Second Blog Post Of Quick Chatting

Blog Post Of  Quick Chatting
Day to day chit chat and small talk. Light hearted or serious.
Chatting about what you do when you have the free time or the spare time. Chatting about your day, your evening, your weekend or your week.
Salutations: Hello, good morning, good afternoon, good evening and other small talk.

I had some time before my appointment, so I decided to purchase a donut and a beverage.

The donut shop was not busy.
I stood behind a customer; that was having a conversation with the employee behind the cash register.
I quietly and politely waited to be serviced.
When I saw that I was not going to be acknowledged I just quietly left.
For the record I was not mad.

I have been reading Babbitt.
I recently purchased You Can't Go Home Again.
Babbitt (novel)
Author
Sinclair Lewis
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Link https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Babbitt_(novel)

You Can't Go Home Again
Author
Thomas Wolfe
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Link https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/You_Can%27t_Go_Home_Again



First Blog Post Of Quick Chatting
Link https://notmuch1.blogspot.com/2019/12/blog-post-of-quick-chatting.html

FactCheck Posts:Pelosi Did Not ‘Defend’ Soleimani

Link To https://www.factcheck.org/2020/01/pelosi-did-not-defend-soleimani/
Link To https://www.factcheck.org/

FactCheck Posts
Pelosi Did Not ‘Defend’ Soleimani
By Robert Farley
Posted on  Friday,January10,2020
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has criticized President Donald Trump’s decision to kill Iranian Gen. Qassem Soleimani as “provocative and disproportionate.” But, contrary to the president’s contention, she did not “defend” Soleimani.
In fact, we were not able to find any examples of Democrats who have defended or “mourned” the death of Iran’s top military commander, despite such claims from several other Republicans.
On Jan. 2, the Pentagon announced that, at Trump’s direction, American troops used a drone and killed Soleimani, Iran’s top security and intelligence commander, at Baghdad International Airport. The Pentagon statement said Soleimani “was actively developing plans to attack American diplomats and service members in Iraq and throughout the region.”
The statement further noted that “Soleimani and his Quds Force were responsible for the deaths of hundreds of American and coalition service members and the wounding of thousands more. He had orchestrated attacks on coalition bases in Iraq over the last several months – including the attack on December 27th – culminating in the death and wounding of additional American and Iraqi personnel. General Soleimani also approved the attacks on the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad that took place this week.”
In a press release put out that day, Pelosi warned that the strike “risks provoking further dangerous escalation of violence.” Pelosi also noted that the military action was taken without Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) against Iran and “without the consultation of the Congress.”
But nowhere in the release did she “defend” Soleimani, as Trump claimed in remarks to the press on Jan. 9.
Trump, Jan. 9: You know what bothers me? When I see a Nancy Pelosi trying to defend this monster from Iran, who has killed so many people, who has so badly — I mean, so many people are walking around now without legs and without arms. Because he was the big roadside bomb guy. He was the one who would send them to Afghanistan. He would send him to Iraq. He was big. That was his favorite thing. He thought it was wonderful. He doesn’t think it’s wonderful anymore. When Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats want to defend him, I think that’s a very bad thing for this country. I think that’s a big losing argument, politically, too.
Those comments echo similar statements made by other prominent Republicans.
In an interview with Sean Hannity on Fox News on Jan. 6, former U.N. Ambassador Nikki Haley said, “The only ones mourning the loss of Soleimani are our Democrat leadership and Democrat presidential candidates.” And in an interview with Fox News’ Lou Dobbs on Jan. 8, Rep. Doug Collins, the ranking Republican on the House Judiciary Committee, said, Pelosi and the Democrats are “in love with terrorists” and “mourn Soleimani more than they mourn our Gold Star families who are the ones who suffered under Soleimani.” (Two days later, Collins apologized for his remarks.)
Again, we are not aware that Pelosi or any other Democratic leaders or presidential candidates publicly “mourned” the death of Soleimani or defended him. Our colleagues at PolitiFact looked into Haley’s comment and found that while most of the Democratic presidential candidates expressed concern about Trump’s move escalating tensions with Iran, they prefaced their comments by saying that Soleimani had the blood of American soldiers on his hands, and should not be mourned.
