I apologize if your comments were not especially directed at black youth, especially males. I drew the wrong conclusion given you said:
“The kids- especially males- deeply resent the idea of going to school and show that by their drop-out rates, especially among blacks. So, those males drop out by the thousands, go thumping about all their lives as unemployable, dangerous loads on society demanding *entitlements* the liberal/progressives are only too willing to give them so to 'hook' them on free shat just like how their drug lords will 'hook' them on drugs.”

“…especially among blacks. So, those males drop out by the 1000s,…” is what I reacted to.

Regardless, as that group stood out among drop outs generally, some experience working with them as well as with students across the board would bear on one’s informed ability to comment, don’t you think? I am curious how much exposure you’ve had to adolescents and high-schoolers, in general and in the minority in education settings? I am curious where you get your information.

Maybe you missed it when I posted it, but I have 30 years’ experience teaching in all kinds of settings with all kinds of student populations, and working with internationally recognized leaders in science who’ve been on the cutting edge challenging institutional assumptions. I’ve had the good professional fortune to work with pioneers like the former chief of Brain Biochemistry at NIH, co-founder of the first Harvard Mind-Body Clinic, chairman of the Psychology Dept at Marquette University, Dean of Materials Science at Stanford, Dean of Academic Affairs at NASA Academy…not to mention the research available online and in my own work to apply new operating assumptions. My expertise is why I was invited into a struggling inner city school to work with the basketball team which became state champions and the players influenced a school turn-around, with the players at a 95% graduation rate in just the first 3 years.

By the way.. you wish to, again, elevate yourself above many others by declaring you have no purpose for rote learning which prompts me to elaborate by telling us just how you taught your kids their numbers, their letters, their speech, writing , etc., if not through rote?

First of all I said I wasn’t a fan of it, but that if it works for some it should be available. I twice was very clear about that. I am concerned it is too meaningless and mechanical. How is rote learning – the mechanical memorization of what kids need to remember for a test – not teaching to the test? And even if it’s NOT teaching to the tests, if it’s not working for millions of kids and if teachers themselves are complaining about it, why wouldn’t you want other options? Do you want a central authority dictating rote if teachers and students want something else that could work much better? You think faculty or teaching staff should have no say in how or what gets taught? Is that right?

I hope I already clarified that the use of repetition is warranted but rote is something else. It is a mechanization. I said I’m not a fan of rote or mechanical memorization. There is a difference between using repetition as part of the teaching/learning process and using rote memorization. Rote memorization is disconnected and boring for many if not most kids. There’s science and there’s student and teacher reports indicating that rote doesn’t fully engage students on many levels. How exactly is that “ultra liberal”?

Repetition includes a dimension of meaning and not just bare facts. The difference might be subtle but it’s there. The right brain is about subtleties.:)

"I answered your question. I don't have the time to do further research on phonics vs rote and I will be the first to admit that I know a lot but I don't know, or care to know, about everything. But I am happy to share my answers and opinions based on what I do know. If I've done the research and found solid evidence, with interdisciplinary and multi-demographic corroboration, and I can point out specific flaws in detractors' positions (while their efforts to debunk are sweeping generalizations, out of context citations, sketchy sources, attacks on diversionary things or people, and avoiding direct questions or substantive refutation)."


It is basic, no need for "educated" gobbledegook.
The results tell it ALL.
Results, Results, Results.
Reading was at the core of educational destruction.
Common Core is the latest insidious attack, on our public education system and our country.
The destruction of Public Education did not happen by stupidity.
An agenda has been in place by the Left/Liberal establishment.

What you fail to acknowledge or understand is the agenda;
Seeing the Forrest from the Trees.

Thirty years of teaching all kinds... really? How is that possible? From what I have learned about teachers, they are a sedentary lot respective of their locations and do not tend to gain 'teaching all kinds in all kinds of situations'...

Where I get my information is here: http://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=16 and in working with professional educators for 37 years. I left that to work in the 'judicial world'.

