posted by jpw at 2018-01-17 10:26 AM

All I said is he's not a traitor, and he's not. My beef was with the casual way in which that word gets thrown around.

Yeah, that's fine. I get that.

But it only takes one post to speak your mind and then realize people are speaking theirs and stop harping on it post after post after post.

#55 | Posted by jpw at 2018-01-17 10:27 AM

Doing it that way would have achieved the exact same result, and Obama supporters and Democrats really wouldn't have a ton to gripe about, certainly not in the sense of calling it subversion or treason or a Logan Act violation.

This sort of statement is why I doubt your genuine in your critiques. You're spinning this politically to cast the Dems as the bad guy and the subversive ones as ham-handed do gooders.

Jesus Christ, man. I know you can't stand the Dems and agree with the Repubs but stop claiming any or all allegiance to how our country is supposed to be run by half-assed supporting these clowns.

#56 | Posted by jpw at 2018-01-17 10:31 AM

Because he has the moral strength to speak the truth regardless of his opinions on the people he's speaking it about. When someone says a lie about Trump or Clinton, he calls the lie a lie.
#40 | POSTED BY AVIGDORE

Which takes ONE post.

Not the 10+ posts defending his boy Cotton's honor.

#57 | Posted by jpw at 2018-01-17 10:34 AM

#53 | POSTED BY TWINPAC

Checkmate.

#58 | Posted by jpw at 2018-01-17 10:37 AM

JPW,

I agree with you on the additional posts but that's harder to accomplish than many here would think.

Many times I address a single statement from a poster and it gets drug into an entirely different space by posters who accuse me of defending an entire party or a politician or a policy, etc.

all I'm doing is address the falsehood of a single comment....but nobody can let it go at that. They can't help themselves.

That's a lot of what Jeff faces in threads like this because the posters he is exchanging with on this thread do this ---- on every thread every day they are here.

#59 | Posted by eberly at 2018-01-17 11:00 AM

"the posters he is exchanging with on this thread do this ---- on every thread every day"

Point out blatant, partisan hypocrisy?

Guilty, your honor.

#60 | Posted by Danforth at 2018-01-17 11:31 AM

all I'm doing is address the falsehood of a single comment....but nobody can let it go at that. They can't help themselves.

I see that happen all the time. Hell, read any thread where snoofy is active.

But you can't claim that a full-throated defense of Cotton followed by a meek "but I don't really like him" doesn't exactly measure up.

#61 | Posted by jpw at 2018-01-17 11:33 AM

But it only takes one post to speak your mind and then realize people are speaking theirs and stop harping on it post after post after post. - #55 | Posted by jpw at 2018-01-17 10:27 AM

Perhaps he is worried that if a lie is repeated often enough it becomes the truth. So you've got to keep fighting lies, even if (especially if) people keep repeating them.

#53 | POSTED BY TWINPAC
Checkmate. - #58 | Posted by jpw

#53: totally true, and STILL makes the claims of treason false. Words have meanings.

#62 | Posted by Avigdore at 2018-01-17 12:14 PM

Multiple people who were in the meeting dispute Durbin's account.

Durbin is a liar.

#63 | Posted by sawdust at 2018-01-17 12:15 PM

Perhaps he is worried that if a lie is repeated often enough it becomes the truth. So you've got to keep fighting lies, even if (especially if) people keep repeating them.

Can't be true if you're defending the liars.

Multiple people who were in the meeting dispute Durbin's account.
Durbin is a liar.

#63 | POSTED BY SAWDUST

That's not what I've taken from the articles I've read.

Sycophants have closed ranks around their turd DOTUS. Nothing more, nothing less.

#64 | Posted by jpw at 2018-01-17 12:17 PM

a full-throated defense of Cotton - #61 | Posted by jpw at 2018-01-17 11:33 AM
Was that when he called it wrong and stupid, but not treasonous?
If not, where would you claim he was engaged in a 'full-throated defense of Cotton'?
If he'd said it was wrong and stupid, but not murder...would you agree with that statement? I hope so, because murder has a definition and Cotton's actions didn't meet that definition. The same is true with treason.