We asked the White House when Pelosi defended Soleimani, but it did not respond.
Several times in the past week, Pelosi has made comments critical of Trump’s actions. But she never defended Soleimani.
Pelosi, in a Jan. 4 press release calling on the administration to brief Congress: “The Trump Administration’s provocative, escalatory and disproportionate military engagement continues to put servicemembers, diplomats and citizens of America and our allies in danger.”
Pelosi, in a Jan. 5 “Dear Colleague” letter: “As Members of Congress, our first responsibility is to keep the American people safe. For this reason, we are concerned that the Administration took this action without the consultation of Congress and without respect for Congress’s war powers granted to it by the Constitution.”
Pelosi, in a Jan. 8 press release, after the administration’s briefing: “Members of Congress have serious, urgent concerns about the Administration’s decision to engage in hostilities against Iran and about its lack of strategy moving forward.  Our concerns were not addressed by the President’s insufficient War Powers Act notification and by the Administration’s briefing today.”
The speaker elaborated on her position during a press conference on Jan. 9. She again said Trump “conducted a provocative, disproportionate airstrike against Iran which endangered Americans and did so without consulting Congress.” But she said she was aware of “just how bad Soleimani was.”
Pelosi, Jan. 9: And so what happened in the view of many of us is not a promotion of peace, but an escalation. Not that we have any confidence in the goodness – or the good intentions of Iran, and we certainly do not respect, and I from my intelligence background, know just how bad Soleimani was. It’s not because we expect good things from them, but we expect great things from us.
Later in the press conference, Pelosi described Soleimani as “a terrible person” who “did bad things.”
Pelosi, Jan. 9: As I say, we have no illusions about Iran, no illusions about Soleimani, who was a terrible person. Did bad things. But it’s not about how bad they are, it’s about how good we are, protecting the people in a way that prevents war and does not have us producing, again and again, generations of veterans who are suffering.
Trump’s comments occurred about the same time that Pelosi spoke, and we don’t know if Trump heard her remarks when he made his. But House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy responded directly to Pelosi’s remarks and parroted Trump’s claim that she was “defending” Soleimani.
McCarthy, Jan. 9: I never thought there would be a moment in time that the Speaker of the House of Representatives would actually be defending Soleimani. … Did you listen to what the Speaker just said? “Soleimani was a bad person, but…” There is no “but.” He’s a bad person because he killed American soldiers. … He’s a bad person because he was planning more against Americans. The president was right in his actions, and we are safer today for it.
Later that afternoon on the House floor, Pelosi again argued that Trump’s actions “endangered our servicemen and women, our diplomats and others,” but added that Soleimani “was somebody that we do not mourn the loss of.”
Pelosi, Jan. 9: But with the President’s actions last week, he endangered our servicemen and women, our diplomats and others by taking a serious risk of escalation with tensions with Iran. This does not come with any respect for Iran. We know what bad actors they are in the world. We know that Soleimani, I from my Intelligence background, know that Soleimani was somebody that we do not mourn the loss of, a bad – he did very evil things in the world. But, we also know that when we take an action, we have to understand the ramifications of it.
We take no position on whether the president’s actions to take out Soleimani will ultimately make Americans more or less safe. But there is a distinction between criticizing the president’s decision to kill Soleimani and “defending” him, and there is no evidence that Pelosi defended Soleimani or “mourned” his death. In fact, she has made statements directly contradicting that claim.

Categories
FactCheck Posts
Location
International
Issue
Iran
terrorism
People
Donald Trump
doug collins
KevinMcCarthy
Nancy Pelosi
Qassem Soleimani

---

Previous Story Trump Takes Undue Credit for Cancer Progress
Next StoryA Misleading Take on Alabama’s Abortion Law

House passes measure seeking to limit Trump's military actions against Iran

My Comment: I say thank you to the House for passing this bill.

