Facebook > Email > More Pinterest Print Twitter Play

Cornyn Withdraws from FBI Short List

Cornyn backs out of the FBI director race.

By Comments

John Cornyn.
Photo By Tom Williams/AP

Texas Senator John Cornyn interviewed this past weekend for the possible appointment as the replacement for fired FBI Director James Comey. But as support for Cornyn faded in the Senate and a new controversy erupted over President Trump giving security information to Russian officials, Cornyn on Tuesday withdrew his name from consideration for the FBI job. His statement:

“I have always considered public service to be a great privilege. How I can best serve my fellow Texans and my country has, and will continue to be, my guiding principle.

“Now more than ever the country needs a well-credentialed, independent FBI Director. I’ve informed the Administration that I’m committed to helping them find such an individual, and that the best way I can serve is continuing to fight for a conservative agenda in the U.S. Senate.

“Working for 28 million Texans in the U.S. Senate is an honor I never expected to have, and one I cherish each and every day. I’m eager to continue working with the Administration and the rest of my colleagues to make Texas and our country stronger.”  

Related Content

  • WUSRPH

    It is always easy to “not be interested” in something if you have no chance of getting it. I, for example, am not interested in being lt. governor. A member of the Texas House, maybe, but not lt. governor.

    • SeeItMyWay

      What would you expect him to say? I’m not going to be picked so I quit? I talked to my colleagues and they urged me not to keep my name in the hat? There are more qualified persons than me to serve in this capacity?

      Are you a politician? An attorney? An educator? It would be nice to know where you are coming from.

      This entire firing/hiring scenario is crazy. The NYT says Trump asked Comey to drop the Russian tie investigation; the WAPO says Trump divulged intelligence info to the Russians. All from unnamed sources, of course.

      There is no proof of any of this. It is he said, he said stuff. Who you going to believe. I know who the press believes. All you have to do is read the WAPO reports and editorials each day to understand how much they despise the President. They are on a mission, it would seem.

      We deserve better. There were illegal leaks it seems. Why don’t we know yet who leaked what? Only a very few had access to the info leaked.

      If Comey scribbled notes after meetings with Trump, why did he not come forward with it at the time? Why didn’t he call foul?

      Something’s got to give. The intelligence community has got to cough up what they know, and all of it, to congressional committees. Those who leaked classified info have to be named. It needs to happen now.

    • SeeItMyWay

      Test.

      • WUSRPH

        You passed. Although the one you deleted was more interesting.

        • SeeItMyWay

          That was the reason for the test. I did not delete it.

          • WUSRPH

            Hummm? Interesting…..I’ve had messages blocked by the all-knowing censor…usually because I used a word like the four letter one for the hot place a lot of will go to after we die or the initials of a current German political party……but never one just disappear.
            Well, to answer you now missing question of who is telling the Truth, Trump of the rest of the world? We all know from past history that Trump has a little problem with staying strictly within the definition of what is known as “the truth”….some call that lying. JJ, on the other, had excused it as just being “exaggeration”. But, just because he deviated from the standard into “alternative facts” and “post-truth politics” in the past does not necessarily mean he is not telling the truth now. His problem may be that, like the boy who called “Wolf” too many times, when he is telling the truth we don’t recognize it.
            However, in this case, we have a couple of ways to test it…The first being Comey’s “memos for file” on his conversations with Trump. As I understand it, the courts have tended to give credence to such memos prepared by FBI agents if they were prepared right after the event. And, of course, there may be the mysterious “tapes” Trump was talking about although it is not clear whether he meant he had taped Comey or thought Comey had taped him. Trump could have heard about the memos for file from someone in the DOJ and assumed they were tapes….but we really don’t know.
            So, I guess the best I can say in answer to your question is: Based on past events you have to tend toward discounting what Trump says if he denies he did something….but to be sure you have to have some sort of evidence and we haven’t seen that yet. But, we may.

          • WUSRPH

            Because my answer was way off the thread, I have removed it…..Maybe we can discuss whether it is Trump telling the truth or the rest of the world and who and why they might be leaking at a later date.

          • SeeItMyWay

            I read your deleted post. I agree. We shall she what proof might be forthcoming.

