Thursday Morning Male Beauty - Pt 1

More Wednesday Male Beauty

Sanders: Trump OK With Businesses Hanging Antigay Signs

The Trump/Pence assault on the civil liberties of LGBT Americans continues.  Its one of the few areas where Trump is keeping his campaign promises to Christofascist leaders  that he would erode the rights of gays and others that are targets of hatred by the "godly folk."  As noted in a prior post, yesterday the Trump/Pence Justice Department actually argued before the U.S. Supreme Court that anti-gay discrimination is acceptable and legal.   It is the first time that the Justice Department has ever argued in support of discrimination against citizens.  Making matters even more clear that Trump bears animus to the LGBT community, his press secretary, herself a daughter of an anti-gay extremist, said that Trump would support businesses hanging "gays not served" signs on their doors.  One has to wonder when the Christofascists will begin arguing that they can act similarly towards blacks, Hispanics and non-Christians. I hope that my "friends" who voted for Trump/Pence realize that they will never be forgiven for what they have done.  The Advocate looks at this disturbing development:

President Trump's press secretary said her boss would have no problem with businesses hanging antigay signs that explicitly state they don't serve LGBT customers.

Hours after oral arguments concluded in the Masterpiece Cakeshop case — where a Colorado baker argued to the Supreme Court that his religion allows him to refuse service to gay people — Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders was confronted on legalized discrmination during today's White House press briefing.

"The lawyer for the solicitor general's office for the administration said today in the Supreme Court if it would be legal, possible for a baker to put a sign in his window saying we don't bake cakes for gay weddings," The New York Times's Michael Shear asked. "Does the president agree that that would be ok?"

"The president certainly supports religious liberty and that's something he talked about during the campaign and has upheld since taking office," Sanders replied.

When pressed on whether that included support for signs that deny service to gay people, Sanders responded: "I believe that would include that."

Extremist E.W. Jackson to Run for U.S. Senate from Virginia

Next year's Republican primary for the GOP nomination to run against Senator Tim Kaine is shaping up to be one of crazy versus crazy.  Failed GOP gubernatorial candidate Corey Stewart has already said that he will be running - most likely on a neo-Confederate agenda - and now self-proclaimed "bishop" E. W. Jackson is reported to be preparing for a run for the GOP nomination as well, in Jackson's case most likely as a Christian Taliban candidate.  The lunacy will no doubt be off the charts, but such is the nature of today's Republican Party of Virginia that sane and normal individuals are simply not welcome.  We last saw Stewart when he nearly defeated Ed Gillespie in the 2017 GOP gubernatorial primary.  Jackson, of course, lost resoundingly to Ralph Northam in the 2013 Lt. Governor contest.  Tim Kaine must be smiling if this is the best the GOP can field against him.  A piece in the Washington Post looks at Jackson's insanity/ego driven announcement.  As for Jerry Falwell, Jr.'s, remarks, if there is a swamp that needs draining, part of it is located in Lynchburg and goes by the name of Liberty University.  Here are article highlights:

E.W. Jackson, a firebrand minister who says yoga leads to Satan and gay people are ill, plans to announce he is seeking the Republican nomination to challenge U.S. Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.) next year, according to Jackson’s finance director.

Jackson will announce his candidacy on Dec. 11 in the Chesapeake area, said Steven Thomas, who said he is raising money for Jackson’s campaign and filled the same role during Jackson’s 2013 losing bid for lieutenant governor.  A website registered to Jackson was updated Tuesday and announces “EW Jackson for U.S. Senate.”

Jackson has a history of controversial comments from calling gay and lesbian individuals “very sick people” to suggesting the practice of yoga invites Satan to possess one’s soul.

He will face Corey Stewart, the bombastic Republican official from Prince William County who ran for the GOP nomination for governor earlier this year in the mold of President Trump. Several other Republicans are weighing whether to jump into the race.

The Senate field is expected to solidify this weekend when Virginia Republicans gather for their largest annual event — dubbed the Advance — at an Allegheny Mountain resort in western Virginia.

In an interview on WAMU radio last week, Virginia GOP Chairman John Whitbeck said the party will remain neutral, but noted, “It’s not going to be just Corey Stewart in this race by himself.”