Iran Tensions
House passes measure seeking to limit Trump's military actions against Iran
Speaker Nancy Pelosi said the resolution would send a clear message that the president shouldn't take further military action against Iran without Congress' approval.
Article Linkhttps://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/pelosi-says-house-send-clear-war-powers-statement-trump-thursday-n1113006#anchor-Bindingornot

Thursday, Jan. 9, 2020, 12:25 PM EST / Updated Thursday,Jan. 9, 2020, 6:19 PM EST
By Rebecca Shabad
WASHINGTON — The House adopted a war powers resolution Thursday with the aim of limiting President Donald Trump's military actions against Iran.
The adoption of the measure on a largely party-line vote of 224-194 came amid heightened tension between the two countries after the United States killed Iranian Maj. Gen. Qassem Soleimani and Iran retaliated with a ballistic missile attack against Iraqi air bases housing U.S. forces.
Republicans Thomas Massie of Kentucky and Matt Gaetz and Francis Rooney, both of Florida, voted for the measure, while eight Democrats voted against it: Joe Cunningham of South Carolina, Josh Gottheimer of New Jersey, Kendra Horn of Oklahoma, Elaine Luria of Virginia, Ben McAdams of Utah, Stephanie Murphy of Florida and Anthony Brindisi and Max Rose, both of New York.
Before the vote, Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., criticized the U.S. drone attack on Soleimani, saying the resolution would send a clear statement that Trump shouldn't take further military action against Iran without approval from Congress.
"Last week, in our view, the administration conducted a provocative disproportionate airstrike against Iran which endangered Americans, and did so without consulting Congress," Pelosi said at her weekly news conference.
Asked whether the Trump administration misled the public in justifying the airstrike, Pelosi said that while she can't share the classified information that she has been briefed on, "I do not believe in terms of what is in the public domain that they have made the country safer by what they did."
Pelosi said that when Defense Secretary Mark Esper and Army Gen. Mark Milley, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, briefed her on the airstrike over the weekend, they were "disdainful in terms of not consulting Congress" and "dismissive."
The president, asked Thursday whether congressional authorization was needed for further military action against Iran, said, "You don't have to," pointing to a need to "make split-second decisions."
Still, he said, "in certain cases, I wouldn't even mind doing it."
The five-page resolution, sponsored by freshman Rep. Elissa Slotkin, D-Mich., a former CIA analyst, emphasizes that if the president wants to take the United States to war, he or she must get authorization from Congress.
Specifically, it directs the president to terminate the use of U.S. armed forces to engage in hostilities against Iran unless Congress has declared war or enacted a specific authorization or unless military action is necessary to defend against an imminent attack.
The legislation also says that Iran's government is a lead state sponsor of terrorism and that Soleimani was the "lead architect" of destabilizing activities around the world. It further says the United States has an "inherent right to self-defense against imminent armed attacks" and "maintains the right to ensure the safety of diplomatic personnel serving abroad."
The White House denounced the resolution later Thursday as "misguided."
"The President has the right and duty to protect this nation and our citizens from terrorism. That's what he continues to do, and the world is safer for it," spokesman Hogan Gidley said in a statement. "This House resolution tries to undermine the ability of the U.S. Armed Forces to prevent terrorist activity by Iran and its proxies, and attempts to hinder the President's authority to protect America and our interests in the region from the continued threats."
Binding or not?
Although Pelosi said the measure has "real teeth" because it is a concurrent resolution, it wouldn't have to go to the president's desk for his signature, leading GOP lawmakers to assert that it would be legally nonbinding.
"This is a statement of the Congress of the United States. I will not have that statement diminished by having the president veto it or not," Pelosi said.
A senior Democratic aide noted that the War Powers Act sets out a clear process for the House legislation. The law says "forces shall be removed by the president if Congress so directs by concurrent resolution."
House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., countered the notion Thursday, saying, "This resolution has as much force of law as a New Year's resolution."
At his weekly news conference earlier Thursday, McCarthy said, "This is a meaningless vote that only sends the wrong message that the House Democrats would rather stand with the socialist base than stand against Iran."
Because the resolution is privileged, the Senate could be forced to vote on it or a similar resolution that has been introduced by Sen. Tim Kaine, D-Va.
Trump urged GOP members Thursday morning to oppose the measure. "Hope that all House Republicans will vote against Crazy Nancy Pelosi's War Powers Resolution ... " he tweeted.
The Defense Department said that the strike on Soleimani was "aimed at deterring future Iranian attack plans" and that he had been actively developing plans to attack U.S. diplomatic and service members in Iraq and in other parts of the region.
Democrats have demanded that the administration share the intelligence backing that assertion. Many of them left classified briefings by top administration officials on Capitol Hill on Wednesday saying they were dissatisfied with the information presented that Soleimani posed an immediate threat or that the administration had the proper legal justification to target him.
After the strike, Democrats said they were worried that it would spark a war with Iran, which they said could be declared only by Congress. Top officials have said they based the strike on the 2002 authorization for the use of military force that Congress passed to authorize the war against Iraq when it was led by Saddam Hussein.
Iran retaliated Tuesday when it launched a dozen ballistic missiles from Iran targeting Iraq air bases housing U.S. forces. Trump announced Wednesday morning that Iran appeared to be "standing down."
Two GOP senators — Rand Paul of Kentucky and Mike Lee of Utah — left the Senate briefing Wednesday echoing Democrats' frustration with the explanation for targeting Soleimani. Lee said, "It was probably the worst briefing I've seen, at least on a military issue, in the nine years I've served in the United States Senate."
Trump said Thursday that Lee and Paul had "wanted information that is very hard to get" because the military needed to protect sources. "I get along great with Mike Lee, I've never seen him like that," he said, adding that "other people have called and said it was the greatest presentation."
Pelosi said the House would soon consider another proposal from Rep. Barbara Lee, D-Calif., which would repeal the 2002 use of force authorization.
"It needs to be addressed, it needs to be rewritten ... specific to the danger that we are facing," she said.
Rebecca Shabad
Rebecca Shabad is a congressional reporter for NBC News, based in Washington.
Adam Edelman and Alex Moe contributed.