            One question with the press in mind. If Obama could stand behind a mic and say that Hillary was innocent of all charges while an investigation is going on, and that there was no criminal IRS activity while an investigation was going on, without the press unloading on him, why is it they are now raining down on Trump for saying, “I hope you will put this thing to bed”? What’s the difference?

          • WUSRPH

            The difference is there but subtle. If you wanted to bend the situation to Trump’s benefit you could say that there is little difference because what Obama was doing was “sending a signal” of his wishes to the investigators. But, even then, there is some difference between that and, if you believe the reports, Trump three times trying to get Comey to swear loyalty to him personally and, at the same time, suggesting that he close the investigation and let Flynn off the hook. And, when that did not happen, firing the guy.

            PS I’d have to check as to whether there was any feedback on what Obama did….I tend to think that at least someone must have complained…..

          • SeeItMyWay

            I just want the truth brought forth. Something is bad wrong when our investigative departments and congressional committees cannot or will not produce it.

          • WUSRPH

            You are asking for too much in too little time. It took two years for Watergate to blow open, but that was led up to by a continuing series of exposures. A thorough investigation—absent someone being a John Dean to break it open takes a very long time of careful backtracking of what a bunch of people did and what they said then and now. Congressional committees or the FBI do not have any magic truth serum,. All they can do is, like a policeman, piece thru the evidence and see where it takes them.

          • SeeItMyWay

            Our congressional investigative committees seem inept at best.

            As for Trump, if he has nothing to hide, he should have everyone in those meetings that leaks are coming out of take a lie detector test asking if they were the source of the leak, if they shared derogatory comments about the meeting with others, and if so, whom.

            Time for both Congress and the White House to cut to the chase.

          • José

            When I searched for articles to read the exact comments by President Obama, the first ones found were published columns that criticized or questioned his actions. So there’s that. And there is a significant difference between two. In one, a President spoke openly to the public, offering his opinion the facts of an investigation concerning another party. The other, a President whispering in private a request to halt an investigation against his own team, such that it is. After making those remarks Obama couldn’t easily fire Comey without it looking like retribution. Trump, of course, did fire Comey and his handlers lied about the real reason.

          • SeeItMyWay

            I have no idea what Trump actually said. Has anyone seen the memo?

          • SpiritofPearl

            Not yet, but all will be revealed eventually.

          • José

            No idea, or not proven to your satisfaction? Short of being in the room at the time (or hearing the recordings, if they exist) you’ll never know for absolutely positively sure. However…
            – The NYTimes report cites “two people who read the memo”.
            – Trump said that Comey told him three times that he was not being investigated.
            The common thread in the accounts is that the two men spoke and the topic was mentioned. I’m willing to accept that. However it seems completely implausible that the former FBI Director would be the one to broach the subject much less volunteer that he was not a target in the investigation, whereas it would be completely within the nature of this President to do so. I’ll suggest that the WH story with its denials are awfully shaky whereas the version more favorable to Comey is believable.

          • SeeItMyWay

            I’m just going on what I read and hear. All seem to report that he began his statement with “I hope…”. That is not demanding. It is like saying I hope it rains, or I hope my kid makes it home safe tonight. It is a note jotted down after the fact; it is a he said/he said with no concrete proof, short of a recording to verify exactly what transpired. There are questions, too, about how Comey handled the situation. Can we, in fairness, simply overlook all this and attempt to hang the guy? Those who want Trump hung will never stop for one second to consider one bit of this viewpoint.

          • José

            “Can we, in all fairness, simply overlook all this and attempt to hang the guy?”
            Heck, no! I don’t want to overlook anything. I want an independent prosecutor to head up an investigation into the whole shebang. Someone who cannot be fired by Trump or Sessions, someone who is not constrained by McConnell or Ryan. The whole process right now is tainted as can be and, if Trump and his enablers get their way, it will stay tainted.

          • SeeItMyWay

            I’m all for a special prosecutor, but as much as many wanted to hear the words from the FBI that there was collusion between the Russians and Trump’s staff to throw the election; as much as many want a statement from someone linking Trump to obstruction of justice, other than an “I hope “rumor”, there is nothing…unless you know something I don’t.

