Trump Wants Absolute One-Man Rule: Is the USSC Helping With that Goal and Path

More and More Key High Court Critical Decisions are 5-4 Rulings

Stephen Miller - Behind the Scenes Mocking Our Forefathers

(A racist arrogant man)

UPDATED (June 26 2018) soon after the Supreme Court ruling upholding the Muslim ban into the country from DEMS in the House was announced — details follow this update:

Rep. Keith Ellison (D-MN) – and the first Muslim ever elected to Congress say about the ruling: “Today’s decision undermines the core value of religious tolerance on which America was founded. I am deeply disappointed that this ruling gives legitimacy to discrimination and Islamophobia.” 

Ellison went to say: “America holds a unique place in the world as a nation of immigrants. Unlike some other countries, we welcome refugees, asylum seekers, and dreamers fleeing war and instability in other parts of the world. America is and must remain the “land of the free” where a family escaping authoritarianism in persecution like in North Korea can seek shelter and thrive here. Today’s ruling is unjust. It is like the Korematsu decision that upheld Japanese internment camps or Plessy v. Ferguson that established “separate but equal” – this decision will someday serve as a marker of shame. Until then, we must keep fighting for an America that recognizes that every human life has value and reflects our values of generosity and inclusion for all.”

Look back starting in 2015 and right through the 2016 presidential race, Trump many times called for a “total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States.” That proposal subsequently evolved into a vague promise of “extreme vetting.” (The phrase used by most Trumpets). Short clip from Trump is a strong reminder of his racist lingo:

Listen carefully to then candidate now our President rant

(Never in my life have I heard such anger and disgust)

Rep. Hank Johnson (D-GA) compared it to the court’s 2013 decision to strike down part of the Voting Rights Act (Shelby County v. Holder), as well as the 1857 Dred Scott decision that no black person — free or slave — could claim U.S. citizenship, adding: “Shelby, Korematsu, Dred Scott, and now, Trump v. Hawaii is a decision that joins a line of rulings history we will look back on in shame.”

Trump called it a “tremendous victory, a moment of profound vindication of his policies” saying:  “Today’s Supreme Court ruling is a tremendous victory for the American People and the Constitution. The Supreme Court has upheld the clear authority of the President to defend the national security of the United States. In this era of worldwide terrorism and extremist movements bent on harming innocent civilians, we must properly vet those coming into our country. This ruling is also a moment of profound vindication following months of hysterical commentary from the media and Democratic politicians who refuse to do what it takes to secure our border and our country. As long as I am President, I will defend the sovereignty, safety, security of the American People, and fight for an immigration system that serves the national interests”

And, of course and as expected right wing TV and Talk Radio radio all across USA la-la land are going nuts by cheering and celebrating the ruling all the while blaming DEMS for every in the wrong under the Sun, which as always in their typical ranting and raving about not old worn out false BS we've heard for years with little or no validity.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Original post start from here:

A rather long post based on the recent Supreme Court ruling on the Trump Muslim ban (Scotus blog) but one that needs to be said not only by me but hopefully many more people a lot smarter than me will chime in.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

WASHINGTON (LA TIMES and THE AP) — The Supreme Court upheld President Trump's ban on travel from several mostly Muslim countries, rejecting a challenge that it discriminated against Muslims or exceeded his authority.  

The 5-4 decision Tuesday is the court's first substantive ruling on a Trump administration policy. Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the majority opinion, joined by his four conservative colleagues.

My note: In this post I want to emphasize Chief Justice Roberts’ comments for they mean, how he said them, and the impact not only on the office the president – for anyone in that office – but for the moral, ethical, and heart and soul of our country – yes, Presidents have awesome power, but they are not dictators (at least not yet).

The high court decides high-level legal issues vis-à-vis impact on and within the Constitution and how government policy impacts that sacred document. Roberts carefully danced around that philosophy by my reading and I emphasize those points in red below.

The court speaks and protects the country and each and every person within the law of this land and they interpret laws that impact all of us – visitor, immigrant, native American and basically anyone on our soil who is a lawful person not proven guilty of anything – in a nutshell by my reading – in this case and ruling the court falls short and 4 dissenters have 100% nailed it down and I totally agree.

Further, noteworthy: Roberts projects a position of being neutral within the law as he reviewed it as seen below with my emphasis.

