Joe Biden comes right out and says that he thinks Donald Trump is being controlled by Vladimir Putin.

(The pertinent portions starts at the 5:25 mark.)

Courtesy of Addicting Info: 

As everyone else avoids directly addressing what is going on with Donald Trump and Russia, former Vice President Joe Biden just doesn’t seem to feel the need to mince words. 

MSNBC’s Andrea Mitchell asked Biden on Thursday why Trump was “so reluctant to take on Vladimir Putin” — and she got an answer she probably was not expecting. 

“Look, you know, I want to give every American, including the president, the benefit of the doubt, but I can’t fathom any reason other than he is concerned of what Putin might say or do, or what information he may or may not have,” Biden said, adding that the Trump administration was not making a sufficient effort to prevent Russia from again interfering in our elections. 

“But look, unrelated to the whole issue of whether or not there’s collusion, separate and apart from all that, it’s necessary for us to stem this problem,” he told Mitchell. “It’s necessary for us to corral the Russians.”

Leave it to Joe "This is a big fucking deal" Biden to come right out and say what so many of us know to be true.

Yes, Donald Trump is an asset for the Kremlin.

And EVERY American, without regard to party affiliation or ideology, should be demanding that he be removed from office.

I would also add that any American NOT calling for that is essentially a traitor to their country, and that includes every Republican in Washington working to undermine the FBI or to obstruct the Mueller investigation. 

Donald Trump uses former DNI James Clapper's statements as proof there is no collusion with Russia, Clapper refuses to let him get away with that.

Director Clapper reiterated what everybody, including the fake media already knows- there is "no evidence" of collusion w/ Russia and Trump.

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) May 8, 2017

When James Clapper himself, and virtually everyone else with knowledge of the witch hunt, says there is no collusion, when does it end?

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) May 12, 2017

So the tweets up above are what Trump has been using to convince the public that he is in the clear and there is no evidence of wrongdoing on his part.

However that is highly inaccurate as Vox points out in their article yesterday.

First off here is what James Clapper actually said to the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee:

In our intelligence community assessment, we made the point that we could not make that call. The intelligence community has neither the authority, the expertise or the resources to make that judgment. The only thing we said was we saw no evidence of influencing voter tallies at any of the 50 states. But we were not in a position to judge whether — what actual outcome on the election.

You will notice that this is specifically talking about the Russians affecting the voter tallies directly, NOT whether they influenced the outcome through their use of propaganda, and says nothing about collusion.

So yesterday Clapper goes on MSNBC and gets a little more specific.

Here is the transcript of his remarks: 

Well, it might be useful, first, to explain the unique position that the FBI occupies in that it straddles both intelligence, as a part of the intelligence community and law enforcement. 

My practice during the six and a half years that I was at DNI was always to defer to the director of the FBI, be it Director Bob Mueller or Director Jim Comey on whether, when, and what to tell me about a counterintelligence investigation when the possibility was there that this could devolve into some sort of a criminal investigation. 

So I left it to the judgment of the FBI and that was certainly the practice I followed here. But that was consistent with what I did during the whole six and a half years. 

So it's not surprising or out of — or abnormal that I would not have known about the investigation, or, even more importantly, the content of that investigation. 

So I don't know if there was collusion or not. I don't know if there is evidence of collusion or not, nor should I have in this particular context.

Clapper goes on to say, quite definitively, that though there was no evidence of collusion that found it's way into that Intelligence Community Assessment which was released confirming that the Russians meddled in our election, that it does not mean there wasn't any evidence.

So essentially Clapper kneecapped Trump's argument that Clapper's words had vindicated him that all of this is nothing but a witch hunt.

Bernie Sanders claims that he is not only fighting Hillary Clinton in the primaries, but the "entire Democratic establishment." Wait, isn't that the party that he wants to represent in the general election?

Courtesy of The Daily Beast: 

“Isn't the bottom line between you and Hillary Clinton and who would be the stronger candidate, that she is now fighting a war on two fronts, getting beaten up by Donald Trump on a daily basis?” Mitchell asked. She noted that despite the fact that Trump has now introduced a new “Crazy Bernie” nickname for the Vermont senator, “he has been embracing you, building you up, he likes the fact that you’re taking her down.” 

“So she’s fighting Donald Trump, she’s fighting Bernie Sanders,” the host continued as Sanders interrupted her with a plea of “one second, one second, one second.” He cut her off just as she began to say that the war on two fronts is “depressing” Clinton’s overall support. 

