I am all about credibility and hated it when Obongo’s Regime displayed a lack of it.

Lately I’ve been harping on Trump and his propensity for exaggeration to cater to his followers.

Some of you see nothing wrong with what he’s doing.

That’s fine. It’s why we have a 1st Amendment.

Yesterday the WSJ had an article about said credibility and they were harsh. I agreed with them.

I like Trump. I hope he becomes a great president. But when you exaggerate and mislead I lose faith. I assume you have no credibility because if you did you’d have proof for what you said; specifically these charges of being eavesdropped on by Obongo.

Since I could not read the WSJ article (you need to sign up) I found the next best: a USA Today article discussing it: (stay with me as I continue below.)

The Wall Street Journal’s editorial board came out with guns blazing against President Trump in its Wednesday offering, “A President’s Credibility.”

The news organization has faced criticism over its coverage of the Trump administration, and there have been reports of tensions over this coverage within the WSJ’s management.

But this didn’t keep the editorial board from holding back.

It immediately blasted the president for “his seemingly endless stream of exaggerations, evidence-free accusations, implausible denials and other falsehood,” and then zeroed in on his insistence in a tweet that he was wiretapped by the Obama administration, despite a lack of evidence and intelligence agencies and members of both parties saying there was no support for the claim.

“Yet the President clings to his assertion like a drunk to an empty gin bottle, rolling out his press spokesman to make more dubious claims,” the editorial reads.

The wiretapping controversy has gone on to overshadow other news, the editorial argues. Trump should question why the United States was surveilling Michael Flynn, his national security adviser who was forced to resign, and he should also wonder who leaked the news of Flynn’s meeting with the Russian ambassador.

Later, the editorial notes that this week’s news should focus on the hearings of Supreme Court nominee Neil Gorsuch and the Obamacare replacement bill on the Hill.

But instead, the news cycle has honed in on FBI Director James Comey, who “also took revenge on Monday by joining the queue of those saying the bureau has no evidence to back up the wiretap tweet.”

“Mr. Trump blundered in keeping Mr. Comey in the job after the election, but now the President can’t fire the man leading an investigation into his campaign even if he wants to,” the editorial reads.

It ends on a final attack: “Two months into his Presidency, Gallup has Mr. Trump’s approval rating at 39%. No doubt Mr. Trump considers that fake news, but if he doesn’t show more respect for the truth most Americans may conclude he’s a fake President.”

As for the “eavesdropping/wiretapping” you may have read how Congressman Nunes, House Intelligence CHairman, said Trump may have been under surveillance.

Something to consider here:

If it were Schumer saying Obongo may have been under surveillance by Bush you’d all be ranting and raving about:

…….A: why did the Intel Chairman go directly to the President rather than to the entire committee and ….
…….B: what the hell kind of proof is “MAYBE?”

Come on, guys, the same standards need to be applied here. We can’t be taken seriously if we’re always crying wolf and acting like democrats.

If I’m wrong, beat me up about it in the comments.

Updated 4:48 p.m.: Rep. Adam Schiff, the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, blasted the panel’s Republican chairman in a statement over his claim that the Trump transition team was under surveillance. Schiff said the chairman, Rep. Devin Nunes, had not shared the information with him that led Nunes to make the claims — and said it was inappropriate for Nunes to brief the White House on them. “If accurate, this information should have been shared with members of the committee, but it has not been,” Schiff said. “The Chairman also shared this information with the White House before providing it to the committee, another profound irregularity, given that the matter is currently under investigation. I have expressed my grave concerns with the Chairman that a credible investigation cannot be conducted this way.” Schiff noted that claims made by Nunes do “not suggest — in any way — that the President was wiretapped by his predecessor.” This story will be updated.

Original story:

Members of the Donald Trump transition team, possibly including Trump himself, were under U.S. government surveillance following November’s presidential election, House Intelligence Chairman Devin Nunes (R-Calif.) told reporters Wednesday.

Nunes said the monitoring appeared to be done legally as a result of what’s called “incidental collection,” but said he was concerned because it was not related to the FBI’s investigation into Russia’s meddling in the election and was widely disseminated across the intelligence community.

“I have seen intelligence reports that clearly show that the president-elect and his team were, I guess, at least monitored,” Nunes told reporters. “It looks to me like it was all legally collected, but it was essentially a lot of information on the president-elect and his transition team and what they were doing.”

Nunes said he is heading to the White House later Wednesday to brief Trump on what he has learned, which he said came from “sources who thought that we should know it.” He said he was trying to get more information by Friday from the FBI, CIA and NSA.