            Had Trump stood up in public, like Obama did, and said there is no “there” there, as he did on about three or four occasions while investigations were ongoing, Trump would have crucified.

            You seem to want to overlook this.

          • Jed

            Trump has done this daily since taking office.

            You seem to want (us) to overlook THAT.

          • SeeItMyWay

            He was simply quoting what Comey and others in the Intel community have said before congressional committees. Obama was broadcasting definitive statements before investigations had barely begun. I see a distinct difference.

          • Jed

            Unsurprisingly.

          • SeeItMyWay

            I wish you would introduce yourself by more than short sentence guipets.

          • Jed

            at least my short sentences are not intellectually dishonest.

          • Jed

            “i hope my kid makes it home tonight,” versus “i hope nothing happens to your kid if you don’t do as we ask.”

            no difference, right? they both start with “i hope,” after all.

          • SeeItMyWay

            Jeez. I’m just going by what the media is reporting, and even though they would prefer a smoking gun, all the have been able to quote is “I hope you will end up dropping this case against Flynn” or something close to it.

            You have something different? Someone saying it was more of a “I hope you know what’s good for you” message?

            Keep praying. Maybe your dreams will come true.

          • Jed

            “You have something different? Someone saying it was more of a “I hope you know what’s good for you” message?”

            context.

            “i hope you are happy in your new job” means something different when it comes from your boss or your mother.

            but i am glad you have started showing your true colors. i can’t stand the fake thoughtfulness. i much prefer sarcastic condescension.

          • SeeItMyWay

            I have figured out that people with a right lean posting here are few in number. Always been this way?

            Jed, I am going to encourage you to expend your pent up anger on someone else, b/c I’m not going to roll in the mud with you.

            Want to debate, bring it on; want to insult and get personal, don’t expect anything back.

          • Jed

            i already got what i wanted. you have outed yourself.

          • SeeItMyWay

            You are easy to please. Glad I could help out.

          • BCinBCS

            According to FBI ex-director Comey, this is what Comrade Trump/Bannon said: “I hope you can see your way clear to letting this go, to letting Flynn
            go, he is a good guy.
            I hope you can let this go.

          • SeeItMyWay

            Stupid, but an impeachable offense?

          • BCinBCS

            Uh yea. No one, including the president, can interfere or try to influence through power an investigation.

            Can you imagine the howls and rending that would have happened if a President Hillary Clinton had asked the same thing of Comey about a Benghazi or private e-mail server investigation? Faux News talking heads would be exploding.

          • SeeItMyWay

            As I’ve pointed out before, Obama did basically the same thing on numerous occasions by announcing Clinton innocent to the American public. You think that wasn’t a subtle message to all concerned in the Justice Dept and FBI? I think the two are about the same, with “I hope…” being the lessor on a “that’s bad” scale. Obviously, we have different viewpoints.

          • BCinBCS

            You think that wasn’t a subtle message to all concerned in the Justice Dept and FBI?

            Trump cleared the room before asking Comey to stop the investigation..so yea, Obama and Trump are exactly the same.
            /s

          • vjmassey

            There is done. None at all.

          • Jed

            one is obstruction of justice, another isn’t.

            any more sincere questions, sincere troll?

          • SeeItMyWay

            Who are you? Got anything to offer besides this?

  • nickthap

    Even a Senate dead-ender like Cornyn doesn’t want the gig. You’d have to be insane to take that job now. The Texas delegation ain’t lookin’ so hot these days, are they?

  • anonyfool

    I guess he will have to settle for being a yuge lobbyist on K street now.

  • TacoRub

    Like the devil not expressing interest in being Heaven’s admission director.

  • SpiritofPearl

    Forget the bathrooms. Texas should attend to its appalling rate of maternal mortality – highest in the nation and accelerating upward:

    http://www.governing.com/topics/health-human-services/gov-maternal-infant-mortality-pregnant-women-texas.html?AMP

  • WUSRPH

    If you are a praying person please do it now that Trump is off on is first foreign visits. Pray that he does not prove to be himself—-little things like declaring he is moving the embassy to Jerusalem just before he goes to Saudi Arabia and offering his left hand to a Saudi prince…..One report has him giving a speech on Islam….Heaven help us if he strays off he text…..