Stewart, who declared in July, on Tuesday announced the endorsement of Jerry Falwell Jr., the influential head of Liberty University and ally of President Trump. . . .  Trump needs Stewart “in the U.S. Senate to help clean up the swamp in Washington,” Falwell said.

In response to the endorsement, Stewart said,“Virginia’s awakening is happening, and Mr. Falwell’s endorsement is proof positive conservative Republicans will take back Virginia.”

In addition to Stewart, the only other candidate who filed federal paperwork to run as of Tuesday is Ivan Raiklin, an Army veteran who recently jogged an average of 22 miles a day to bring awareness to suicide among veterans and to kick off his campaign.

Republicans turned off by Stewart’s approach are looking to another candidate, Del. Nick Freitas (Culpeper), who said Tuesday he is considering a run for the nomination.

The two-term state lawmaker is former head of the Culpeper County GOP and moved to Virginia in 2009. He served in the Army special forces as a Green Beret and is currently a defense contractor.

John Norton Moore, an international law expert who has taught at University of Virginia School of Law on and off for a half century, is also considering a run, he said in an interview Monday.

Freitas, Moore, Raiklin and Stewart will host small parties in hotel suites at the GOP retreat, a sign to party activists that they are interested in running for public office.

Will Mike Pence Betray Trump to Advance Himself?

For the record, I see Mike Pence as a dangerous opportunist who likes to wrap himself in the cloak of religiosity.  Yes, he is by all accounts a evangelical Christian extremists, but he has one thing more important to him than his processed religious belief: advancing himself and securing power - especially the presidency.  A very lengthy piece in The Atlantic looks not only at Pence but also his short lived effort in the immediate wake of the release of the Access Hollywood tape to stage a coup and replace Trump as the presidential nominee.  With Trump's approval levels hovering in the mid 30th percentile, his proposal to move the U.S. embassy to Israel to Jerusalem, and Trump's tweet storms increasing the risk of nuclear war with North Korea, one has to wonder when Pence may feel emboldened to push for a 25th Amendment move to remove Trump from the presidency.  While, Pence and the falsely styled "religious right" are plummeting in popularity along with Trump, one has to wonder when Pence's ambition will get the better of him.  Of course, all of this could be changed radically by Pence's numerous lies about the Trump campaign and transition team's communications with Russian operative.  Here are highlights:

No man can serve two masters, the Bible teaches, but Mike Pence is giving it his all. It’s a sweltering September afternoon in Anderson, Indiana, and the vice president has returned to his home state to deliver the Good News of the Republicans’ recently unveiled tax plan. The visit is a big deal for Anderson, a fading manufacturing hub about 20 miles outside Muncie that hasn’t hosted a sitting president or vice president in 65 years . . .

When the time comes, Pence takes the stage and greets the crowd with a booming “Hellooooo, Indiana!” He says he has “just hung up the phone” with Donald Trump and that the president asked him to “say hello.” He delivers this message with a slight chuckle that has a certain, almost subversive quality to it. . . . . It’s almost as if, in that brief, barely perceptible moment, Pence is sending a message to those with ears to hear—that he recognizes the absurdity of his situation; that he knows just what sort of man he’s working for; that while things may look bad now, there is a grand purpose at work here, a plan that will manifest itself in due time. Let not your hearts be troubled, he seems to be saying. I’ve got this.

As he nears the end of his remarks, his happy-warrior buoyancy gives way to a more sober cadence. “We’ve come to a pivotal moment in the life of this country,” Pence soulfully intones. “It’s a good time to pray for America.” His voice rising in righteous fervor, the vice president promises an opening of the heavens. “If His people who are called by His name will humble themselves and pray,” he proclaims, “He’ll hear from heaven, and He’ll heal this land!”