Roberts wrote that presidents have substantial power to regulate immigration. He also rejected the challengers' claim of anti-Muslim bias. Roberts was careful not to endorse either Trump's provocative statements about immigration in general and Muslims in particular writing in part: “We express no view on the soundness of the policy.”

Roberts wrote that presidents frequently used their power to talk to the nation: “To espouse the principles of religious freedom and tolerance on which this Nation was founded, Presidents and the country have not always lived up to those inspiring words.”

The travel ban has been fully in place since the court declined to block it back in last December. The justices allowed the policy to take full effect even as the court fight continued and lower courts had ruled it out of bounds.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote the dissent that the evidence shows “a reasonable observer would conclude that the Proclamation was motivated by anti-Muslim animus: Ignoring the facts, misconstruing our legal precedent, and turning a blind eye to the pain and suffering the Proclamation inflicts upon countless families and individuals, many of whom are United States citizens.” 

Justices Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and Elena Kagan also dissented.

The policy applies to travelers from five countries with overwhelmingly Muslim populations — Iran, Libya, Somalia, Syria and Yemen. It also affects two non-Muslim countries: blocking travelers from North Korea and some Venezuelan government officials and their families. A sixth majority Muslim country, Chad, was removed from the list in April after improving “its identity-management and information sharing practices,” Trump wrote in his ban proclamation. 

The administration had pointed to the Chad decision to show that the restrictions are premised only on national security concerns. The challengers, though, argued that the court could just ignore all that has happened, beginning with Trump's campaign tweets to prevent the entry of Muslims into the United States. Just a week after he took office, Trump announced his first travel ban aimed at seven countries. 

That ban's impact:

1.  Triggered chaos and protests across the U.S. as travelers were stopped from boarding international flights and detained at airports for hours. Trump tweaked the order after the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of appeals (SF) didn’t reinstate the ban.

2. Then, the next version, unveiled in March 2017, dropped Iraq from the list of covered countries and made it clear the 90-day ban covering Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen didn't apply to those travelers who already had visas. It also eliminated language that would give priority to religious minorities. Critics said the changes didn't erase the ban's legal problems.

3. Now, the current version dates from September 2017 and it follows what the administration has “called a thorough review by several federal agencies, although it has not shared the review with courts or the public.” 

My note: I wonder who is behind those “reviews and writing new policies?” I suspect but do not know for sure but my money’s on Stephen Miller in person and Stephen Bannon behind the scenes (more on Bannon below) – this “new Trump policy hardline approach” sounds just like both of them. 

Reminder on Miller: He is a former right-wing talk radio personality. Now he has the ear of the President of the United States as senior policy adviser with this anti-this/that and racist rants now into public policy – amazing and very damn scary, too.

Federal trial judges in Hawaii and Maryland had blocked the travel ban from taking effect, finding that the new version looked too much like its predecessors. Those rulings that were largely upheld by federal appeals courts in Richmond, Virginia, and San Francisco.

My 2 Cents: I almost always support USSC decisions and respect that body, but now with this court and their conservative slant vs. liberal slant it is a bit out of balance.

I leave you with this from James Madison, our 4th President, and one who called the “Father of the Constitution” for this reason: He is Constitution’s principal framer and our 4^th President, James Madison, argued that the freedoms the Constitution guaranteed actually depended upon its pluralism, he said at the Virginia Constitution’s ratifying convention: 

“This freedom arises from that multiplicity of sects which pervades America, for where there is such a variety of sects, there cannot be a majority of any one sect to oppress and persecute the rest.” 

Madison then repeated that point in Federalist #10: “In America, diversity would defend freedom.” 

So, now what? The days of Madison and Jefferson are long gone and we just hand over and give more and less-restrained power to Donald J. Trump – even more than we see today – that is nearly unrestricted and limitless power? 

That is not the America I know, nor the one I fought and bled for, and not what I want to see for future generations. Plainly Trump does not even know the basics of the Constitution and that is obvious by his own words voiced almost every single day. 

It is not just this ruling that deeply concerns me, and it should you, too, but it Trump’s overall reckless and misguided policy wherein we do in fact see the hand of Bannon wherein he said – which we see pretty much so today:

There are three pillars of Trump's plan says Steve Bannon

“I kind of break it up into three verticals of three buckets: 

The first is kind of national security and sovereignty and that's your intelligence, the Defense Department, Homeland Security. 