When one declares superiority from 'personal' experiences he/she should be very careful to not resemble the proverbial blind men describing that elephant.

I am concerned that al lot of the teaching 'professionals' to which you may have been exposed- and you may very well be one of them- are advocates of the 'Montessori School of what's happenin' now'. Kids are looked at as simpletons in need of perpetual care and in a sort of self-fulfilling way, the public school systems engineer programs to advance that very philosophy.

Perhaps, after your 30 years of experience in the schooling of our children, you could explain to someone as ill-educated as I exactly why the children of the graduating classes of the US public schools compare so dismally to almost all other societies in the basics? Our kids go to colleges which have 'dumbed-down' entrance requirements and instituted remedial programs teaching the kids basic material previous generations entered college knowing. Why is that, do you suppose?

S: “Also, your declaration that learning this or that involves only specific parts of the brain .. where did you get that discarded information? All the latest information counters the left/right hemisphere business because better evidence tells us when learning complex and even not-so-complex skills involves a lot of information sharing by many parts of the brain. The brain seems to have evolved since you last read about it.”

First of all, S., the assumption that because the brain acts like an integrated unit it therefore can’t have specialized functions, is flawed. By that logic, a soccer team can’t function as unit and also have specialized player positions. Is that right?

There may be the assumption that because the brain has the capacity to compensate if certain areas are damaged, that means there are no specialized functions. That makes about as much sense as thinking a hand isn’t specialized for things like turning door knobs because a foot can learn to do it.
Fact: When doing mindfulness or meditating, brain waves change. Fact: Certain areas see increased activity. That means a brain can be more or less activated. It’s not just on/off. Did you know that?

How do you reconcile the fact that certain activities or processes can heighten activity of the brain or engage otherwise not-very-active areas of the brain, with your belief we are using all of it all the time?

Where do I get my information? From various sources including:

Kevin Boehm Yale Scientific April 2012: "When children were shown images and asked to tell a story about them, function was lateralized strongly in the left hemisphere for over 90 % of participating children. However, when asked to listen to an emotional story, both hemispheres of the brain were activated to a similar degree...The stories the children listened to, unlike the pictures, were emotional, which may indicate that the observed involvement of the right hemisphere is linked to emotional regulation."

Exactly in keeping with the (according to you “outdated”) 2012 research, story-telling that activates imagination activates the right hemisphere and balances L and R engagement. How do you explain that with your ‘no specialization, the brain always works as one’ set of assumptions? Can you? Or did you just accept what you read on wiki?

Einstein’s corpus callosum connecting the left and right was as vibrant as a twenty something when they looked at his brain because he used both. Why do you think he said imagination is more important than knowledge? Or that intuition is more important than rational thought? (One can be non-rational without being irrational…another case of subtle but significant difference.)

If you think they are interchangeable and not specialized, why do you think the right brain has significantly more connectivity to the emotional/limbic system than the left? If they’re no different why not equal? Could you only venture a guess?

July 12, 2011 by Martha Burns, Ph.D the Science of Learning: "...Several neuroscientists have accordingly revised and expanded the early right-left dichotomy to see the right hemisphere as preferential in processing form, structure, and perhaps, direct links to emotion, while the left hemisphere handles complex, rapidly changing stimuli, in which discerning the specific sequential order is critical to perception (as in speech perception, for example, where one must discern and order very rapidly changing complex acoustic events very quickly.)…the right hemisphere is preferential for pattern analysis, and comes from developmental neuroscience which has reported research that supports the contention that for most cognitive skills the right hemisphere matures before the left"

Stroke Smart Magazine July/August 2007 AMAZING BRAIN Right vs. Left: What Does It Mean? By Jay Schneiders, PhD:
“In the case of tasks such as talking, listening, reading and writing, both sides of the brain constantly communicate and work together no matter what we think, feel or do. Still, the left side of the brain does process information differently from the right side. This is especially important to stroke survivors who have had a stroke on one side of the brain or the other."