It’s easy to see how Pence could put so much faith in the possibilities of divine intervention. The very fact that he is standing behind a lectern bearing the vice-presidential seal is, one could argue, a loaves-and-fishes-level miracle. Just a year earlier, he was an embattled small-state governor with underwater approval ratings, dismal reelection prospects, and a national reputation in tatters. In many ways, Pence was on the same doomed trajectory as the conservative-Christian movement he’d long championed—once a political force to be reckoned with, now a battered relic of the culture wars. . . . But after eight years of Barack Obama and a string of disorienting political defeats, conservative Christians were in retreat and out of options. So they placed their faith in Trump—and then, incredibly, he won.

In Pence, Trump has found an obedient deputy whose willingness to suffer indignity and humiliation at the pleasure of the president appears boundless.

Meanwhile, Pence’s presence in the White House has been a boon for the religious right. Evangelical leaders across the country point to his record on abortion and religious freedom and liken him to a prophet restoring conservative Christianity to its rightful place at the center of American life.

But what does Pence make of his own improbable rise to the vice presidency, and how does he reconcile his faith with serving a man like Trump? Over the past several months, I’ve spoken with dozens of people who have known the vice president throughout his life—from college fraternity brothers and longtime friends to trusted advisers and political foes. . . . . for all his aw-shucks modesty, Pence is a man who believes heaven and Earth have conspired to place him a heartbeat—or an impeachment vote—away from the presidency. At some crucial juncture in the not-too-distant future, that could make him a threat to Trump.

For all Pence’s outward piousness, he’s kept the details of his spiritual journey opaque. Despite his conversion to evangelical Christianity in college, he married his wife, Karen, in a Catholic ceremony and until the mid‑’90s periodically referred to himself as an “evangelical Catholic.” That formulation might befuddle theologians, but it reveals the extraordinary degree to which Pence’s personal religious evolution paralleled the rise of the religious right.

To his colleagues on Capitol Hill—an overwhelmingly secular place where even many Republicans privately sneer at people of faith—everything about the Indiana congressman screamed “Bible thumper.” He was known to pray with his staffers, and often cited scripture to explain his votes.

Pence didn’t have a reputation for legislative acumen (“I would not call Mike a policy wonk,” one former staffer told the Indianapolis Monthly), and some of his colleagues called him a nickname behind his back: “Mike Dense.” But he did have sharp political instincts. Before long, he was climbing the leadership ranks and making connections with key figures in the conservative-Christian establishment. The New Yorker’s Jane Mayer has documented Pence’s close ties to the Koch brothers and other GOP mega-donors, but his roots in the religious right are even deeper.

[I]in early 2015, Pence stumbled into a culture-war debacle that would come to define his governorship. At the urging of conservative-Christian leaders in Indiana, the GOP-controlled state legislature passed a bill that would have allowed religious business owners to deny services to gay customers in certain circumstances. Pence signed it into law in a closed-press ceremony at the statehouse, surrounded by nuns, monks, and right-wing lobbyists. A photo of the signing was released, and all hell broke loose. Corporate leaders threatened to stop adding jobs in Indiana, and national organizations began pulling scheduled conventions from the state. The NCAA, which is headquartered in Indianapolis, put out a statement suggesting that the law might imperil “future events.” The Indianapolis Star ran a rare front-page editorial under an all-caps headline: “FIX THIS NOW.”

To many Christians, the backlash against Indiana’s “religious freedom” bill was a frightening sign of the secular left’s triumphalism. Liberals were no longer working toward tolerance, it seemed—they were out for conquest. “Many evangelicals were experiencing the sense of an almost existential threat,” Russell Moore, a leader of the Southern Baptist Convention, told me. It was only a matter of time, he said, before cultural elites’ scornful attitudes would help drive Christians into the arms of a strongman like Trump.

After seven chaotic days, Pence caved and signed a revised version of the religious-freedom bill—but by then it was too late. His approval ratings were in free fall, Democrats were raising money to defeat him in the next gubernatorial election, and the political obituaries were being written. Things looked grimmer for Pence, and the religious right, than they ever had before.

Deliverance manifested itself to Mike Pence on the back nine of Donald Trump’s golf course in New Jersey. . . . True to form, Pence spent much of their time on the course kissing Trump’s ring. You’re going to be the next president of the United States, he said. It would be the honor of a lifetime to serve you. Afterward, he made a point of gushing to the press about Trump’s golf game. “He beat me like a drum,” Pence confessed, to Trump’s delight.