  • WUSRPH

    A handful of American presidents have had nicknames…usually describing some feature of their personality….For example, there was Old Hickory—Andrew Jackson which suggested that he was as tough as hickory wood….and “Old Rough & Ready” for Zachery Taylor and “Honest Abe” for Abraham Lincoln and “Silent Cal” for Calvin Coolidge…….Trump seems well on is way to getting his own nickname—“The Crybaby President” for all his whining about how everyone is mistreating him.

    • José

      Presumably you’re referring to his most recent tantrum at the Coast Guard Academy. Shameful. Our service people deserve so much better.
      History will not be kind to him.

      • WUSRPH

        I’ll feel sorry for him when people started accusing him of scheming to have a foreign nation attack our nation as they did FDR or blowing up the World Trade Center as an “inside plot” to weaken America or being a secret Muslim out to turn our country over the terrorists….Or even the kinds of things they said about Eisenhower (“willing dupe of the international communist conspiracy”) or LBJ (had Kennedy murdered) or the personal attacks on Jefferson, Adams and Lincoln… Till then I say: “Grow up little boy. Stop crying and do something.. This is serious business and you’ve brought most of it on yourself.”

      • SeeItMyWay

        You referring to his statement about being the most criticized President ever? While whining about it certainly isn’t presidential, he may be right. In my lifetime, this is certainly true.

        • WUSRPH

          You have apparently not lived very long……

          • SeeItMyWay

            In all due respect, in my mind, that is a wiseass response.

          • WUSRPH

            True, but it also reflects your apparent lack of attention to what was said about Clinton, GW Bush and Obama……..much less the history of presidents. What has been said about Trump—much of which he stirred up by his own Tweets—hardly compares to what was said about them—-including a lot by Trump himself.
            Now that we’ve gotten a special prosecutor we may start to get those answers you say you want. Let us hope they are ones you accept.

          • Jed

            *now* do you see you’re being trolled?

          • Jed
        • José

          We could have a nice chat about how Presidents were treated poorly and how much each had to blame on himself. But we will NOT have a polite debate about whether it’s acceptable for a President to stand before public servants, during an occasion that is dedicated to honor them, and instead whine and complain about himself. No.

          • SeeItMyWay

            I get it. You hate him. It was crass. He is crass. You cannot impeach a President for being rude and inconsiderate and egotistical, nor for say, “I hope…”.

          • José

            I hate him. It was crass. He is crass. True x 3. You cannot impeach a President for being rude and inconsiderate and egotistical. True, thank goodness! But that’s hardly the whole story. There are other factors, valid reasons for believing that Trump should be removed from office, fairly and legally. Responsibly, in fact.

          • SeeItMyWay

            Reasons? Factual, substantiated reasons for impeachment? I have not seen them yet. Perhaps we will.

  • WUSRPH

    Things are hearing up at the Capitol with Patrick threatening to hold his breath and force a special session if he doesn’t get a whole list of things…….Not that unusual for there to be unhappiness at the way things are going when the pressure of how little time is left becomes acute…..but he’s more likely to deliberately sabotage the really important things—such as the only budget—just to get his way……Punishing transgenders is apparently more important to him than running the state.

    • SeeItMyWay

      Agree. Is Straus the only sane leader we have in Austin? I think so. This coming from a guy who had no extra college credits in philosophy or humanities…so I could be wrong. 🙂

      • WUSRPH

        I think Straus is better than Patrick or Abbott when it comes to the primary responsibility of the Legislature—adopting a budget to run the State. He is more “fiscally responsible” than them for sure. BUT, as I have said several times lately, generally the House under Straus winds up passing much of the same legislation I consider objectionable and against the best interests of the future of this state. Even when he does not (as in the possible case of Patrick’s fixation with the “bathroom bill”) Straus differs from Patrick not on whether the state should discriminate against transgenders but on whether that will harm the state’s economy. And, I might note that was the House, not the Senate, that amended the adoption bill to authorize discrimination on the grounds of the religious beliefs of the proposed adoptive parents. I guess you it all is a matter of image….with Straus being a much more “business oriented conservative” while Patrick cares more (or at least exploits) the “social issues”.

        • SeeItMyWay

          Here’s how I see it.