The second is what I refer to as “economic nationalism” and that is Wilbur Ross at Commerce, Steven Mnuchin at Treasury, Lighthizer and Navarro at Trade, and Adviser Stephen Miller. These people that are rethinking how we're gonna reconstruct our trade arrangements around the world. 

The third, broadly, is the “deconstruction” of the administrative state.”

All that is dangerous waters, folks, very dangerous and now, on-going it seems.

Thanks for stopping by. 

Mr. Trump: Meet Miss Liberty Representing American Moral Values — Now Listen Up

The message is “Lima Charlie” (Loud and Clear) —

Right Wing Fake News, Mr. Trump: President Barack Obama did not oversee the separation of 90,000 migrant children and their parents at the border, and that is contrary to misleading online reports and claims circulating around social media.

(Note: That is actual “Fake New” but which Trump would never admit is fake – we wonder why not – oh, yeah, that wouldn’t work on his anti-Obama agenda or play well with his brain-dead loyalists).

The claim, published on a conservative website, was repeated on social media throughout the week as President Trump faced criticism over his administration's “Zero tolerance” immigration policy, which has left more than 2,300 children separated from their parents at the U.S. border since May.

Related reporting from these reliable and real news sites:

Former President Barack Obama didn't separate 90,000 migrant families

NOT REAL NEWS: Obama didn't separate 90,000 migrant families

Former President Barack Obama didn't separate 90,000 migrant families

NOT REAL NEWS: Obama didn't separate 90,000 migrant families

The false claim appears to stem from a January 2016 Senate subcommittee report that investigated how the HHS under Obama placed thousands of unaccompanied children illegally entering the country.

True, except the details matter, which the righties always selectively skip: That Senate subcommittee report found that from October 2013 through 2015 the HHS did place nearly 90,000 children with a sponsor after they had been detained at the border but only those without any legal guardian. 

The majority of those sponsors where they were placed (the report also found) were either a parent or legal guardian already living in the U.S. No specific numbers were provided in the report, and HHS did not respond to the AP's request for that information.

(Noteworthy – again which the GOP skips over: Gil Kerlikowske, Customs and Border Protection commissioner from 2014 to the end of Obama's term, said parents were split from their children if (1) they were arrested on drug charges, or (2) if they had any outstanding arrest warrant).

DHS Sec. Kirstjen Nielsen said separating families is not new, but acknowledged that the Obama administration and George W. Bush did so but at a lesser rate. Past administrations, Nielsen added: They did so at the border when Federal agents suspected the adult of: (1) human trafficking, (2) smuggling, (3) posing a national security risk, or (4) when the adult's relationship to the child could not be verified.

Nielsen also acknowledged the Trump administration implemented a new policy of separating children and re-classifying them as “unaccompanied when Federal agents refer the parents for criminal prosecution.”

(Note: That is not the same as Obama or GW Bush actions explained).

My 2 Cents: What is the huge difference between now under Trump and his “Zero tolerance” and the policy under GW Bush and Obama administrations? 

Simple: Trump is a nasty heartless man, despite all his fancy rally speech rhetoric.

In short: Trump cannot stand or take or accept any criticism or facts re: his role in this huge mess unless of course the crowd cheers when he blames Obama or someone else for his gross misjudgment – just never him – when they cheer and shout at his lies, well … then he is as happy as the proverbial Lark. 

Thanks for stopping.

Trump Team Now Drugging Kids: "To Calm and Quiet Them" New American Policy

Someone thought their Rx were safe — outcome not so hot

(* See definition below)

(Left) No need to be medicated; (Right) Need to be medicated

The story for this post is from here lawsuit alleges improper medication of migrant children in federal shelters (LA TIMES) and it's damn scary.

This issue is a very serious legal and medical and moral dilemma for the country to express who we really are as a people under Trump who for the moment doesn’t give a shit. There are huge legal, medical, and moral challenges for the country to now face.

I hope the matter can be elevated to the USSC so that they can issue emergency stop order to this Trump invoked nightmarish madness. 

The key part:

* The drugs they are giving some of the children are psychotropic type drugs: They are any type of drug capable of affecting the mind, emotions, and behavior. FYI: Some legal drugs, such as lithium for bipolar disorder, are psychotropic. However, many illicit drugs, such as cocaine, are also psychotropic. 

They are also known as psychodynamic drugs.