The consensus among the campaign’s top political strategists was that a Trump–Pence ticket was their best shot at winning in November. After a bitter primary season, Trump’s campaign had moved swiftly to shore up support from conservative Christians, who advisers worried would stay home on Election Day.

Even some of Trump’s most devoted loyalists marveled at what Pence was willing to say. There was no talking point too preposterous, no fixed reality too plain to deny—if they needed Pence to defend the boss, he was in.

On Friday, October 7, 2016, The Washington Post published the Access Hollywood tape that showed Trump gloating about his penchant for grabbing women “by the pussy,” and instantly upended the campaign. Republicans across the country withdrew their endorsements, and conservative editorial boards called on Trump to drop out of the race. Most alarming to the aides and operatives inside Trump Tower, Mike Pence suddenly seemed at risk of going rogue.  Trump’s phone calls to his running mate reportedly went unreturned, and anonymous quotes began appearing in news stories describing Pence as “beside himself” over the revelation.

It’s been reported that Pence sent Trump a letter saying he needed time to decide whether he could stay with the campaign. But in fact, according to several Republicans familiar with the situation, he wasn’t just thinking about dropping out—he was contemplating a coup. Within hours of The Post’s bombshell, Pence made it clear to the Republican National Committee that he was ready to take Trump’s place as the party’s nominee. Such a move just four weeks before Election Day would have been unprecedented—but the situation seemed dire enough to call for radical action.

The furtive plotting, several sources told me, was not just an act of political opportunism for Pence. He was genuinely shocked by the Access Hollywood tape. . . . . The couple was appalled by the video, however. Karen in particular was “disgusted,” says a former campaign aide. “She finds him reprehensible—just totally vile.”

Of course, Pence is far from the only conservative Christian to be accused of having sold his soul. Trump’s early evangelical supporters were a motley crew of televangelists and prosperity preachers, and they have been rewarded with outsize influence in the White House.

But the president has also enjoyed overwhelming support from rank-and-file conservative Christians. He won an astonishing 81 percent of white evangelicals’ votes, more than any Republican presidential candidate on record. And while his national approval rating hovers below 40 percent, poll after poll finds his approval rating among white evangelicals in the high 60s.

On one side, there are those who argue that good Christians are obligated to support any leader, no matter how personally wicked he may be, who stands up for religious freedom and fights sinful practices such as abortion. . . . On the other side of the debate is a smaller group that believes the Christians allying themselves with Trump are putting the entire evangelical movement at risk. . . . . “This is really a sea change in evangelical ethics,” Robert P. Jones, the head of the institute and the author of The End of White Christian America, told me. “They have moved to an ends-justifies-the means style of politics that would have been unimaginable before this last campaign.”

But even as the debate rages on, there is one thing virtually all conservative Christians seem to agree on: Mike Pence.

The religious right began reaping the rewards of Trump’s victory almost immediately, when the president-elect put Pence in charge of the transition. Given wide latitude on staffing decisions, Pence promptly set about filling the federal government with like-minded allies. Of the 15 Cabinet secretaries Trump picked at the start of his presidency, eight were evangelicals. It was, gushed Ted Cruz, “the most conservative Cabinet in decades.” Pence also reportedly played a key role in getting Neil Gorsuch nominated to the Supreme Court.

Pence understood the price of his influence. To keep Trump’s ear required frequent public performances of loyalty and submission—and Pence made certain his inner circle knew that enduring such indignities was part of the job.

In an embattled White House, the question of the vice president’s ambition for higher office is radioactive. When The New York Times reported last summer that Pence appeared to be laying the groundwork for a 2020 presidential bid, he denied the “disgraceful and offensive” story with theatrical force. But Pence has shown that his next move is never far from his mind—and he’s hardly the only one weighing the possibilities. One senior GOP Senate aide told me that pundits miss the point when they speculate about what kind of scandal it would take for the president to face a serious defection from lawmakers of his own party. “It’s not a matter of when Republicans are ready to turn on Trump,” the aide said. “It’s about when they decide they’re ready for President Pence.”