#65 | Posted by Avigdore at 2018-01-17 12:19 PM

"Durbin is a liar."

More like Sawdust is a liar.

#66 | Posted by danni at 2018-01-17 12:24 PM

"read any thread where snoofy is active."

Unfortunately, Snoofy has a lot of company.

"But you can't claim that a full-throated defense of Cotton followed by a meek "but I don't really like him" doesn't exactly measure up."

If that's a fair assessment of what JeffJ has done with regard to his defense of Cotton, then fine. I have no argument.

But I'm just saying....even a challenge of 1 assertion can be met with the same collection of rabid partisans desperately attempting to stretch that challenge into an entire platform of positions, support of a party, etc.

It's a deliberate attempt to assign a position to someone just so they can argue against it.

#67 | Posted by eberly at 2018-01-17 12:39 PM

all I'm doing is address the falsehood of a single comment....but nobody can let it go at that...

#59 | POSTED BY EBERLY

Yes. This. Even when putting qualifiers out there - "It was stupid and wrong" - it's never enough. It's pretty ridiculous.

#68 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-01-17 01:04 PM

It not that complicated.

Jeff just happens to be the type of guy who can never claim he is wrong about anything.

He's not a bad guy. He just has a "thing" about being told he is wrong. And he'll torture a subject to death just to prove it.

#69 | Posted by Twinpac at 2018-01-17 01:04 PM

Multiple people who were in the meeting dispute Durbin's account.

Durbin is a liar.

#63 | Posted by sawdust

If you want to see someone lie watch the DHS Kirstjen Nielsen testimony at the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on oversight of Department of Homeland Security.

She was at the meeting and she lied her tail off to protect Trump. So blatantly lying it was embarrassing to watch as someone who is responsible for the security of our nation sink so low and destroy her own reputation.

Corey Booker gave her no quarter. It was surprisingly awesome.

www.c-span.org

#70 | Posted by donnerboy at 2018-01-17 01:04 PM

So, Jeff is ok with Jane Fonda. Who knew?

#51 | POSTED BY DANNI

I didn't realize Cotton was sitting on a tank blowing kisses at the mullahs.

#71 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-01-17 01:05 PM

"Jeff just happens to be the type of guy who can never claim he is wrong about anything."

Fine, except for the 20+ regular posters here who are a thousands times worse in that category.

#72 | Posted by eberly at 2018-01-17 01:06 PM

Doing it that way would have achieved the exact same result, and Obama supporters and Democrats really wouldn't have a ton to gripe about, certainly not in the sense of calling it subversion or treason or a Logan Act violation.

This sort of statement is why I doubt your genuine in your critiques. You're spinning this politically to cast the Dems as the bad guy and the subversive ones as ham-handed do gooders.
Jesus Christ, man. I know you can't stand the Dems and agree with the Repubs but stop claiming any or all allegiance to how our country is supposed to be run by half-assed supporting these clowns.

#56 | POSTED BY JPW


Because the letter was addressed to the leaders of Iran, Obama supporters and Democrats had a truly legitimate gripe that warranted an expression of outrage. Had Cotton and the other GOP Senators done what I was alluding to - write a similar letter to Obama and make sure plenty of copies were provided to the media - it would have sparked anger to be sure, but it would have taken away this noxious crap about treason and it still would have accomplished what they were trying to accomplish.

Like I said, stupid and wrong.

#73 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-01-17 01:10 PM

Multiple people who were in the meeting dispute Durbin's account.
Durbin is a liar.
#63 | Posted by sawdust
If you want to see someone lie watch the DHS Kirstjen Nielsen testimony at the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on oversight of Department of Homeland Security.
She was at the meeting and she lied her tail off to protect Trump. So blatantly lying it was embarrassing to watch as someone who is responsible for the security of our nation sink so low and destroy her own reputation.
Corey Booker gave her no quarter. It was surprisingly awesome.
www.c-span.org
#70 | Posted by donnerboy

My favorite part was when she claimed she didn't know Norway was a predominantly Caucasian country. I believe her ancestors are from Denmark. That is like me (Irish descendant) not knowing Scottish people are predominantly white.