Contractor whose death Trump cited was a naturalized U.S. citizen born in Iraq

Contractor whose death Trump cited was a naturalized U.S. citizen born in Iraq
Aaron Davis  Tuesday,1/7/2020
Article Link
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/contractor-whose-death-trump-cited-was-a-naturalized-us-citizen-born-in-iraq/ar-BBYIWiO?li=BBnb7Kz
Here is the gist of the article:
Quoted Excerpt:
An American defense contractor whose death late last month was cited by President Trump amid escalating violence with Iran was identified Tuesday as an interpreter who was born in Iraq and lived in Sacramento.
Nawres Hamid, 33, became a naturalized citizen in 2017, according to his widow. He was the father of two boys, ages 2 and 8, she said.
Hamid was killed on Dec. 27 when U.S. authorities say an Iranian-backed militia fired rockets at a military base near the northern Iraqi city of Kirkuk.
The attack, which injured several coalition troops, prompted Trump to order missile strikes against Iraqi militias. That in turn led to a New Year’s Eve assault on the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad and a retaliatory strike by the United States that killed Qasem Soleimani, a top Iranian military commander.
Hamid’s death has been a rallying cry for Trump. In a tweet on Dec. 31, Trump wrote: “Iran killed an American contractor, wounding many. We strongly responded, and always will. Now Iran is orchestrating an attack on the U.S. Embassy in Iraq. They will be held fully responsible. In addition, we expect Iraq to use its forces to protect the Embassy, and so notified!”
Hamid’s body was returned to the United States and buried Saturday in Sacramento, his widow, Noor Alkhalili, said in a text-message exchange with The Washington Post on Tuesday.