What would a Pence presidency look like? To a conservative evangelical, it could mean a glorious return to the Christian values upon which America was founded. To a secular liberal, it might look more like a descent into the dystopia of The Handmaid’s Tale. Already, in some quarters on the left, it has become fashionable to fret that Pence’s fundamentalist faith and comparative political savvy would make him an even more “dangerous” president than Trump. He has been branded a “theocrat” and a “Christian supremacist.”

What critics should worry about is not that Pence believes in God, but that he seems so certain God believes in him. What happens when manifest destiny replaces humility, and the line between faith and hubris blurs? What unseemly compromises get made? What means become tolerable in pursuit of an end?

Trump and Pence are both extremely dangerous.  Both need to be removed from office as soon as possible. 

LGBT Community Fearful as SCOTUS Hears Christofascist "Religious Freedom" Claims

Christofascist Jack Phillips argues that he is above the non-discrimination laws.

Today the Supreme Court of the United States heard oral arguments in the Masterpiece Cakeshop case and reports of the arguments left many in the LGBT community with a sense of foreboding and fear that five of the Justices might buy into the disingenuous arguments of Jack Phillips, a Christofascist bigot, which could unleash a gutting of the nation's civil rights laws and public accommodation laws. My views may offend some, but I view religion and religious belief as one of the most toxic and deadly forces on the planet.  Millennia of history has shown millions murdered or  persecuted in the name of religion.  Even now, the horrific crimes being committed by Islamic extremists underscores the reason why religious belief should never override the rule of law.   Should the Court buy the insidious arguments of Phillips and his counsel (provided by a certified hate group) gays will be but the first to see their legal protections gutted as a consequence.  A piece in the Washington Post looks at today's oral arguments.  Note, this is the first time the U.S. Department of Justicve has ever filed briefs supporting discrimination.  Here are excerpts:

The Supreme Court seemed closely divided Tuesday over whether the First Amendment protects a Colorado baker from creating a wedding cake for a same-sex couple, with Justice Anthony M. Kennedy likely to cast the deciding vote.

Kennedy, who wrote the court’s 5 to 4 decision in 2015 saying gay couples have a constitutional right to marry, speculated about what might happen if a decision in baker Jack C. Phillips’s favor prompted requests for bakers across the country to refuse to make cakes for same-sex couples. Would the federal government feel vindicated? Kennedy asked.

On the flip side, just moments later, Kennedy sharply questioned Colorado Solicitor General Frederick R. Yarger. The justice seemed offended by a comment made during the deliberations of the Colorado Civil Rights Commission when one commissioner said: “And to me it is one of the most despicable pieces of rhetoric that people can use to — to use their religion to hurt others.”

The rest of the court seemed to line up as expected. Liberal justices worried that an exception for Phillips would gut public accommodations laws that require businesses to serve the public without discriminating because of race, gender, religion and, in the case of Colorado and more than 20 other states, sexual orientation.

The court’s conservatives were concerned with what Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. said was a “disturbing record” from the Colorado Civil Rights Commission and the Colorado Court of Appeals, which ruled against Phillips.David D. Cole, legal director for the American Civil Liberties Union, which represents the couple, Charlie Craig and David Mullins, acknowledged there were complicated issues, but they did not apply to Phillips’s decision that he would not create a cake for the couple.  “All he knew was that they were gay,” Cole said.

Several of the liberal justices questioned what other types of business owners would be exempt if the court made an exception for Phillips.

The Trump administration filed a brief on behalf of Phillips; supporters of the couple said it was the first time the government has argued for an exemption to an anti-discrimination law.U.S. Solicitor General Noel J. Francisco, representing the Trump administration, told the court Tuesday that the exemption should apply only to a narrow category of business owners who should not be forced to create or contribute to an event they disagree with on the basis of their religious beliefs. . . . When asked where to draw the line, he said the justices should ask whether the creation is “predominantly expressive” in its purpose and whether customers are paying a premium for it.

Phillips contends that dual guarantees in the First Amendment — for free speech and for the free exercise of religion — protect him against Colorado’s public accommodations law, which requires businesses to serve customers equally regardless of “disability, race, creed, color, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, national origin, or ancestry.”