The sticking point according to Leecia Welch, Senior Director of legal advocacy and child welfare at the Oakland-based National Center for Youth Law is this that she said: 

“The children in the shelters were being medicated for their behaviors rather than an underlying mental illness.”

Now the kicker: According to DOJ attorneys, the Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR), which oversees the shelters, has the authority to medicate children without parents’ consent because the youth are in the agency’s custody. 

My 2 Cents: This whole event even up to this point of Trump backpedaling is now maybe worse based on this story. In a word it’s a sad commentary for the country and our world standing – kinda down the drain as it were.

What to do – this all GOP-run Congress is the only ones who can stop this craziness. 

Will they?

Each thing that Trump does or touches regarding policy turns to crap and he only cares about more attention and PR overage that keeps him in the limelight and center stage no matter the subject or impact on the pubic or our world allies.

So, will this Congress act on behalf of supporting the the public and their oath of office? Right now that seems totally doubtful and far-fetched.

Thanks for stopping by.

What Do We Call a White House Full of Weasels: Easy-Peasy — Trump Administration

Current and Possible Weasel Leader

(More than seven is called a Boggle)

Here are examples of classic Trump-GOP immigration hypocrisy:

Introduction: Two of Trump's three wives were immigrants – ouch.

Wildly outspoken anti-immigrant and hardcore advocate — now a Trump senior aide Stephen Miller: 

Research uncovered a photo of Nison (aka Max) Miller stares out from the screen, sullen and stern, in faded black and white. “Order of Court Denying Petition” is the title of the government form dated: November 12, 1932, to which it is attached, the one in which Miller is applying for naturalization as an American citizen. Beneath the photo, the reason given for his denial: Ignorance.

Rabid anti-immigrant advocate Rep. Steve King (R-IA): 

King was quoted once as saying: “We can’t restore our civilization with somebody else’s babies.” Researchers found in his family genealogy website that his own grandmother was one such baby, arriving from Germany in 1894. 

From FOX TV show host Tucker Carlson: 

He once asked: “Why does America benefit from having tons of people from failing countries come here?” Researchers found a memoir from Carlson’s great-grandfather talking about how he left the poverty of Italy for the promise of America

From White House aide Dan Scavino: 

He is quoted as saying we need to end chain migration. Researchers nailed him: “Let’s say Victor Scavino arrives from Canelli, Italy in 1904, then his brother Hector in 1905, his brother Gildo in 1912, his sister Esther in 1913, , then his sister Clotilde, and then their father Giuseppe in 1916. They all live together in NY. Do you think that would count as chain migration?” 

(Further Hint: Melania Trump invited her parents to come and live in NY and become Americans, too. Oops…)

From radical and outspoken GOP hardcore conservative, Tomi Lahren: 

She recently said: “You don’t just come into this country with low skills, low education, not understanding the language and come into our country because someone says it makes them feel nice. That’s not what this country is based on.” Researchers ripped her a new one: “The 1930 census says Tomi’s 3x great-grandmother had been here for 41 years and still spoke only German. Her 2nd great-grandmother had been here for 10 years and spoke no English.”

White House Chief of Staff, John Kelly – the big fish in this: 

Kelly said on NPR: Today’s immigrants are “not people that would easily assimilate into the United States, into our modern society,” because they are uneducated, come from rural areas, and “don’t speak English.” Researchers then posted screenshots of documents showing all those things were also true of Kelly’s maternal ancestors.

My 2 Cents: Amazing research and factual on the GOP and their hypocrisy not surprising.

Stay tuned.

DOJ & DHS (Sessions & Nielsen): No Message, Dishonest, Pitiful, and Totally Wrong

Meet Mr. and Mrs. B. S. Gloomy from DOJ and DHS 

(Jeff Sessions and Kirstjen Nielsen) 

Update with more details about the original post that follows below. 

– re: Trump keeps up DEM immigration blame game over his own policy. 

Trump will not relent in the PR message, nor he cannot accept any responsibility himself or for the DOJ and DHS BS stories that follow on this very critical humane issue even though the current policy was implemented by him and Sessions.

The Original Post starts here:

The Trump administration – only hires the best, right? How about “The Gang Who Can't Shoot Straight” and [once again] shoots and misses [once again] this time on immigration policy and bigley, yuge...!!!