When Mitchell continued to argue that Clinton is being forced to take on two candidates when he only has to challenge one, Sanders let out a sharp laugh and replied, “Oh, really? Really? In every state that we have won, in 19 states, we have had to take on the entire Democratic establishment. We’ve had to take on senators and governors and mayors and members of Congress. That’s what we have taken on, so please do not moan to me about Hillary Clinton’s problems.”

Sanders then added this, " I'm in this race to win. We're taking on the Democratic establishment."

But isn't that kind of Andrea Mitchell's point?

If Bernie Sanders is not only fighting Hillary Clinton, the eventual nominee, but also the party that she represents by referring to them as "the Establishment" how does that make the Democrats, and their nominee, stronger in the general?

You know it really sounds as if Sanders is still stuck in the sixties and continues to spend his days railing against "The Man,"  just like the counter culture hippies did back when they were protesting Vietnam and arguing for equality for all.

Instead of recognizing the hard work the Democratic party has done on behalf of working men and women, minorities, and children in this country to gain that equality, he instead paints them with the same wide brush that he uses to paint the Republicans.

It seems fairly clear that rather than celebrating all the Democratic party has achieved since the 1960's Sanders simply wants to chastise them for not accomplishing more, while refusing to recognize that the Republicans have been fighting the Democrats every step of the way.

If Bernie Sanders is so unhappy with the Democratic party, then why in the hell does he pretend he wants to represent them in the general election against Donald Trump?

Andrea Mitchell on Donald Trump: "He is completely Uneducated About Any Part of the World." Well somebody's going to get a nasty tweet now aren't they?

Andrea Mitchell was not the only journalist to express shock at Trump's lack of knowledge concerning world affairs, here is how Eugene Robinson responded to that Washington Post interview: 

Donald Trump’s ignorance of government policy, both foreign and domestic, is breathtaking. The Republican Party is likely to nominate for president a man who appears to know next to nothing about the issues that would confront him in the job.

Here is the transcript of the interview, just in case you think these journalists are exaggerating. But I warn you, some of your brain cells may not survive the experience.

James Carville calls out both Trey Gowdy and the Benghazi Committee as creations of the Koch brothers.

Carville: "I got an idea for somebody in the media. Why don't you see if this is true, that Trey Gowdy is a creation of the Koch brothers, and the whole crime of denial industry. And this committee is nothing but a creation of Rupert Murdoch and the Koch brother. You know Fox ran over one thousand segments in twenty months after this thing."

I think we all know that Carville is big supporter of the Clintons, and just about as partisan as they come.

However he just issued a challenge to the media to prove him wrong, let's see if they take him up on it.

I think we all suspect what they will find.

In other news top Democrats are now calling for Republicans to reimburse the tax payer money that they wasted on this most recent "investigation."

Courtesy of HuffPo: 

Top Senate Democrats want to shut down the House Benghazi committee amid allegations it seeks to attack Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign. And they want Republicans to reimburse taxpayers for the committee's more than $4.5 million cost. 

The senators, including Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), accused the GOP Wednesday of "operating a political opposition machine against Secretary Clinton," and called the House Select Committee on Benghazi's use of taxpayer funds "wholly inappropriate." 

"Over the past several weeks, several House Republicans have made clear what many observers have suspected all along: that the Select Committee has conducted a political inquisition aimed at former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton," the senators wrote in a letter to Republican National Committee chairman Reince Priebus. 

"We firmly believe the Committee should be disbanded, and that every penny of taxpayer money that has financed this purely political committee ought to be repaid," the letter continued.

Hear, hear!

Tomorrow Clinton steps into the lions' den essentially wearing fang proof armor.

Not only should that be a show well worth watching I think it might also be the Benghazi committee's last hurrah.

(H/T to Democratic Underground.)

Watching the Hillary Clinton interview on MSNBC right now. Update!

I have to say that while I am convinced that Hillary did not break the law, she is not coming off  as terribly believable here.

I don't really like Andrea Mitchell as a rule, but she is holding Hillary's feet to the fire here.

Already asked Hillary about being perceived as a liar, and is now asking her about her likability deficit. Hillary answers like a policy wonk, instead of with an emotional response.

Hillary refuses to answer questions about Joe Biden.  That is smart on her part.

Hillary is now defending the Iran deal. And explaining how she will enforce it, and expand upon it, when she is elected President.

Calls Donald Trump's campaign an "unfortunate development in American politics."

Hilary: Trump great at "innuendo, conspiracy theories and defaming people."