Rational thinking (I use both) would look at the evidence and say that L and R have complementary functions ideally working together at a high level for optimal results. It’s not rational to assert that just because the brain is an integrated unit (of course it is), it therefore doesn’t have specialized functions. The center of a lacrosse team has a special role and is an integrated part of the team unit.

Please share a link to the current research and findings that you say debunk specialization? What are your sources? The one experiment I’m aware of that gets touted as BIG evidence, is quite lazy research. If you believe that one study makes your point without stopping to think, wow it’s just one study, or thinking, hey, they were measuring activity while someone was lying in an MRI tube. C’mon. That’s your gauge for evaluating full usage of the brain? Someone lying in a tube? But that’s the “evidence” that many use to show that the brain is integrated. You didn’t know that already?

Roger Sperry’s Nobel L/R brain research kept going with further verification of the nature of hemispheric specialization, and check out Harvard neuroanatomist Jill Bolte Taylor who knows the brain and experienced what life is like operating out of the hemisphere we subjugate.

You may cling to your dogma, but don’t think there aren’t lots of very credible scientists AND RESULTS that support all that I’m saying. Even an avowed detractor of the notion of hemispheric specialization in education was forced to concede there is definitely specialization. Which of course wholly undercut his claim of no bearing on education. He didn’t see that. He also didn’t see the hemispheric lateralization study of kids in the classroom from verbal to imagistic. That’s pretty solid evidence. Rote learning doesn’t engage enough of the brain. That’s why I’m discrediting it. Can you see that? How is it ultra-liberal? I want kids to learn and have many modalities available besides the mechanized memorization that I suffered through as a kid.

It's amazing that you would engage to argue about rote but express no interest in what could change a whole school in a struggling neighborhood, and unthinkingly dismisses research and findings that are both current and positively impactful.

If you answer even half the questions I ask I would consider reading your next reply...if one comes. If not we can make this goodbye :)

Hi Randy, Just as it was a crime to break into the Watergate offices to get information, hacking into computers to get information is illegal. There is obviously a lot of evidence that the Russians hacked or were aiders and abetters. Enough evidence that 17 intelligence agencies agreed there is reason to investigate.

There was an agreement to meet to receive damaging and illegally procured information. An agreement to meet so that the Russians could give valuable information for free (as a gift) to the Trump campaign. Jr agreed to the meeting with a fond “I love it!”. He was very much into entering the agreement to receive valuable information, illegally obtained, from a Russian lawyer with Russian govt and Russian intelligence ties.

It was a secret meeting...about which how many Trump campaign staff were deceitful? (What about honesty, integrity and honor?) What were they hiding if so innocent?

Russia is a hostile foreign govt. Trump and the campaign have Russian mob ties. There are many facts that have come out only when investigations uncover them...not because of Trump campaign integrity, honesty, or honor...or transparency. Honesty under duress is so diluted it's not honesty anymore. At best it's confession after getting caught red-handed, at worst it's another round of manipulation.

What were the agreements in those meetings that Flynn and Manafort had with the Russians that they deceived you into thinking they never had? And Sessions. Did you believe your sources that said they never met with the Russians (…before they changed it to never talked about the campaign or sanctions…before they changed it…)? Such honesty and integrity…are we tired yet of so much honesty, integrity and honor from Team Trump?

“Collusion can include secret price or wage fixing, secret rebates, or pretending to be independent of each other when actually conspiring together for their joint ends” but this leaves out – as seems to be a habit – a critical additional point (from the legal definition): or to obtain that which justice would not give them.

Maybe wiki and Webster are not as good a source for this as a legal dictionary? I guess it depends on whether you care about the quality of your source and the thorough quoting of all relevant aspects.

Legal definition: “Whose interests are apparently conflicting, to make use of the forms and proceedings of law in order to defraud a third person, or to obtain that which justice would not give them” To get hold of that which otherwise legally wouldn’t be available.

Randy: "Now the question remains, which part of Trump's side or even the Russians side, was a "deceitful agreement"? Where is the evidence to support,
1. an agreement?
2. the limitation of competition?
3. the defraud of/ or gain an unfair advantage or a third party with whom they are negotiating?
4. secret price? wage fixing? secret rebates? or pretending to be independent of each other when they are actually conspiring together for joint ends?