Scattered across the country, florists, bakers, photographers and others have claimed that being forced to offer their wedding services to same-sex couples violates their rights. Courts have routinely turned down the business owners — as the Colorado Court of Appeals did in the Phillips, saying that state anti-discrimination laws require businesses that are open to the public to treat all potential customers equally.

[T]he Colorado Civil Rights Commission. . . . .  ruled against Phillips, and the appeals court upheld the decision.

“Masterpiece remains free to continue espousing its religious beliefs, including its opposition to same-sex marriage,” Judge Daniel M. Taubman wrote. “However, if it wishes to operate as a public accommodation and conduct business within the State of Colorado, [the law] prohibits it from picking and choosing customers based on their sexual orientation.”

Every decent American - which sadly seemingly excludes evangelical Christians who support Phillips and want to be free to discriminate against others - should hope and pray that the Court rules against Jack Phillips. 

Wednesday Morning Male Beauty - Pt 1

More Tuesday Male Beauty

What is Trump So Desperate to Cover Up?

The vast majority of statements made by Donald Tump, a/k/a Der Trumpenführer, have been documented to be untrue or, simply put, lies.   A similar pattern has emerged with much of his regime, be it Mike Pence lying and claiming that he had been mislead by Michael Flynn, K.T. McFarland lying to Congress and, of course the very real likelihood that Jared Kushner has lied to both the FBI and congressional committees.  Over and over gain the lies have a nexus to the Trump campaign/transition team's contacts with Russia.  The question becomes, as in the caption of this post and a column in the Washington Post raise, what is Trump and his minion so desperate to cover up?  To many, the answer seems increasingly obvious: collusion with Russia, violations of campaign laws, and perhaps even treason, despite Trump's newest chilling claim that as president he is above the law.  Here are excerpts from the Post column:

We know that President Trump and his campaign either colluded with the Russian effort to undermine U.S. democracy or tried mightily to do so. We know that Trump has apparently obstructed justice to try to halt investigation into what happened. What we don’t know is whether Congress, in the end, will do its sworn duty to protect the Constitution.

We also don’t know what else special counsel Robert S. Mueller III might have discovered, especially about the Trump family’s international financial dealings. Or what Mueller might be learning from Trump’s former national security adviser, Michael Flynn, who pleaded guilty Friday to lying to the FBI and is cooperating with investigators. Or how far Trump, who is increasingly frantic, might yet go to squash the Mueller probe.

It is true that there is no federal statute against “collusion.” But a specific law is not necessary for citizens and their representatives in Congress to make a judgment: Is it acceptable for a presidential candidate and officials of his campaign to encourage an adversarial foreign power’s efforts to meddle in the U.S. election process — and then seek to reward that foreign power by easing sanctions? Yes or no?

I’m not interested in carrying water for the Democratic Party, which should have been able to beat Trump, who was manifestly unqualified and unfit, no matter what the Russians did. But what we have learned thus far is truly shocking.

In July 2016, Trump issued a public plea: “I will tell you this, Russia: If you’re listening, I hope you’re able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing.” 

Previously, according to U.S. intelligence officials, state-sponsored Russian hackers had obtained thousands of private emails from the Democratic National Committee and Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta, and the material was being released in a manner clearly intended to damage the Clinton campaign.

We now know that in June 2016, three of the most important figures in the Trump campaign — Trump’s son Donald Trump Jr.; his son-in-law, Jared Kushner; and his campaign chairman, Paul Manafort — had eagerly met with a Kremlin-tied lawyer who promised to share damaging information the Russian government had on Clinton. We also know that in April, another go-between had promised Trump foreign policy adviser George Papadopoulos “thousands of emails” containing “dirt” on Clinton.
We know that in the last days of the campaign, Russian cyberwarriors targeted the social media accounts of potential Trump voters in key states. We don’t yet know how they aimed their propaganda so accurately.

We have learned, however, that after the election, the Trump transition team actively undermined sanctions that President Barack Obama had imposed on Russia for its election interference. 

And we know that members of the Trump campaign’s inner circle consistently failed to disclose their meetings with Russian officials and emissaries. There is a pattern of behavior here. It may or may not be illegal, but it is certainly shocking and unacceptable.