Congress demands answers from Trump about Soleimani killing

Monday, January 6, 2020
Congress demands answers from Trump about Soleimani killing
Quoted Excerpts:
Pompeo defended the targeted killing of Soleimani, saying the administration would have been “culpably negligent” in its duty to protect the United States if it had not killed him.
He did not provide evidence for his previous claims that Soleimani was plotting imminent attacks on Americans. Instead of arguing that an attack had been imminent, Pompeo said it was inevitable.
Trump made clear Sunday that he saw little reason to give Congress advanced warning if he orders the military to carry out further actions against Iran.

Link To Article 

https://whdh.com/news/politics/congress-demands-answers-from-trump-about-soleimani-killing/

Link To https://whdh.com/

My Comment:
Channel seven news reported that the general had been carrying a letter to deescalate tensions between Iran and the USA.

Iran Abandons Nuclear Deal as Killing of Iranian General Upends Mideast

My Comments and my opinions:

According to what I heard on the Sunday,1/5/2020 news's there was/is no evidence that general was planning anything against the USA.

In my opinion the Mideast on the whole will continue to be violent.

Iran Abandons Nuclear Deal as Killing of Iranian General Upends Mideast
Ben Hubbard, Alissa J. Rubin, Farnaz Fassihi and Steven Erlanger  Sunday, 1/5/2020
Quoted Excerpts:
American allies have largely kept quiet so as not top put themselves in the line of fire.
At the same time, no European government praised the killing of General Suleimani, emphasizing instead the increased risks to their citizens, troops and interests.
Prime Minister Boris Johnson of Britain was reported to be angry with Mr. Trump for not informing him or other allies with troops in Iraq about the decision to kill General Suleimani. While carried out by the Americans, the killing is seen as having put all European citizens and troops in Iraq and the wider region at heightened risk.
Mr. Johnson, who was said to be returning early from a vacation in the Caribbean, is expected to discuss the issues with Chancellor Angela Merkel of Germany, President Emmanuel Macron of France and Mr. Trump in the next few days, a Downing Street spokeswoman said.
Secretary of State Mike Pompeo complained that the response by European allies had not been “helpful.” He told Fox News in an interview: “Frankly, the Europeans haven’t been as helpful as I wish that they could be. The Brits, the French, the Germans all need to understand that what we did, what the Americans did, saved lives in Europe as well.”

Article Link  https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/iran-abandons-nuclear-deal-as-killing-of-iranian-general-upends-mideast/ar-BBYDdpd?li=BBnb7Kz

My Opinions Regarding The House Impeaching Donald Trump

My Opinions regarding the House impeaching Donald Trump 

Donald Trump has a history of wrong doings, such as illegal and unethical behaviors.
He's been allowed to be above the law for too many years.
On Wednesday evening(Dec.18,2019) Trump's House impeachment was televised.
I listened to the Republican's words.
They refused to acknowledge that Donald Trump did violate the Constitution.
They do not want to acknowledge the evidence.
Because they have the voting numbers taking Trump's trial to the Senate will most likely result in Republicans voting against impeachment-for what Donald Trump really did get caught doing.
Trump really did Abuse his powers and obstruct justice.
I do not know why the Republicans will not be honest with themselves and America.
I do know that unqualified, unfit for the job; Trump will continuing being allowed to be above he law.
If elected for a second term Trump will continue making America worse.
Donald Trump will also continue breaking laws and violating ethics. ______________________________________________________________________
Note:  In my opinion-this is how it looks and sounds to me:
In a nutshell this is just one brief example of Trump and his administration:
1.
Trump abused his powers by his attempted actions with Ukraine.
Trump would give them the approved money if they would investigate Presidential Candidate Joe Biden's son Hunter and Hunter's business dealings involving or with a company. Trump's goal was to include using Ukraine for the purpose of Trump having a strong chance at wining the 2020 Election.
Without Trump Congress made sure that Ukraine received that money.

Note:
I think that President Obama had concerns regarding his VP's son- Hunter Biden's business dealings.
I was not following what decisions President Obama made regarding Ukraine.