The prosecution must prove, beyond a reasonable doubt these questions. So, I am now asking them."

Please refer to my comments above. If you ask questions that sidestep the incriminating angles and aspects, you can conveniently ignore evidence for them.

You ask a lot of questions without answering mine. I stopped at a dozen that aren’t mere rhetoric but are important, relevant and appropriate. Dogmatists avoid directly responding to questions and will pivot and deflect or avoid totally. If there are questions of yours that aren’t rhetorical that I missed, I am happy to answer them if you repost.

Please first answer these dozen questions that you have ignored, or repost if already answered. Are you aware of what you overlook?

1) You didn’t answer why you only cited half the finding, leaving out 38,000 as the lower range [of non citizens who voted], and why did the report make it sound like Harvard had a finding of millions that it didn’t have? Weak, weak, weak sourcing. Just because you will cite any source doesn’t mean it’s automatically a credible source.

2) how about the fact of Trump's court filing to dismiss Stein' lawsuit? Her lawsuit was the only way a recount could take place...you don't think his attempt ("actual action") constitutes "one iota"? Is filing to stop a lawsuit an "action"? [You could not present any actual evidence that an entity or person not connected to Trump, the campaign, or the republican party was behind that action. No evidence, just assertion]

3) Where do you get your information that he wanted the recount and did nothing to block it? FOX News? [Truly I want to know]

4) And if you think Trump cares about saving tax payers' money, why does he go golfing every weekend or every other week if he is so concerned...to the tune of $20M in the first 100 days[?]

5) After referencing Forbes article "Trumps' family Trips Cost Taxpayers Nearly as Much in A Month as Obama's Cost in A Whole Year” I asked you Where the heck do you get your information [that Obama’s travel “extravagance” cost tax payers so much and that Trump is keeping his costs so low]? You are providing a great example of the disconnection your beliefs have to facts on the ground.

6) After referencing LA Times: "Trump and supporters ask courts to halt election recounts in Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin...", NY Times: "Trump Backers Go To Court To Block Vote Recounts in 3 States" and in that article "Michigan's attorney general, a Republican, filed suit to stop a recount in Wisconsin..." (Could have referenced more), I said/asked: Um...Trump and Republicans...and you wouldn't assume it was coordinated action (yes "action')? [What is your evidence that this is fake news?]

7) Randy, are you suggesting that a man who mocks the disabled, shames a tortured POW for being captured, insults a Gold Star mother and father, talks about grabbing women's pussies because he's a celebrity...the man who pretends he's a pr guy and pitches stories about himself to the gossip columnists has honesty, integrity and honor? The man who has put people out of business because he frequently decided to break contracts? The man who has out-of-the-ballpark more lawsuits than the TOP 5 real estate developers in the country COMBINED, the man whose buildings went up with undocumented labor, who had to close his foundation because it was not legally fit? Who never settles except when he does, like in the TRUMP U $25M fraud case (fraud), the man who doesn't want to show visitor logs and says there were no meetings with Russians, except that there were many meetings with Russians? The man who said he won with the greatest margin in history (far from the truth) and had more people at his inauguration than Obama (photos show that to be false)? The guy who called his time at work a sacrifice comparable to someone going to war or losing a child to war? Who didn't serve because he had bad feet? That guy has character traits of honesty, integrity and honor?

8) why you would leave off the fact that Clapper clarified he likely WOULDN'T have seen the evidence, to make the point he was not saying there was no evidence, but just that he hadn't seen any. Is that another sign of integrity? To leave out half the story?

9) I looked for the "widely reported" admission above of the Judge...could find nothing other than a FOX report stating "In his 31 page decision, US District Judge, Paul Diamond [an appointee or Republican President George W] there were at least 6 grounds that required him to reject the [recount]....Most importantly...compelling evidence that Pennsylvania's voting system was not in any way compromised."