A few tweets:

Hillary turned the question about being careful with her words on its head! That is why HRC will be the next President #Hillary2016

— So. DSM for Hillary (@SoDSM4Hillary) September 4, 2015

Clinton: "I advocated for a more robust response when Assad began slaughtering his own people" #Hillary2016 #MSNBC

— Culture of Truth (@Bobblespeak) September 4, 2015

Hillary now talking about women's rights. This is her strong suit.

Damn, Andrea is asking Hillary if she is worried that this nomination is slipping away, again. Even mentioned the tears on the 2008 campaign trail.

Okay the interview is over, and I think overall Hillary did well. She was controlled, consistent, and confident.

Updatge: Hillary's response on the e-mails. (This took place before I started live blogging.):  

She explained that she had used a personal email account as a senator from New York and didn't spend much time considering alternatives when she became secretary of state in 2009. "I did all my business on my personal email [in the Senate]," Clinton said. "I was not thinking a lot when I got in [to the State Department]. There was so much work to be done. We had so many problems around the world. I didn't really stop and think what kind of email system will there be." 

"This was fully above board, people knew I was using a personal email, I did it for convenience. I sent emails that I thought were work related to people's dot gov accounts," she added.

I am not sure that it will placate many critics (Actually I know it won't.), but it seems that not thinking about the personal e-mail and how it might be perceived by others will ultimately be her explanation and defense.

Watching Darrell Issa squirm over new revelations about Benghazi.

The above was the exchange between David Grefgory, Andrea Mitchell, and a clearly uncomfortable Darrell Issa. Transcript courtesy of Mediaite:

“You’ve said repeatedly that it was al Qaeda,” Gregory said. “The reason that matters is that you and other critics said that the president specifically won’t acknowledge that it was al Qaeda because it was an election year and he wants to say that after bin Laden [al Qaeda] has been decimated, and it would make him look bad if it as al Qaeda.” 

“Al Qaeda is not decimated and there is a group there involved that is linked to al Qaeda,” Issa replied. “What we never said—and I didn’t have the security to look behind the door, that’s for other members of Congress—of what the intelligence were on the exact correspondence with al Qaeda, that sort of information—those sorts of methods I’ve never claimed.” 

“Why use the term al Qaeda?” Mitchell asked, somewhat rhetorically. “Because you and other members of Congress are sophisticated in this and know that when you say al Qaeda, people think central al Qaeda. They don’t think militias that may be inspired by bin laden and his other followers. So it is a hot button, for political reasons, from the administration’s view.” 

“But Andrea, it was accurate,” Issa responded. “There was a group that was involved that claims an affiliation with al Qaeda. Now, al Qaeda is not a central command and control. It was, in fact, a loose group that could take general statements and act on them…The fact is people from this administration, career professionals, have said under oath there was no evidence of any kind of a reaction to a video and, in fact, this was a planned attack that came quickly. That’s the evidence we have by people who work for the U.S. government and were under oath.” 

Issa is a slippery POS but he is caught repeatedly during this exchange in lie after lie, and simply changes the focus every time he is cornered.

By the way his contention that the video was not "widely seen in Benghazi" at the time of this attack is essentially irrelevant. It only had to have been seen, or at least heard about, by the actual attackers.

And that fact is reported in the New York Times piece: 

The violence, though, also had spontaneous elements. Anger at the video motivated the initial attack. Dozens of people joined in, some of them provoked by the video and others responding to fast-spreading false rumors that guards inside the American compound had shot Libyan protesters. Looters and arsonists, without any sign of a plan, were the ones who ravaged the compound after the initial attack, according to more than a dozen Libyan witnesses as well as many American officials who have viewed the footage from security cameras.

So though a rather unspecific attack HAD been in the planning stages before the assault, it was the anger over the video that provided the spark.

Now Susan Rice did not yet have the information about nonspecific plans for an attack, all she knew as that there were no direct ties to al-Qaeda at the time she went on TV in an attempt to head off a full frontal attack from the Right during an election year.

This is what she said:  

MS. RICE: Well, Jake, first of all, it’s important to know that there’s an FBI investigation that has begun and will take some time to be completed. That will tell us with certainty what transpired. 

But our current best assessment, based on the information that we have at present, is that, in fact, what this began as, it was a spontaneous — not a premeditated — response to what had transpired in Cairo. In Cairo, as you know, a few hours earlier, there was a violent protest that was undertaken in reaction to this very offensive video that was disseminated.