2.
The obstruction of justice includes, but is not limited to Trump attempting to withhold evidence that could prove that Trump and/or his administration violated laws and/or ethics.
Some Republicans, Trump and his administration were attempting to alter the evidence and make the proof of what Trump did become non-existent.

In another nutshell, it appears that Trump is a traitor to the USA.

Donald Trump's actions are worse than Nixon's Watergate.
Trump has a history of being allowed to be above the law.

My Opinions And Quoted Excerpts FromThe Article Former White House officials say they feared Putin influenced the president’s views on Ukraine and 2016 campaign

National Security
Former White House officials say they feared Putin influenced the president’s views on Ukraine and 2016 campaign
By Shane Harris, Josh Dawsey and Carol D. Leonnig
Thursday, Dec. 19, 2019 at 5:09 p.m. EST
Article Link  https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/former-white-house-officials-say-they-feared-putin-influenced-the-presidents-views-on-ukraine-and-2016-campaign/2019/12/19/af0fdbf6-20e9-11ea-bed5-880264cc91a9_story.html
Link To  https://www.washingtonpost.com/
My Opinions:
The article reads like a repeat of how Trump thinks.
The article adds that Trump did get some of his information and thoughts from Twitter.
Social media is not a informative-news resource.
Then there's a repeat look of Trump's feelings, his views, his obsession's, his thoughts and his not letting go of Election 2016.
In the past, Trump has stated that he did win the election.
______________________________________________________________
National Security
Former White House officials say they feared Putin influenced the president’s views on Ukraine and 2016 campaign
By Shane Harris, Josh Dawsey and Carol D. Leonnig
Thursday, Dec. 19, 2019 at 5:09 p.m. EST
Article Link  https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/former-white-house-officials-say-they-feared-putin-influenced-the-presidents-views-on-ukraine-and-2016-campaign/2019/12/19/af0fdbf6-20e9-11ea-bed5-880264cc91a9_story.html
Link To  https://www.washingtonpost.com/

Several Quoted Excerpts:
Almost from the moment he took office, President Trump seized on a theory that troubled his senior aides: Ukraine, he told them on many occasions, had tried to stop him from winning the White House.
After meeting privately in July 2017 with Russian President Vladi­mir Putin at the Group of 20 summit in Hamburg, Trump grew more insistent that Ukraine worked to defeat him, according to multiple former officials familiar with his assertions.
The president’s intense resistance to the assessment of U.S. intelligence agencies that Russia systematically interfered in the 2016 campaign — and the blame he cast instead on a rival country — led many of his advisers to think that Putin himself helped spur the idea of Ukraine’s culpability, said the officials, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to describe internal discussions.
One former senior White House official said Trump even stated so explicitly at one point, saying he knew Ukraine was the real culprit because “Putin told me.”
Allegations about Ukraine’s role in the 2016 race have been promoted by an array of figures, including right-wing journalists whose work the president avidly consumes, as well as Rudolph W. Giuliani, his personal lawyer. But U.S. intelligence officials told lawmakers and their staff members this past fall that Russian security services played a major role in spreading false claims of Ukrainian complicity, said people familiar with the assessments.
The concern among senior White House officials that Putin helped fuel Trump’s theories about Ukraine underscores long-standing fears inside the administration about the Russian president’s ability to influence Trump’s views.
This article is based on interviews with 15 former administration and government officials, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to offer their candid views about the president.
Trump, the official said, offered no proof to support his theory of Ukraine’s involvement.
It is unclear where Trump first got the idea of a Ukrainian connection to CrowdStrike. At the time, the notion was not yet being widely discussed on Twitter, his social media platform of choice and a fertile bed for disinformation, according to social media experts.
Trump has returned to the false Ukraine-CrowdStrike connection many times, arguing that the company had covered up Ukraine’s hacking of the DNC and that it had even spirited the DNC server to Ukraine, former White House officials said.
Privately, officials tried in vain to convince the president that CrowdStrike was not a Ukrainian company and that it would be impossible for the server to be located there, a former administration official said.
One of the officials who Hill said tried to convince Trump, former homeland security adviser Thomas P. Bossert, publicly pleaded with the White House in September to drop the Ukraine theory, which he called “completely debunked.”
Bossert pointed to Giuliani, Trump’s personal lawyer, as a persistent source of the server claim. “I am deeply frustrated with what [Giuliani] and the legal team is doing in repeating that debunked theory to the president. It sticks in his mind when he hears it over and over again.”
An early coolness
Trump’s suspicions about Ukraine manifested in other ways. Early in the administration, then-Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko was eager to secure a White House meeting with Trump — ideally before he met publicly with Putin — to demonstrate U.S. commitment to defending Ukraine against Russia.
But Trump resisted the meeting, according to former U.S. officials with direct knowledge of the matter. White House aides were confused: Ukraine was an ally in a war against a country that had just undermined the U.S. elections. Meeting with Poroshenko was a “no-brainer,” one former official said. “It was utterly mystifying to us why Trump wouldn’t agree.”
Another former official said it was clear from the beginning of Trump’s presidency that he wanted to improve relations with Russia and form a bond with Putin.
Kelly tried to get U.S. experts to speak to Trump before his scheduled calls with the Russian president to push back on some of Trump’s misconceptions, the official said.
Some wondered whether Trump’s coolness toward Ukraine was intended not to offend Putin.
Poroshenko came to the White House on June 20, 2017, to meet with Vice President Pence. Trump had a short “drop-in” with the Ukrainian leader, allaying some U.S. officials’ concerns that he wouldn’t bother to say hello.