11) Can you provide links to the Judge's "widely reported" admission [that he stopped the voting recounts in Pennsylvania because he was warned that in the heavy Democratic polling precincts that they had many more votes than they had registered voters…]?

12) Also can you provide links to the independent investigations that found millions of cases of voter fraud? (You only gave the name of an article and some manipulated references in the article. Got actual links to the alleged “independent investigations that found millions of cases of voter fraud”?)

Dogmatists like to avoid direct questions by asking more of their own. I’ve answered yours and won’t consider answering any new ones if you can’t answer mine from before. I need to wrap up early this evening and there are a few of these. Thanks!

According to you and Pete, I am not that experienced in critical thinking. According to both of you, my logic is misplaced. Is it so misplaced that now, I'm on board with the investigation? Perry Mason, Rod Sterling, Alfred Hitchcock, all used a famous line probably started by an old radio show called Dragnet, used a phrase when they wrote the characterisation of their investigators. This phrase was probably used either by Robert Kennedy or J. Edgar Hoover, which is what Dragnet was first describing in their radio show. The phrase is "Everyone is a suspect, until their ruled out."

What this means is that the following people and their people, are suspects:

1. Donald Trump and his entire administration, before and after the election
2. Hillary Clinton and her entire team
3. The RNC and the DNC
4. The Obama administration
5. Jeb Bush, Bernie Sanders, Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, and everyone that was on the 2016 ballot.
6. And all the people working for the above, to include Bill Clinton.
7. Loretta Lynch and the whole department of Justice under the Obama administration
8. Muller, James Comey, and the entire FBI department.
9. The list of people who worked on cyber-security from 2014-2016.
10. All the people who leaked government secrets from James Comey to the National Security Advisor of both administrations (Obama and Trump)
11. Sources of the media, and the reporters that reported the leaks.

Until the names listed here, and their people have been ruled out, then they are all suspect. The only people that are not suspects is most of Congress, and the Supreme Court(to extend to the lower courts as well). This circumstance of a Foreign nation interfering with the election is an epic case. Because of the people involved, which ranges over two administrations, and many candidates who ran for president and their teams.

Now this may well end up being the case of the United States of America vs. The Government of the United States. I wish there wasn't but there is more. A scientist of Archaeology and forensic science once said, "If the data on a particular subject is overwhelming on one point of pursuit, then the logical conclusion would be it is what they say it is"(if you need a reference go to the site concerning the Shroud of Turin, the Head Scientist made this comment. He headed the Shroud team in 1978)

In the case of collusion of the Russians with Trump, it is more than likely that Trump did not collude with the Russians. It is more than likely however that there was a conspiracy over a crime, that was committed that is being hidden by the collusion. Trump was played. I have read site after site. I have read reports from all media outlets and many journalistic papers. I have watched programs from all the major networks to include, ABC, MSNBC, CBS, some PBS specials, Fox News, and there is only one conclusion to be found at this point.

A crime has been committed, and Trump didn't do it. It is possible that some of his team members did, however. Three of them have been dismissed, more of them may be dismissed as time goes on. There are lawsuits going on as I write this which includes half of Washington DC on other crimes related to the collusion narrative. "Lock her up" was the chant of the supporters of Trump. "Drain the swamp" was another chant.

The American People, including myself, believe that Hillary Clinton is guilty of many crimes. I never once thought it would be espionage, aiding and abetting a foreign country, and conspiring with Russia to undermine the government of the United States. However, with the force in which the democrats led by Clinton attacked Trump before and after the election, and the hatred of Clinton to Trump, this seems more likely.

As secretary of state, Clinton had access to all of this government's secrets including all classified information. She transmitted this information in 30,000 emails on a private server. Congress checks the executive department and called for her emails. They went missing. Did they fall in Russian hands? Bill Clinton was paid by the Russian Government to speak in Moscow. Neither Trump, nor Pence, or Mathis, nor Sessions ever spoke in Russia. Sure, it would be easy to say Trump did it, but the evidence they have lacks motive or intent. The only truth that is undisputed is that the election tally was sound. This was approved by those who oversee the election. Trump won the election in accordance with our laws.