          Patrick pushes everything that that the special interests want. Empower Texans loves him; Texans for Lawsuit Reform loves him; every TP loaded district GOP Precinct loves him; every current GOP senator seems to kowtow to him. He is a power to be reckoned with.

          Unfortunately, he has no real intellect. He thrives on his ability to fire up his supporters with red meat issues as he did his radio talk show audience. He is the Peter Principle personified.

          Straus, is low key; he is a strategist; he listens to his allies, and formulated a gameplan accordingly. He is much more intelligent than Patrick.

          Straus’s problem is that he represents the moderates who are not really into politics. This group of registered voters is much larger than any numbers Patrick can bring to the table.

          The big difference is the fact that the moderates are asleep at the wheel. That is changing a bit, I think.

          • WUSRPH

            The sad reality is that the “Social Issue” advocates and those like Patrick who actually hate government have been gaining strength election-by-election of some years now…And, contrary to your hopes, I see little evidence that will change in the 2018 GOP primaries.

            Straus, in many ways, represents the old “business conservatives” whose primary concern was that the government be as limited as possible but that it provide enough basic services to insure a populace at least as educated as the level you desire to work in their businesses. That required a degree of public education and public welfare and health care. Beyond that, they favored a limited amount of arts and humanities and “culture” because it made for a pleasanter society and made it easier to attract outsiders. They also saw government as a tool to achieve their ends—-as in my old saying that the motto of the modern conservative businessman is “All I want from government is a fair advantage.”—but they really did not care about “social issues” other than when they infringed upon their businesses.

            Straus’ problem is that the GOP has shifted away from those, its traditional purposes, and become infatuated with the concept that government, beyond defense and once delivering the mail, is the enemy of their social and theological views and prejudices. He has reacted to this movement by giving way on issues like abortion (when his wife was once a member of Planned Parenthood) and, this session sanctuary cities. But so far has not been willing to follow Patrick into regulating the use of bathrooms and abolishing public education and other issues that run counter to the interests of business but that ignite more voters in the primary. How much further he must yield is now the question….

          • SeeItMyWay

            It is really hard for someone like me to decide who you dislike most. I just got here.

            Who are you? What is your background?

            You seem to have a great take on what’s going on in Austin and D.C.

            Although I obviously disagree with you on some issues, I want to know where you are coming from. I have already told you about me.

          • WUSRPH

            Patrick, of course,

  • WUSRPH

    Anybody remember:

    “nattering nabobs of negativism”?

    The more things change, the more they…..

  • WUSRPH

    So we’re getting a “special prosecutor” after all…….Somebody else who will misunderstand, mistreat and lie about or beloved leader. I hope this guy is more of an Archibald Coz and Leon Jaworski than a Kenneth Starr.

    • SeeItMyWay

      You think Mueller is a lackey? I’m asking; I don’t know.

      • WUSRPH

        Don’t know….I guess we will see. Of course, millions will be unsatisfied whether he finds something wrong or not. The country is just so divided that is guaranteed. There were even a few still defending Nixon at the end (some still do) but at least a vast majority agreed it was past time for him to be gone. I question whether that will happen this time. I also fear that, if Mueller finds real evidence against Trump and/his campaign, Trump will continue to fight it…..creating a real possibility of a constitutional crisis.

        • SeeItMyWay

          Talk about taking to the streets. I think his true believers remain true believers. I voted for him. At this point, I am certainly not proud of the fact, and think Pence would make a much better President. I will not, however, join the angry crowd who is screaming “crucify him” without just and legal cause. It may be forthcoming.

          The press and their unnamed sources means nothing to me, and will not in an impeachment proceeding. Surely, you understand this.

          • WUSRPH

            My hope is that there will be firm evidence either way. Leaving it in a “we cannot really tell” situation would only make things worse. But It is possible that we will not know the real “answer” to whether the Trump campaign coordinated actions with the Russians for many years. Sometimes it can take years to “prove” something, long after those involved are gone. A good example is the Nixon campaign’s clearly treasonous acts to block a Paris Peace Conference just before the 1968 elections. Many “knew” they had done it….but it was only this year that definite confirmation emerged in the form of a memo in Bob Haldeman’s files. Let us hope we don’t have to wait that long for something to fall out of Flynn’s files.