As for obstruction of justice, Trump tweeted Saturday that “I had to fire General Flynn because he lied to the Vice President and the FBI.” This indicates the president knew Flynn had committed a crime before meeting with FBI director James B. Comey and, according to Comey, instructing him to drop the Flynn investigation. Trump later fired Comey, telling NBC’s Lester Holt that the reason was the Russia probe. Trump has reportedly hectored other administration officials and members of Congress to stop investigating the Russia connection.

With Flynn now cooperating, Mueller’s investigation enters a new phase. But let’s not lose sight of the big picture. Ask yourself a common-sense question: If nothing wrong happened with Russia during the campaign, why is Trump so desperate to cover it up?

The other question to ask is this: will Congressional Republicans who are now supporting a man accused of sexual misconduct against minors for the U.S. Senate fulfill their duties and act to remove Trump - and Pence - from office or will they in effect, participate in the overthrow the U.S. Constitution.

Trump Adviser, K. T. McFarland, Lied to Congress

McFarland and Flynn - two liars

The release of additional emails over the weekend have revealed with a high degree of certainty that K. T. McFarland, former deputy national security adviser to Der Trumpenführer, lied in her testimony before Congress.  Specifically, she said she had no knowledge of communications between transition team members and Russian operatives.   Meanwhile, she had engaged in emails that were discussing the efforts of Michael Flynn to communicate with Russian operatives.  It is stunning how much like Trump's transitions team is like Trump's main base of support, evangelical Christians.  With both groups, the only safe assumption to make vis-a-vis anything they say is to assume it's a lie.   Of course, McFarland isn't the only one who seems to have been deliberately lying.  Mike Pence was head of the transition team when all of this was going down and it appears obvious that Pence was lying when he claimed Flynn had lied to him: Pence already knew of the Russian contacts and communications by Flynn.  The New York Times looks at the continuing cavalcade of lies emanating from the Trump/Pence regime.  Here are highlights:

A leading Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee questioned on Monday whether a high-ranking official in Donald J. Trump’s transition team had been deceptive over the summer about her knowledge of discussions between Michael T. Flynn, the former national security adviser, and a former Russian ambassador.

K. T. McFarland served on the presidential transition team before becoming the White House deputy national security adviser. In July, she was questioned in writing by Senator Cory Booker, Democrat of New Jersey, on whether she had ever spoken to Mr. Flynn about his contacts with Sergey I. Kislyak, who was then the Russian ambassador to Washington, before Mr. Trump took office.

“I am not aware of any of the issues or events described above,” Ms. McFarland wrote in response, sidestepping a direct answer to the question.

An email exchange obtained by The New York Times indicates that Ms. McFarland was aware at the time of a crucial Dec. 29 phone call between Mr. Flynn and Mr. Kislyak that was intercepted by American intelligence.

If senators on the Foreign Relations Committee find that Ms. McFarland was evasive in her testimony, it could complicate her nomination to become ambassador to Singapore. Repeated attempts to reach Ms. McFarland, who left her post as deputy national security adviser in May, were unsuccessful.

In his written questions, Mr. Booker asked, “Did you ever discuss any of General Flynn’s contacts with Russian ambassador Sergey Kislyak directly with General Flynn?”

In a statement on Monday, Mr. Booker said that he was concerned that Ms. McFarland might have given “false testimony” in her answers.

“If this is the case, this is an alarming development, and another example of a pattern of deception on the part of Trump’s closest associates regarding their connections and communications to Russian government officials,” he said.

Court documents released on Friday, along with Mr. Flynn’s guilty plea, indicate that senior members of Mr. Trump’s transition team were well aware of his discussions with the Russian ambassador about the Obama administration’s sanctions. Mr. Flynn talked to Mr. Kislyak by phone on Dec. 29, the day the sanctions took effect, and several days later.

Mr. Flynn then briefed senior transition team members about his discussions with Mr. Kislyak, the records show.  Ms. McFarland worked so closely with Mr. Flynn on the transition team that her colleagues sometimes referred to her as his “brain.”

 My thoughts? Lock her up.