Politics is a nasty dirty business. The committee on elections verified and certified the election. Therefore Trump's win a win. Legal and justified. Honorable or unhonorable, Trump's win's a win. Now collusion. What is the motive of Russian Collusion? What gain will be made by Russian Collusion? Is it for the purpose of another American Civil War, a Civil War that perhaps may have already started? One side is Trump and the American people? The other side is Clinton and her misinformed, fooled supporters? Is it possible? If you do not answer anymore of my questions answer this one and be honest with yourself, Is what I have written remotely possible?

Well?.............Or am I the only one that sees this?

I think I mentioned I am not into memorization (which is teaching to tests) - which to me is rote learning - reading, 'riting or 'rithmetic. I also said reading to (and with) your kids is a fab way to start them. My daughter graduated as the Finnegan award nominee for the business school at Boston College and my son just graduated from U of MN in biological sciences. What I am most proud of is their character as responsible and caring human beings. In college during spring break my daughter helped build homes in New Orleans and the Appalachians when others hit the beach. My son is an emergency medical technician and a youth lacrosse coach (largely a volunteer job). My daughter whizzed through everything. My son had to navigate some not uncommon learning challenges - in reading - that his very-good-public-school did not know how to address (and should know how to avoid). If some kids learn by rote (and obviously some do) then have it as an option. Do you not believe in different learning styles?

It is indeed very sad that far too many parents raise kids without the needed support in academic readiness, or social and emotional readiness for that matter. Schools, however, are the one place that have consistent access to kids from age 6-17 and can deliver instruction to help them live fulfilling, healthy, effective lives with positive relationships. Unfortunately education has been a central factor...or factory...contributing to epidemic levels of drop outs, special ed, and kids on medication for ADD, anxiety, and depression. Did you know that 30% of college students (yeah, including kids who could read really well at a young age) report being too depressed to function?

I have been a capacity development trainer for populations ranging from Fortune 100 executives and medical professionals to the most seriously emotionally and behaviorally disordered youth and maximum security inmates. I can assure you that education is missing more than just the best ways to teach reading. Those focused on a tree or two can't see the whole forest. The left hemisphere (that education virtually exclusively develops) is wired for a focu on analyzing (and categorizing/labeling) separate parts and pieces - the physical symptoms, the right sees the interconnections and the bigger picture - the underlying causes. We are operating in the wrong paradigm, the wrong set of operating assumptions, so all our institutions and aims to problem solve have a very weak foundation.

We are witnessing the logical conclusion to the Cartesian/Newtonian/materialist/mechanistic paradigm that emerged about 350 years ago. It's dangerously inadequate. The replacement has been around for decades but it's the ultimate disruption of status quo and everyone making a living off the current view of reality and humanity, and the institutions/systems born of it, will dogmatically (despite the evidence) resist the challenge/change.

Sarah Huckabee Sanders:

"...I’ve got to wrap up here because the President is getting ready to do an event, which I know you all probably want to attend. And I want to leave you with just one last thing, because I close out, on an important development. You guys love to talk about Russia, and there’s been nonstop coverage. And the one day that there might have been a question on Russia, there wasn’t. Often, we have a lot of media with Russia first, but today there was public testimony that further discredited the phony dossier that’s been the source of so much of the fake news and conspiracy theories. And we learned that the firm that produced it was also being paid by the Russians. This is yet the latest piece of evidence that vindicates what the President has said, that this is a witch hunt and a hoax. And it’s a shame that the President and the country have had to go through this charade continually. And hopefully this will help us move forward in that process.