          • SeeItMyWay

            If it does take that long, something is bad wrong. Something is bad wrong now. Our intelligence departments are failing us. Do you have faith in them?

            Unnamed source leaks plagued our last President, but they were not national security issue leaks.

            Many have it out for Trump, but that is no excuse for going a step further into classified subject leaks. Is it?

            Conversations with every head of state he talks to? You agree with this? Think it is OK?

            If I was Trump, or Obama for that matter, as I stated in an earlier post, would subject everyone on staff, from top to bottom, to a lie detector test. Anyone refusing would be summarily dismissed. In drastic times, one has to take drastic measures.

          • WUSRPH

            As to the Nixon case. It only took that long to be able to put a piece of paper evidence in someone’s hands. The CIA knew at the time from its “sources” but they could not be revealed with endangering them…..LBJ was informed…..but he felt that Humphrey, who was closing fast, might still win and did not want to inject the issue into the closing days of the campaign. Afterwards, with Nixon having won the election by less than ONE PERCENT, LBJ felt that it were hurt the country to reveal it…..
            Today it is highly likely that the CIA/NSA and the “intelligence community” has “good” intelligence on what the Russians did in the election and what Trump’s campaign did, if anything. BUT it cannot reveal it for similar reasons UNLESS someone in a legal position to compel them to do so requires it. Needless-to-say, the Trump Administration and Atty. Gen. Sessions were not going to do that……that could explain a few of the leaks as persons in the intelligence community took it upon themselves to try to force an investigation. That is only an assumption, of course.
            Whether they should do that is questionable.. If they are doing it, they are doing it because they probably believe that it is in the “best interests” of the country and the world to do so. But you have to be somewhat concerned about people who act on such a basis since it can undermine the government that they serve. It a tough ethical and moral question….I am only glad that I am not in a position to have to make that decision.
            As to what action Trump should take. That probably depends on what he might or might not have to fear. If he has nothing to fear from a John Dean or an Alexander Butterfield, it would be natural for him to take strong steps to clean house of those within the Administration who are leaking. On the other hand, it might not. Again, I don’t know what the answer is….but I hope we find out soon.

  • WUSRPH

    Something just struck me…..Has anybody noticed how long it has been since we have seen one of those little entries telling us that someone’s post has been blocked? Did TM change their program so they just don’t show up or has CA and his ilk gone away? I don’t think I’ve seen a post with by the blocked notice that could have been him since JJ retired from the field.

    • BCinBCS

      Adaway, J.Johnson and the Troll don’t seem to be posting here anymore.
      I have begun blocking those get-rich-quick Google ads so I see that blocked announcement but none other.

      • WUSRPH

        JJ said he was leaving…..but I don’t know if CA/Troll did one of his “my job here is finished” since I never read him.

        • Jed

          i think he realized that everyone had blocked him, so he wasn’t getting the desired reaction anymore.

          • BCinBCS

            Yea Jed, that seems plausible. I noticed that there were hardly ever any replies to his (blocked) comments. It’s too bad that he could not articulate a coherent post, instead having to resort to being a RWNJ reposting troll.

      • WUSRPH

        I tried an experiment on the new thread by deliberately blocking a particularly crude post. It showed up with the “blocked” notice….so I guess it really is that they are gone (for now at least)…..I cannot say I will miss them since I was blocking them anyway….

        • BCinBCS

          JJ had joined the Cult of Trump™ so deeply that I suspect that he may be too embarrassed to post here anymore.

          • Jed

            i’m quite sure he’s not embarrassed. he probably just got tired of fielding the “just one last time” questions about whether/when he will recant his support.

            which he clearly won’t, because he is a clueless racist, just like the rest of them. clueless racists have no reason to be disappointed in trump, because that is one thing he can clearly deliver on.

            but JJ couldn’t very well say that, so he just went away. with any luck, they will *all* go back into their holes for good, and we won’t have to go through this ever again.

          • BCinBCS

            Jed, I never got the impression that JJ was a racist. He seemed to be yet another scared white guy (I realize that can have a racist component i.e. Muslims but I never detected overt racism.)