A private meeting
At the time, U.S. and Russian officials didn’t disclose the conversation. During the meal, Trump left his chair and sat next to Putin. Trump went alone, and Putin was assisted by his interpreter.
For some White House officials struggling to understand Trump’s obsession with Ukraine, the Hamburg meetings were a turning point.
Three former senior administration officials said Trump repeatedly insisted after the G-20 summit that he believed Putin’s assurances that Russia had not interfered in the 2016 campaign. The officials said Kelly, national security adviser H.R. McMaster and Secretary of State Rex Tillerson all tried to caution Trump not to rely on Putin’s word, and to focus on evidence to the contrary that U.S. intelligence agencies had collected.
Trump repeatedly told one senior official that the Russian president said Ukraine sought to undermine him, the official said.
There was no evidence that Putin pushed the Ukraine theory with Trump in their official phone calls and meetings, which were witnessed by interpreters and aides, several former administration officials said.
However, White House aides were not part of Trump’s private conversation with Putin in Hamburg, or a later meeting he had in Helsinki for two hours with the Russian president, when they were accompanied by only their interpreters.
Trump also took steps to conceal the details of his formal meeting with Putin in Hamburg, taking the notes away from his interpreter and instructing her not to discuss what had transpired with other administration officials, The Post reported earlier this year.
In the wake of Hamburg, top leaders were dispatched to try to convince him that Russia interfered in the campaign. On different occasions, Kelly asked Bossert, CIA Director Mike Pompeo, Director of National Intelligence Daniel Coats and his principal deputy, Sue Gordon, to brief the president on the intelligence community’s Russia assessment, said former officials with knowledge of the briefings.
They did not convince him.
A year after Trump met Putin in Hamburg, they reconvened at a summit in Helsinki. After his one-on-one with the Russian president, Trump expressed doubt that the Kremlin interfered in the campaign.
“My people came to me, Daniel Coats came to me and some others, they said they think it’s Russia,” Trump said at a joint news conference, standing beside the Russian leader. “I have President Putin; he just said it’s not Russia. I will say this: I don’t see any reason why it would be, but I really do want to see the server.”
Intelligence officials were stunned that Trump would publicly side with Putin over his own advisers. His comments also revealed that he still clung to his suspicions about Ukraine.
“I really believe that this will probably go on for a while, but I don’t think it can go on without finding out what happened to the server,” Trump said.