And with that, thank you, guys, so much. And we’ll see you tomorrow."

oh and for Mr. Pete, here is the source: http://www.shallownation.com/2017/07/27/video-white-house-press-secretary-sarah-huckabee-sanders-press-briefing-thursday-july-27-2017/

Now, I would like to remind all of you here, how many of you said or thought that Donald Trump was guilty of collusion? How many of you got into great arguments defending your stand that Trump was guilty? Well apparently according to the above quote, the investigation, the independent investigation is falling apart. Donald Trump and his team otherwise known as the campaign, researched every avenue, the Russian information, was not accepted nor was it used. In fact Trump's son, Trump's son-in-law and Trump himself dismissed all the information. This shows wisdom, honor, integrity, powerful strength in character, it also speaks loud and clear that Trump is innocent.

"...but Ranger, there was collusion." That may be very well true, but the collusion did not come from the Trump camp. Now, with this evidence at hand that Mrs. Sanders, put out briefly, who could be guilty of collusion? Trump is being ruled out, and his campaign is being ruled out. Who else could it be? The DNC is convinced that there was collusion, now they've lost their prime suspect, Donald Trump, now I ask again, who could it be?

We have ruled out the Republicans too. That just leaves the Democrats,---that is Soros, Bill and Hillary Clinton, and Obama, and all their people. Time will tell, now we are going in full gear. So, I ask, do you still want the Special "bipartisan" special prosecutor? Do you still want the investigation?

oh this is going to be a juicy story now......wow the national Enquirer is at work now.......

Eagleye, I recognize the many ways the education system is set up by many to serve a certain set of goals and objectives. We both agree the current agenda is screwed up. I am very active to make a difference and show RESULTS RESULTS RESULTS. Because it's unconventional people want to see the science and the explanation. If you don't think it matters for instance what parts of the brain we develop and what definitions of intelligence we assume, then you aren't seeing the big picture of what humans need to learn to live fulfilling effective lives. It transcends political party.

Good luck to you.

I wasn't concerned about collusion as much as trump being controlled by Russia whuch I think is entirely possible





I wasen'tquote=Ranger7374]Sarah Huckabee Sanders:

"...I’ve got to wrap up here because the President is getting ready to do an event, which I know you all probably want to attend. And I want to leave you with just one last thing, because I close out, on an important development. You guys love to talk about Russia, and there’s been nonstop coverage. And the one day that there might have been a question on Russia, there wasn’t. Often, we have a lot of media with Russia first, but today there was public testimony that further discredited the phony dossier that’s been the source of so much of the fake news and conspiracy theories. And we learned that the firm that produced it was also being paid by the Russians. This is yet the latest piece of evidence that vindicates what the President has said, that this is a witch hunt and a hoax. And it’s a shame that the President and the country have had to go through this charade continually. And hopefully this will help us move forward in that process.

And with that, thank you, guys, so much. And we’ll see you tomorrow."

oh and for Mr. Pete, here is the source: http://www.shallownation.com/2017/07/27/video-white-house-press-secretary-sarah-huckabee-sanders-press-briefing-thursday-july-27-2017/

Now, I would like to remind all of you here, how many of you said or thought that Donald Trump was guilty of collusion? How many of you got into great arguments defending your stand that Trump was guilty? Well apparently according to the above quote, the investigation, the independent investigation is falling apart. Donald Trump and his team otherwise known as the campaign, researched every avenue, the Russian information, was not accepted nor was it used. In fact Trump's son, Trump's son-in-law and Trump himself dismissed all the information. This shows wisdom, honor, integrity, powerful strength in character, it also speaks loud and clear that Trump is innocent.

"...but Ranger, there was collusion." That may be very well true, but the collusion did not come from the Trump camp. Now, with this evidence at hand that Mrs. Sanders, put out briefly, who could be guilty of collusion? Trump is being ruled out, and his campaign is being ruled out. Who else could it be? The DNC is convinced that there was collusion, now they've lost their prime suspect, Donald Trump, now I ask again, who could it be?

We have ruled out the Republicans too. That just leaves the Democrats,---that is Soros, Bill and Hillary Clinton, and Obama, and all their people. Time will tell, now we are going in full gear. So, I ask, do you still want the Special "bipartisan" special prosecutor? Do you still want the investigation?

oh this is going to be a juicy story now......wow the national Enquirer is at work now.......