Nunes described the surveillance as most likely being “incidental collection.” This can occur when a person inside the United States communicates with a foreign target of U.S. surveillance. In such cases, the identities of U.S. citizens are supposed to be kept secret — but can be “unmasked” by intelligence officials under certain circumstances.

Nunes said his new information appears to show that additional members of the Trump transition team — beyond former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn — were unmasked. This means they were identified in U.S. intelligence reports.

He said the information that he had seen and was disseminated across the intelligence community appeared to him to have “little or no apparent intelligence value.”

He also said he did not know yet whether the Trump transition team members who were unmasked were communicating from Trump Tower. Earlier this month, Trump claimed in a series of Tweets that former President Barack Obama ordered a wiretap of the phones at Trump Tower — something Nunes reiterated on Wednesday he had no evidence of.

Democratic Rep. David Cicilline knocked Nunes on Twitter for his decision to brief the White House on his findings — noting that Nunes is leading a congressional investigation into possible collusion between the Trump team and Russia.

“Investigators are not supposed to ‘brief’ the folks being investigated,” the Rhode Island congressman said.

Rep. Adam Schiff of California, Nunes’ Democratic counterpart on the intelligence panel, was not informed of the news ahead of Nunes’ press conference on Wednesday, according to a Schiff spokesman.

Nunes said he briefed House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) on the information on Wednesday morning.

White House press secretary Sean Spicer read from Nunes’ statement during his opening remarks at a press briefing Wednesday, showing how eager Trump’s team was to amplify the remarks.

Spicer said he was concerned about Trump transition team members being unmasked.

“An American citizen who’s caught up in a surveillance has, by rule of law, has their name protected,” he told reporters. “The idea that individuals’ names were unmasked and let known suggests — raises serious questions. Why was that name unmasked, what was the intention of doing that?”

By signing up you agree to receive email newsletters or alerts from POLITICO. You can unsubscribe at any time.

The Intelligence panel is set to hold a public hearing next Tuesday with members of the Obama administration, including former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, former CIA Director John Brennan and former acting Attorney General Sally Yates, who was fired by Trump in January after refusing to defend his first travel ban executive order in court.

They are almost certain to face questions on the matter.

FBI Director James Comey appeared before the panel on Monday and confirmed that the FBI launched a counterintelligence investigation in July into Russia’s election meddling, including possible coordination with the Trump campaign.

It was previously known that Flynn’s pre-inauguration phone calls with Russia’s ambassador were intercepted by the U.S. government; he resigned last month after it became clear he misled his colleagues about the nature of the calls.

Nunes has said Flynn’s calls were picked up through incidental collection and said his committee is investigating why Flynn’s name was unmasked and leaked to the news media.

This entry was posted in Misc. Bookmark the permalink.


  1. bogsidebunny says:

    Trump’s a successful New York Businessman…..NOT a politician. His exaggerated rhetoric is his “shtick”. A shtick (A Yiddish term) schtick is a comic theme or gimmick. Stretching it an exaggeration or hyperbole used to get a point across. Add to that his “killer instinct”, finely honed from doing deals with the world’s best deal-doers. These tactics are lost on those not from “The city” or surrounding area.

    You have to be “in the bubble” and it helps to have lived 12 miles from Manhattan for 1/2 a century to see what makes the Trumpmeister tick.

    In my opinion his style is very refreshing after that of Boehner, Bush and other surrender monkey Rhinos.

  2. antzinpantz says:

    That’s kinda my point: “schtick” is not a tool of a president. It will not play well and like the little boy who cried wolf, we can forgive him once or twice but 4 years of it will mean he will not be president in 2021.

  3. I agree with you actually V. He should at times wind his neck in a tad. Its four or more years, he doesn’t need to get it all done on day 1

  4. redneckgeezer says:

    I don’t disagree with you about his style, but at the same time, he’s getting away with it and his supporters love him for his “style.” If he were perfect, the lefties and RINOs would still be coming after him, so the only thing he has to lose is “the people.” Only time will tell.

  5. Eskyman says:

    Trump is a fighter. If you don’t want a fighter, and would prefer someone who gets along with the #LyingMedia, the GOPe and the Democrats- then we part company. I voted for both Romney and McCain, though I loathe each of them; it’s just that the alternative was worse (and I strongly supported Sarah Palin, and was hoping that McCain would get elected & then die, preferably in some horrible way befitting the traitor that he is.)

