Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News

Drudge Retort

User Info


Subscribe to OCUser's blog Subscribe


Special Features

Friday, January 24, 2020

President Donald Trump apparently told his associates at a 2018 dinner to "get rid" of then-U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch, according to an ABC News review of a recording of that dinner.

"Get rid of her!" a voice that appears to be Trump can be heard saying on the recording, ABC reported on Friday. "Get her out tomorrow. I don't care. Get her out tomorrow. Take her out. Okay? Do it."

A man who tried to deposit a settlement check from a workplace racial discrimination lawsuit said he was again discriminated against for being black, this time by the bank, who called the police on him over accusations the check was fraudulent. read more

Thursday, January 23, 2020

During a CNBC interview in Davos, Switzerland, on Wednesday, U.S. President Donald Trump said that we must "protect our genius," citing Elon Musk, Thomas Edison, and the inventor of the wheel as examples. read more

Not only do we have to break the habit of writing 2019, when we really mean 2020, but the dawn of a new decade also creates a unique opportunity for scammers, says Ira Rheingold, executive director for the National Association of Consumer Advocates. read more

Tucker Carlson got quite... heated on Wednesday as he ranted about the media's coverage of House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff (D-Calif.).

CNN chief legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin described Schiff's performance as the "second-best courtroom address... that I ever heard." "I thought the way he wove through both the facts of the case and the historical context was really remarkable," he said


Is he even going to show up?

#39 | Posted by chuffy

Trump would have to first ask for permission. Like the British monarch visiting Parliament, the President has to ask for permission before he's allowed to enter either the House or Senate chamber, at least if he's there on official business.

This is why they made a big deal a few weeks ago concerning Nancy Pelosi giving Trump permission to give the State of the Union Address on February 4th. There was speculation that she might hold off until after the impeachment trial, which she would have had every right to do. Of course, the President could have just stood in the White House Rose Garden and given the State of the Union. The Constitution, Article II, Section 3, says nothing explicitly about where the State of the Union is to be given, just that he must do so "from time to time". In fact, until Woodrow Wilson in 1913, the 'State of the Union' was delivered in writing to Congress. Wilson was the first President to give an 'in-person presentation'.

But getting back to visiting the Capital, protocol states that the President has to first make a formal, written request for permission to appear before a Joint Session of Congress to give his annual State of the Union Address, or for any other reason. Nancy Pelosi, as Speaker of the House, is responsible for giving formal permission for him to enter the House chamber. In fact, when the President arrives at the Capital building on the evening of the State of the Union, the doors to the House chamber are ceremonially 'locked' and he, or an aide, must first knock on the door and ask permission to enter. At that point the Sergeant at Arms for the House, after getting the nod from the Speaker, 'unlocks' the doors and accompanies the President to the podium.

I know this is an archaic tradition, but as I stated at the beginning, this is leftover from when it was established that the monarch, or in our case, the President, must first seek the permission of the people before they are allowed to enter the 'People's House', in England that would be Parliament, here in the US, that would be the House of Representatives.


How many witness were the republicans allowed in the house?

#26 | Posted by Sniper

They were allowed a lot more than they called. That being said, the Republicans on the House Intelligence committee DID call Tim Morrison, the former top National Security Council official for Russia and European affairs, and Kurt Volker, former special envoy to Ukraine, as witnesses for their side. However, in both cases, these individuals basically confirmed the narrative that the American people had already heard, or was about tho hear, from the other witnesses, including William Taylor, the acting U.S. ambassador to Ukraine, George Kent, the deputy assistant secretary of state for European and Eurasian affairs, Marie Yovanovitch, the former U.S. ambassador to Ukraine, Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman, the top Ukraine specialist on the National Security Council, Jennifer Williams, a foreign service aide detailed to Vice President Pence's office, Gordon Sondland, the U.S. ambassador to the European Union, Laura Cooper, a deputy assistant secretary at the Defense Department and Fiona Hill, formerly the top Russia specialist on the National Security Council.

While many Republicans intimated that they would have liked to have heard from people like John Bolton and Mick Mulvaney, in retrospect, I think they're glad that the White House refused to allow them to testify.

Note that this was BEFORE we started to hear what Lev Parnas was saying about his interactions with Rudy Giuliani and the President, and the sorts of activities that he and his buddy Igor were involved in, apparently at the direction of Giuliani and the President. Can you imagine what it would have been like to have heard that testimony before the House Intelligence Committee. Perhaps we'll still get that chance later in the year.


You were nice enough to pay for the retirement of the generation before you. With the excess going into the general fund of the US government. And because of that, you think you are "entitled" to have ME pay for YOUR retirement. I am not sure that I feel the same way.

#24 | Posted by gtbritishskull

Everyone forgets that Social Security is an INSURANCE program (it says that when you read the official name of the program, which is the 'Old-Age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance' (OASDI) program). And like other insurance programs, the premiums being paid by TODAY's policy holders are used to pay the benefits of those who are collecting TODAY. When you buy a life insurance policy, do you honestly think that it's your money that is being put into some bank account which will be held there for your heirs until you die? What if you died three months after taking out the policy, don't you think that your heirs will get 100% of the face value of the policy? Of course they will. But is that fair to the other policy holders who didn't die and are still paying their premiums? Yes, because that's the way insurance works.

And as for this idea that if I had saved that money on my own, I'd have more what I'm going to be getting back from Social Security, tell that to the parent of young kids when the breadwinner was killed on their way to work one morning. Or the person who worked 30+ year and a few years before reaching the age of 62, they're injured and are unable to work. What about people in these situations? Don't they deserve what was promised to them and for which they've paid, even if it wasn't enough to cover 100% of the benefit that they'll eventually receive? That's part of the social contract which all of us 'signed-up' for as Americans.


I worked 11 years for McDonnell Douglas and they were always proud of producing some of the most well engineered aircraft in the world. I had already left the company when they were acquired by Boeing in 1997, but I now get a pension check every month from Boeing. In fact, I get monthly pension checks from THREE different companies that I NEVER worked for.

As for what Boeing inherited from McDonnell Douglas, one thing was a logo. Boeing never really had a logo, just their name in block letters. When they acquired MDC, to the chagrin of all the old Boeing people who had competed against them, they adopted a new corporate logo based on the the old McDonnell Douglas logo, which had been based on the Douglas Aircraft Company logo when they were acquired in 1967 by the McDonnell Aircraft Corporation. The rumors I heard was that a lot of people in Seattle were very unhappy about that, mostly because it WAS based on the old Douglas logo, the company that they considered to be their real competitor, as they never considered McAir as one since they built mostly military aircraft.

As for the gist of this article, I'm not sure they got it quite right. I would say that the commercial airline group at Douglas in Long Beach never had that much influence over the new company, but rather it was the military side of the business, which was dominated by the McAir crowd in Saint Louis, that came-out on top.

Anyway, I don't really care about any of this, as long as that pension checks shows-up in my bank account the first of every month ;-)


Drudge Retort

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2020 World Readable