Trump and others in the administration have falsely blamed the separations on a law the president claims was written by Democrats.

But the separations instead largely stem from a “zero-tolerance” policy announced with fanfare last month by Attorney General Jeff Sessions (see more below).

The White House also has interpreted a 1997 legal agreement and a 2008 bipartisan human trafficking bill as requiring the separation of families — a posture not taken by the George W. Bush or Obama administrations.

Democrats argue that Trump is trying to use a manufactured crisis to gain leverage in ongoing deliberations in Congress over immigration to secure funding for a U.S.-Mexico border – a form blackmail. 

Trump knows this family separation policy is very unpopular, but can’t accept the blame himself.

Trump in a series of tweets blamed Democrats for the current state of affairs and urged them to agree to broader legislation on immigration that includes border wall funding and other White House priorities tweeting: “It is the Democrats fault for being weak and ineffective with Boarder Security [sic] and Crime.” And: “Tell them to start thinking about the people devastated by Crime coming from illegal immigration. Change the laws!”

In another tweet Trump contend that children “Are being used by some of the worst criminals on earth as a means to enter our country,” and, in another tweet, Trump pointed to MS-13 gangs coming into the country illegally and to struggles with migration in Germany tweeting: “We don’t want what is happening with immigration in Europe to happen with us!”

A growing number of Republicans are joining Democrats to urge the administration to change its policy on family separations. 

Sen. Ben Sasse (R-NE) said: “The President should immediately end this family separation policy” adding Mr. Trump doesn’t need Congress to change course on the horrors of family separation, concluding: “The administration’s decision to separate families is a new, discretionary choice. Anyone saying that their hands are tied or that the only conceivable way to fix the problem of catch-and-release is to rip families apart is flat wrong.” 

On NPR Rep. Will Hurd (R-TX) took issue with the HSD statement on Twitter from Secretary Nielsen, who said: “We do not have a policy of separating families at the border. Period.” 

Hurd laughed at her, saying: “Kids are being separated. In the last two months, there’s been about 2,000. The previous year it was almost 700. And 100 of those kids were under the age of 4.”

SHORT HISTORY LESSON REVIEW:

From Vox.com: Everyone remembers that in 1986, President Ronald Reagan passed an amnesty law. But what most people don't know is that in 1996 — fresh off the heels of signing welfare reform, and two years after signing the crime bill — President Bill Clinton signed a bill that overhauled immigration enforcement in the US and laid the groundwork for what we have today.

From NY Times – The 1986 amnesty bill, official name: “The Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986,” marked a historic change in American immigration policy. Under current law as the time, illegal aliens could be deported, and it was not generally illegal for employers to hire them. Under the 1986 bill, employers who hire illegal aliens would be subject to civil penalties ranging from $250 to $10,000 for each such alien hired. Recall this historic quote from Mr. Reagan?

The bill passed the bill the Senate with 34 Democrats and 29 Republicans voting yes, and 16 Republicans and 8 Democrats voting no. The House of Representatives had approved the same bill earlier by a vote of 238 to 173.

Sen. Phil Gramm (R-TX) led the opposition denouncing the bill's “amnesty clause” for those here illegally. Gramm said it was “'outrageous' that under one section, illegal aliens who had done only 90 days of agricultural work in this country could eventually become permanent residents.”

Currently: DHS Sec. Nielsen tweeted recently: “For those seeking asylum at ports of entry, we have continued the policy from previous administrations and will only separate if the child is in danger, there is no custodial relationship between 'family' members, or if the adult has broken a law. As I have said many times before, if you are seeking asylum for your family, there is no reason to break the law and illegally cross between ports of entry.” 

Nielsen blamed members of Congress, the press, and advocacy groups for spreading “misinformation” about the family separation process, saying that DHS is simply “enforcing the laws passed by Congress” and that her agency would “not apologize for doing our job.”

Nielsen added in terse language: “Surely it is the beginning of the unraveling of democracy when the body that makes the laws rather than change them asks the body that enforces them not to enforce the law that cannot be the answer.”

She added: “Illegal actions have and must have consequences, no more free passes, no more get out of jail free cards. In communities every day, if you commit a crime police will take you to jail regardless of whether you have a family. We do not have the luxury of pretending that all individuals coming to this country as a family unit are in fact a family.”