    Now we have someone actually fighting for our side. You don’t like that? What’s wrong with you?

    You have mentioned that you listen to NPR (for the jazz, IIRC.) That’s a huge mistake in my book. They are experts in slanting the news; they take a kernel of truth and make a giant tree of falsity out of it, and it’s too easy to accept their narrative even if one is being skeptical (I have a close friend who also believes far too much of what he hears on the radio, he calls it “keeping track of the enemy,” but I call it “drinking the kool-aid.” It sounds much like what you said above.)

    Maybe you think that Phony President Oblabla didn’t actually have everyone on his enemies list surveilled; if so, I’ve got a wonderful bridge in Brooklyn that I’ll sell you cheap! Do you really expect anyone in our gutless government to actually come out and say so? Why, that would be “taking a stand,” and the person who did such a thing would be run out of Washington (or more likely be found dead: suicide, with two bullets to the back of the head- or maybe a pillow on his face, with no autopsy required or questions asked.)

    I much prefer a plain-talker who looks me in the eye and tells me the truth; that’s President Trump.
    You can have all the nay-sayers. I have no use for them!

  6. antzinpantz says:

    Well….it’s apparent you’ve not been reading my blogs the last 10 years.

    That’s OK, though. We can’t do everything all the time.

  7. Eskyman says:

    Well, it’s been close to 10 years, Antz. Where does the time go? And if I didn’t value your site so highly, this wouldn’t get under my skin like it has. I don’t care if liberals spout lies about President Trump (I expect that,) but it really upsets me when my friends join in!

    It really irritates me when people on our side are ‘firing to the right’ which is only helping the enemy, repeating lies that the damn MSN is constantly putting out! The WSJ is a Murdoch publication, and they have been NeverTrump from the beginning- which means to me, “about as reliable as NPR or CNN when it comes to Trump.” So when you agree with them, you’re NOT on my side!

    As far as “credibility” goes, the media has NONE, as in “not any at all; absolutely nil; nada; zero.” That specifically includes the WSJ (and Fox News, though sometimes some of their people get it right- but I don’t trust most of them.)

    Here’s a take that I agree with: Don Surber: Media owes President Trump an apology

    Maybe I owe you an apology; but it sure sounded to me like you’ve been absorbing far too much of the media poison. Am I wrong?

  8. antzinpantz says:

    Yep, you’re wrong. And, no, you owe no apology. Again, if you’d read all my posts for all these years you’d no I have no regard for the likes of the MSM….NPR included (which I’ve said I wake up to….never listened to…because they do a great job of riling me up in the morning.

    The point is this: if we have no integrity or honor then what do we have? Must I believe and support everything Trump does? That would make me a mind-numbed robot like the myrmidons on the left.

    What Trump is doing is tantamount to throwing crap against a window to see what sticks. We’ve never been about that. Reagan wasn’t. And Trump is no Reagan.

    Do I support Trump? Absolutely! Was he my first choice? No. But even if he were when his shit stinks we have to admit it does. And right now he’s in a childish, “Did, too!” “Did not!” fight over wiretapping.

    I do not want to be accused of having double standards when, as I’d said earlier, if this shit was happening with Obongo and the Chair of a committee came running to him with a bunch of “maybes” we would be fucking livid!

    I can’t do that. I may, accidentally, but not intentionally. And when I am exposed for my double standard I will own up to it.

    Basically that’s it.

    Glad you expressed yourself, too. It’s what this blog is for. Unlike the moderation that takes place on Google, Facebook, Twitter, Reddit, etc.

    Long as we keep it clean and no name calling, I’m a happy camper.

  9. Eskyman says:

    Well, Antz- you’re a trooper, and you’ve got a great blog! I guess we’ll just have to disagree.

    My main point is that you are BELIEVING WHAT THE WSJ SAYS. With no evidence.

    They’re just “throwing crap against a window to see what sticks,” as a really smart fellow I know just said. Agreed, Trump is no Reagan; Ronaldus Magnus was a well-trained, experienced actor who was a great orator; Trump speaks bluntly and to the point. No comparison there; but the content of their words is much the same, or so it appears to me. There is in both men a great love of this country and a wish to restore it to its foundations, when America reached for greatness. You won’t find that in WSJ editorials.

    So- it still looks to me like you’re enjoying the taste of that great kool-aid that the MSM serves out!

    (I’ll forgive you though, your blog is indispensable; and you’re near 100% right almost 100% of the time. I wish my record was as good as that!)

Comments are closed.