The narrative takes hold
In her public testimony in the impeachment proceedings, Hill, the NSC’s former Russia director, admonished lawmakers not to take the Kremlin’s bait.
“Based on questions and statements I have heard, some of you on this committee appear to believe that Russia and its security services did not conduct a campaign against our country — and that perhaps, somehow, for some reason, Ukraine did,” she said. “This is a fictional narrative that has been perpetrated and propagated by the Russian security services themselves.”
Hill implored the lawmakers not to help Russia’s campaign. “In the course of this investigation, I would ask that you please not promote politically driven falsehoods that so clearly advance Russian interests.”
Last month, RT rejected the idea that Russia had promoted such a narrative, noting that ­Putin said in July that he did not think the actions of wealthy individuals in that country amounted to “interference by Ukraine.”
More recently, however, the Russian president has expressed satisfaction in the new focus on Ukraine.
“Thank God no one is accusing us of interfering in the U.S. elections anymore; now they’re accusing Ukraine,” the Russian president said at a news conference in Moscow in November. “Well, let them sort this out among themselves.”

Blog Post Of Quick Chatting

Blog Post Of  Quick Chatting

Day to day chit chat and small talk. Light hearted or serious.
Chatting about what you do when you have the free time or the spare time. Chatting about your day, your evening, your weekend or your week.
Salutations: Hello, good morning, good afternoon, good evening and other small talk. 

Thursday, December 5,2019

Welcome to my blog: Not Much.
On occasions I will post an article, quoted excerpts from an article, occasional quick chatting/random chatting or something else.

Good Morning.
So far this morning all I have done was to bring up today's morning newspaper.
As today moves forward more will get done.

Blog Post Updated on Thursday,12/5/2019  At 9:39AM.

I listened to Speaker Nancy Pelosi's brief  televised announcement.

As of this writing/typing I will leave out my opinions.

U.S. House to draft impeachment charges against Trump - Pelosi

Thursday, December 5,2019

Article Link  https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/pelosi-house-will-move-forward-on-impeachment/ar-BBXN6mp?li=BBnb7Kz

Politics December 5, 2019 / 9:19 AM / Updated 6 minutes ago

U.S. House to draft impeachment charges against Trump: Pelosi

Article Link  https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-impeachment-pelosi/u-s-house-to-draft-impeachment-charges-against-trump-pelosi-idUSKBN1Y91Q7?il=0

Link To   https://www.reuters.com/

Obama looms over divided Democratic primary

Obama looms over divided Democratic primary
By Max Greenwood - 11/28/19 07:58 PM EST
Quoted Excerpts:
Former President Obama has emerged as a key player in the Democratic presidential primary race.
He hasn’t put his thumb on the scale for any one candidate in particular. But in two different speeches this month, he has made clear that presidential hopefuls would be wise to avoid moving too far to the left if they hope to win back the White House in 2020.
His latest remarks came last week as Obama met with party donors in California, where he urged Democrats to “chill out” about the primary contest and prepare to rally behind the eventual nominee. But he also appeared to warn against calling for too drastic of change.
“When you listen to the average voter — even ones who aren’t stalwart Democrats, but who are more independent or are low-information voters — they don’t feel that things are working well, but they’re also nervous about changes that might take away what little they have,” Obama said.
“For him to weigh in, he knows that anything he says will be analyzed by the political media and the powers that be,” Gifford said. “But he can set a tone. The tone of this primary so far hasn’t necessarily been negative but it hasn’t been that positive either.
“He’s weighing in to unify the party as much as he can; to help out without being some sort of master manipulator.”
But Gifford, Obama’s former finance director, said that even the opinions of someone “as significant as Barack Obama” will not reshape the race in its entirety.
“It’s not as if he will move the needle tremendously,” Gifford said. “What he can do is help to establish a more healthy political narrative.”
Article Link
https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/471962-obama-looms-over-divided-democratic-primary
Link To  https://thehill.com/