GOP right hand meet other GOP right hand (from NPR): AG Jeff Sessions has called for “zero-tolerance” for immigrants who illegally enter the U.S. along the Mexican border. So, right hand vs. the right in plain sight – whoopee…!!! Nielsen says nope – no such policy. Ho Lee Sheet…!!! This double Ho Lee Sheet.

As far as Sessions is concerned, he blamed previous administrations for allowing “loopholes that led to immigrants crossing the border illegally with children, effectively given them immunity from prosecution saying in speeches: “Word got out about this loophole with predictable results. The number of aliens illegally crossing with children between our ports of entry went from 14,000 to 75,000 —that's a 5-fold increase — in just the last 4 years. This cannot continue.”  Sessions then urged that despite the current policy, the Trump White House does not want to separate children from their parents, saying: “We do not want adults to bring children into this country unlawfully, placing them at risk. This country is dedicated to caring for those children.” 

Then Trump offered blackmail as an option for the DEMS and others: “If we build the wall, if we pass legislation to end the lawlessness, we won't face these terrible choices. We will have a system where those who need to apply for asylum can do so and those who want to come to this country will apply to enter lawfully.”

My 2 Cents: Whew boy – where to begin? 

Trump and large chunk of the GOP are simmering in hot pool of burning oil. They are getting blasted from many diverse sides and they are scared shitless about the election in November to protect their majorities in Congress – a fact. But, this a losing battle for them just like when they sold their big tax cut that we now see benefits the top crust and not most people (so, no big surprise there); their sustained war on the poor and needy (cutting or not funding programs); and, their obvious and open war on women and their healthcare, and healthcare in general. 

Let’s face it, this administration and most of the all GOP-run government is out of step with mainstream thinking. They will pay dearly in November, assuming their PR campaign does not overshadow common sense this cycle – this is going to be one ugly and nasty campaign – one to watch: Trump and his ugliness effort – bet on it. 

Thanks for stopping by.

Like the Expression: "The Hits Just Keep on Coming" — So Does the Trump Camp

Not Birds of the Feather in Any Sense

Thanks to Vox.com for putting out the Washington Post story (linked below) that tells us they have “learned of yet another shady 2016 meeting between a Trump associate and a Russian national. And, yet again, the purpose was to get dirt on Hillary Clinton.”

The Washington Post’s Manuel Roig-Franzia and Rosalind Helderman reported report that in late May 2016, longtime Trump adviser Roger Stone met with a Russian national calling himself “Henry Greenberg” at a restaurant in Sunny Isles, FL.

Noteworthy: At that point, Stone was not officially part of the Trump campaign. 

However, Michael Caputo (and more here on him, too), a longtime business associate of Stone’s who was still on the Trump campaign at that point, had arranged the meeting. 

The topic, Stone and Caputo now admit to the Post reporters, was to get damaging information about Hillary Clinton.

However, as is invariably the case when we learn of meetings like this, Stone and Caputo insist that nothing actually ended up coming from it. Stone’s current story about this meeting he’s only now disclosing is that he was asked for $2 million for the information, but Stone turned it down because he knew Trump was too cheap to pay for it.

Stone and Caputo claim that they then both “forgot” about the meeting, per the Post — neither mentioned it during sworn testimony to the House Intelligence Committee, and Stone has previously claimed that he never talked “to anybody who was identifiably Russian” in the relevant period. Caputo says he was only reminded that it happened when special counsel Robert Mueller’s team asked him about it in a grand jury interview last month.

We don’t yet know whether there’s any larger import to the meeting, or whether it was connected to other secretive events like Donald J. Trump Jr. Trump Tower meeting (which took place about two weeks later). But it’s probably best not to take the participants’ word for what went on at face value, considering they are only now bothering to admit that it even took place.

Stone and Caputo seem to be strategically leaking this and trying to spin it on their terms.

  

My 2 Cents: The rest of this fine story continues here.

This news is stunning, but at the same time, not surprising since it involves the Trump campaign team and adviser and consultants or whomever. So, in that regard it is not a big surprise.

What is astonishing, however, as this all unfolds for the whole story to come out – which BTW, it will – is the depth of the plot from the Trump campaign team to try and win the 2016 election by chance, choice, slickness, or shear happenstance.

So, a simple wow will suffice right now as we wait for more breaking new like this Roger Stone story and the final Mueller reports and hopefully the last nail as it were.

So stay tuned.

And, thanks for stopping by.