#74 | Posted by truthhurts at 2018-01-17 01:10 PM

There has been talk of Cotton running for presiden someday. God forbid. His Trump-supporting shenanigans demonstrate he has no moral compass. Policy-wise, from a liberal perspective, folks like Romney, Flake and Sasse may be no better, but when it comes to character, they beat Cotton hands down.

#75 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2018-01-17 01:18 PM

Can you imagine the shock if someone woke up from a ten year coma today and saw this headline in the news?

We have really jumped the shark.

Cotton, Perdue Keep Lying About Trump's S---hole!

#76 | Posted by donnerboy at 2018-01-17 01:31 PM

Jeff just happens to be the type of guy who can never claim he is wrong about anything....

Posted by Twinpac

I hope you got that I was acknowledging that I called out a deflection earlier today that was calling out a deflection.
That was a zinger to which I had no response, but felt I should acknowledge, at some point. This seemed like the appropriate time.
Nicely done.

POSTED BY JEFFJ AT 2018-01-09 08:20 PM

#32
I get that you are most likely clowning, but I will point out that I never accused Antifa of burning down a house, specifically, the house of that Roy Moore accuser. My Antifa comment was a lame deflection that Clownshack called out as such, and after considering what he said, I agreed - it was a lame deflection.

POSTED BY JEFFJ AT 2018-01-09 06:59 PM

I didn't claim Antifa lit a house on fire and I acknowledged that my lame deflection was...a lame deflection.

POSTED BY JEFFJ AT 2018-01-08 03:12 PM

"Yes. it. is" was intended to agree with you when you said it wasn't binding. HORRIBLE articulation on my part. Apologies.

POSTED BY JEFFJ AT 2017-12-22 12:57 AM | REPLY

UN Votes 128-9 to Condemn Trump on Jerusalem
Poorly articulated. I agree - it's not binding. Please re-read what I said with this understanding.

POSTED BY JEFFJ AT 2017-12-22 12:56 AM


#77 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-01-17 01:33 PM

There has been talk of Cotton running for presiden someday...

#75 | POSTED BY GAL_TUESDAY

What if his brother is Frank? Our enemies would be quaking in their boots.

#78 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-01-17 01:34 PM

Cotton and Predue where brought in by Trump, how can ever they oppose their Boss and tell something different.... They are such a corrupt folks

#79 | Posted by material07310 at 2018-01-17 02:17 PM

#73 Jeff,

We'll have to agree to disagree on the letter. In any case, I'll lay off and quit ragging on you. This is, after all, supposed to be a political discussion blog and not a ‘kick him in the nuts' blog.

#80 | Posted by jpw at 2018-01-17 02:43 PM

"...and not a ‘kick him in the nuts' blog." - #80 | Posted by jpw at 2018-01-17 02:43 PM

And Jesus Frank Cotton wept.

#81 | Posted by Hans at 2018-01-17 03:00 PM

"We'll have to agree to disagree on the letter. In any case, I'll lay off and quit ragging on you. This is, after all, supposed to be a political discussion blog and not a ‘kick him in the nuts' blog."

Did you see this post JEFF.

JPW just gave you a perfect example of how it's done. It isn't necessary to drag every subject, agree or disagree, out from birth to death.

#82 | Posted by Twinpac at 2018-01-17 03:47 PM

Drudge Retort Headlines

Did Russia Affect 2016 Election? It's Now Undeniable (71 comments)

Limbaugh's Solution: More Guns in Schools (50 comments)

Clapper: Mueller Has 'Other Shoes to Drop' (34 comments)

Trump Isn't Even Close to Being Off the Hook (27 comments)

Fergie Tries to Sex Up the National Anthem (26 comments)

Rick Gates Will Plead Guilty, Testify Against Manafort (24 comments)

American Nationalists Are Quiet as Mice on Russia (24 comments)

The Age of Constant Surveillance (23 comments)

Every Day a Disgrace: Trump Rage Tweets at Oprah (22 comments)

Lawless Trumpers Urge Him to Grant Pardons (20 comments)