          • Jed

            “Jed, I never got the impression that JJ was a racist.”

            sorry. not sure what you’ve been reading.

            you must have missed all his rants about how crime stats indicate that minorities are more violent and less moral, and how social services stats suggest minorities are more lazy, or how obama was the WPE just because he did all the same stuff as every other president, but there is this one difference that JJ just can’t quite explain … etc.

            but you didn’t even need to see that. all you need to know is that he voted trump.

            anyone who can vote for someone who ran such a racist campaign is (at best) willing to overlook overt racism in order to achieve some other, selfish, political end, which makes them, ipso facto, a racist (and a greedhead).

            yes, they really are deplorable. every last one of them. but JJ wasn’t even shy about it.

          • BCinBCS

            I do see your point.

  • WUSRPH

    The “ride share” bill is on its way to Abbott…I wonder if they had to spend as much to get it through the Legislature as they did in losing the election they forced in Austin? $10 million is a lot of extra cash to have lying around.

    • Kozmo

      Smash Uber!

  • Kozmo

    My feeling is that Cornyn lacks the brass to put himself on the line when a matter of principle might come between his love of privilege and unswerving loyalty to the Party. He may as well be an old-style Communist (same goes for most of the modern Republican Party in and out of Texas). In the eyes of such men and women, the good of the Party comes before the good of the citizens or the public.

  • WUSRPH

    Trump and the “greatest witch hunt”. Everything that happens to Trump has to be the “greatest”, “the biggest”, “the best”, the “largest” (hands, etc.)….even the bad stuff…..What an ego problem.

    P.S. Some of those who were chased by the witch hunters were actually witches or thought they were..

  • WUSRPH

    As anyone noticed that “Burnt Orange Report” seems to have finally died? There has been no new thread or post since the middle of March. I guess when they graduated and had responsibilities beyond that of a college student its UT student founders were unable to spend the time to keep it alive.

  • WUSRPH

    Since when did the US starting allowing foreign agents to come out of their embassy and get in fights with protestors? All involved should be declared persona non grata and banned from the US or reentering it….Tell what’s his name that next time he comes he will have to bring a different group of thugs.

    • BCinBCS

      They probably thought that the rules against protesting in Turkey were the same here. Too bad that more people do not know about our Bill of Rights and how seriously most Americans take it.

      • Jed

        “Too bad that more *Americans* do not know about our Bill of Rights and how seriously (some) Americans take it.”

        fixed it for you.

  • WUSRPH

    Did you notice the subtle shift in Trump’s denial of “collusion” with the Russians? He is now saying there was none he knows of but that he is speaking only about himself.

  • WUSRPH

    Hope Trump does not come back for Saudi Arabia convinced that those guys really know how to run a country……Of course, when you think that you—individually and as a family—literally OWN the country you tend not to worry about little things like criticism in the media and investigations….cuz they aren’t any.

  • WUSRPH

    Hey, JJ, if you are watching….Remember that Glass-Stegall Act you love so much?….Remember how you said Trump would bring it back? Well, here’s what you are going to get:

    He loves it…he just won’t do it.

    http://tinyurl.com/kao6osf

    • BCinBCS

      SMH

      The Trump administration showed its now-routine sense for the absurd when Mnuchin said it
      supports a 21st-century Glass-Steagall Act ― referring to an updated
      version of the the Depression-era regulation that separated commercial
      and investment banks ― but also opposes any bill separating commercial
      and investment banks.

      That’s doubleplus good Newspeak!

      • SeeItMyWay

        Wow! This administration really knows how to screw the pooch. Let’s see how much press coverage this gets. Think there will be much blowback by those who voted for him? I know I’m getting weary of the 180’s.

        • BCinBCS

          Blowback?
          As Trump said: “I could stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody” and not “lose any voters.”

        • Jed

          No.

  • BCinBCS

    It is unwise to comment or complain about things on which you have absolutely no information.

  • Jed

    Yes, I call racists racists.

    I know, totally cruel.

    • SeeItMyWay

      Sorry, I have no basis for criticism of your comments about others since I never saw what this JJ and the others you pound on offered up. I do know that your recent comments to me are overtly pointed and borderline rude. I can take it; I just wonder why you are so angry and cannot respond in a civil manner.