As it turned out there was no evidence of any protests outside this compound, but based on reports around the world of similar occurrences, and the limited eyewitness accounts at this time, there is every reason to believe the administration was relating what they believed to have taken place in good faith.

What the Republicans did in response, was anything but in good faith.

And what Darrell Issa did in particular should be categorized as either criminal or treasonous behavior. 

Chris Matthews, Andrea Mitchell, and Michael O'Hanlon provide the best breakdown of the just released Benghazi inquiry report that I have seen so far.

Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Apparently this report is rather convoluted but essentially it dispels the notion that the Ambassador's request for additional security measures was ignored, refutes that there was more that could have been done after the attack began to protect him, and lays most of the responsibility for the “grossly inadequate” security arrangements solely at the feet of the State Department. Which has resulted in the resignation of three officials.

I am sure that the Right Wing will do their utmost to find something damning to use against the President and Hillary Clinton in the report but as of right now it appears their talking points lack credibility and will ultimately fall on deaf ears.

First post for this War on Contraception Friday: Rick Santorum's financial backer wiggles his little chauvinist pig tail at Andrea Mitchell. .

Perhaps this idiot is unaware that men also have a responsibility during the sex act, and that if a child is the result they should not have the right to just walk away and pretend it did not happen.

I can tell you right now that if men could get pregnant contraception would be freely available, and there would be NO abortion debate.

(H/T to TPM.)

"Rolling Thunder" spokesman concerning Sarah Palin's hijacking of their event: "She is not invited to speak. We are not endorsing her. But we can't stop her from coming to ride, if she wants to ride."

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

I don't think that this time Sarah Palin is going to be able to steal THIS particular group's thunder.

I do not think it could be ANY clearer that these people simply do not want her around.

But does anybody think she will get the hint?

Andrea Mitchell interviews Sarah Palin. Get ready for some more "word salad"! With a side order of "WTF"?

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

"Everytime we do something we get hit with an ethics violation charge or a lawsuit". You know Governor if you conduct yourself ethically those things don't happen! Just thought you should know.

"Thousands and thousands of hours in state time, and millions of dollars in state resources to continually fend off these frivolous and wasteful ethics violations." Of course the Personnel Board just released the total cost of dealing with these ethics charges and it was not even $300,000. And yet the Governor continues to allege that it is costing the state MILLIONS of dollars. It is like she is allergic to reality. (Which by the way makes me doubt that her figure of spending 500 thousand to fight these charges is accurate either. I mean once you start lying....)

By the way what "political game" is being played by finishing out your term? Can anyone answer that question?

You know if the goal was to show some kind of family unity to dispel rumors that there were "Other problems to cause her to resign" perhaps they should have had more children in the video then just Piper and Trig. Didn't Palin "tweet" that her kids were in Bristol Bay during her emergency press conference? (As has been the case for decades, family is commercial fishing in Bristol Bay-I look forward to joining the work crew for 1 day picking fish) Where are they?

"My focus is on my state and it always will be." God I cannot tell how much I want Sarah Palin to focus on something else. Please lady have you not done enough?

You know speaking of of being in your own reality I also read soemthing kind of bizarre in an ADN article today. After a reporter talked about criticism toward Sarah from Lisa Murkowski (Sen. Lisa Murkowski said after Palin's resignation that she was "deeply disappointed that the governor has decided to abandon the state and her constituents before her term has concluded."), the Governor responded with this:

"The double standard that's applied here is a bit perplexing. ... Didn't Lisa Murkowski leave office to go take her dad's seat? (Govs.) Huntsman left, Napolitano just left ... ," Palin said, referring to governors who took positions in President Obama's administration.

It seems like Plain simply cannot discern the difference between quitting to take another position in government and just up and quitting for no well defined reason. It really makes me wonder just how mentally unhinged she might truly be.

By the way there is another rumor swirling as to why Palin quit. If it turns out to be valid it will be a doozy. Stay tuned kids.

Update: "If I die, I die. So be it." You have GOT to see this ABC News video where Palin makes the accusation that her problems stem from "opposition researchers" that "bombarded Alaska"trying to dig up dirt on her since the campaign. Is she talking about the Alaska bloggers? And does she not understand the difference between "concerned citizen" and "political operatives"?

Andrea Mitchell, veteran correspondent vs Meg Stapleton, lying little bitch. Lay down your bets gentlemen.

Meg Stapleton learns the hard way that Andrea Mitchell is not susceptible to spin.

Clearly Stapleton is a person completely devoid of any sense of decency, and like most Republican toadies she will say ANYTHING to cover for her employer.