Political Roundtable Part XVII

[nate33]

Flynn pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI.

A lot of lying going on around the Trump campaign/transition/admin for everyone being so innocent! Why was Flynn fired again?

That's it?

Flynn was interviewed with no warning, with no declaration that the interview was part of the investigation, without a lawyer present, by an agent with a documented agenda against Trump, and all they got was an inconsistency with a previous statement.

Now, they're trying to get Trump for obstruction of justice because he is allegedly obstructing the investigation of crime that doesn't exist.

Again, what is the initial crime allegedly committed by Trump or his administration?

This is a concise description of the run-up to the Mueller investigation:

A year ago today, President Donald Trump’s newly sworn–in national security adviser, Michael Flynn, met privately in his West Wing office with FBI investigators interested in his communications with Russia's ambassador, without a lawyer or the knowledge of the president and other top White House officials, according to people familiar with the matter.

Flynn's FBI interview on Jan. 24, 2017, set in motion an extraordinary sequence of events unparalleled for the first year of a U.S. presidency. Flynn was fired as national security adviser after 24 days on the job, the acting attorney general was fired 10 days after the president took office, the FBI director was allegedly pressured by the president to let go of an investigation into Flynn, and then eventually fired himself.

The attorney general recused himself from a federal investigation into Russia's meddling in the 2016 U.S. election and possible collusion with the sitting president's campaign, and a special counsel was appointed.

The developments ensnared the president in an obstruction of justice inquiry, which resulted in his top intelligence and law enforcement chiefs cooperating in some form with that probe.

Explain where this is wrong or bad. Explain why there shouldn't be a special investigation.

Nothing is wrong with that summary. But, again, despite an in depth investigation into what Flynn actually did with respect to "collusion with Russia", all they could find that was incriminating was an inconsistent statement. Again, there's no there there. No evidence of any initial crime.

It's like if a cop stopped you for jaywalking because you stepped outside of the boundaries of the crosswalk. He asks you if you stepped outside of the boundaries of the crosswalk and you say no. He then throws you in jail for obstruction of justice and lying to a police officer. In this analogy, the Logan Act is jaywalking.

[cammac]

That's it?

Flynn was interviewed with no warning, with no declaration that the interview was part of the investigation, without a lawyer present, by an agent with a documented agenda against Trump, and all they got was an inconsistency with a previous statement.

Now, they're trying to get Trump for obstruction of justice because he is allegedly obstructing the investigation of crime that doesn't exist.

Again, what is the initial crime allegedly committed by Trump or his administration?

This is a concise description of the run-up to the Mueller investigation:

A year ago today, President Donald Trump’s newly sworn–in national security adviser, Michael Flynn, met privately in his West Wing office with FBI investigators interested in his communications with Russia's ambassador, without a lawyer or the knowledge of the president and other top White House officials, according to people familiar with the matter.

Flynn's FBI interview on Jan. 24, 2017, set in motion an extraordinary sequence of events unparalleled for the first year of a U.S. presidency. Flynn was fired as national security adviser after 24 days on the job, the acting attorney general was fired 10 days after the president took office, the FBI director was allegedly pressured by the president to let go of an investigation into Flynn, and then eventually fired himself.

The attorney general recused himself from a federal investigation into Russia's meddling in the 2016 U.S. election and possible collusion with the sitting president's campaign, and a special counsel was appointed.

The developments ensnared the president in an obstruction of justice inquiry, which resulted in his top intelligence and law enforcement chiefs cooperating in some form with that probe.

Explain where this is wrong or bad. Explain why there shouldn't be a special investigation.

Nothing is wrong with that summary. But, again, despite an in depth investigation into what Flynn actually did with respect to "collusion with Russia", all they could find that was incriminating was an inconsistent statement. Again, there's no there there. No evidence of any initial crime.

It's like if a cop stopped you for jaywalking because you stepped outside of the boundaries of the crosswalk. He asks you if you stepped outside of the boundaries of the crosswalk and you say no. He then throws you in jail for obstruction of justice and lying to a police officer. In this analogy, the Logan Act is jaywalking.

Dear Nate I'm the socialist namby pamby around this forum that you with vitriol seem to condemn as agents of change. I preach tolerance, educational opportunities for all and the hell of socialized healthcare. Yet you defend a administration who conspired with the enemy of all Democracies. You mince your words in to jay walking rather than a minimum of flirting with treason. I'm sure you were fine with Bill Clinton being impeached with a little seamen on a blue dress. You have absolutely no idea nor do any of the pundits on this forum know that Mueller already knows and the net dragging more and more people in.

Continue to worship at the feet of a false god and depend the actions of the leader of the free world who can't go one day without lying.

[cammac]

A very educational piece about DACA very worth the read.
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/9/1/16243080/daca-congress-visual

[stilldropin20]

Flynn pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI.

A lot of lying going on around the Trump campaign/transition/admin for everyone being so innocent! Why was Flynn fired again?

That's it?

Flynn was interviewed with no warning, with no declaration that the interview was part of the investigation, without a lawyer present, by an agent with a documented agenda against Trump, and all they got was an inconsistency with a previous statement.

Now, they're trying to get Trump for obstruction of justice because he is allegedly obstructing the investigation of crime that doesn't exist.

Again, what is the initial crime allegedly committed by Trump or his administration?

Ugh, how many times do we have to repeat this in this thread? Can we just all agree that Trump is under investigation for serious crimes related to his public invitation of Russia to illegally hack Hillary Clinton's emails, that this is all Trump's own damn fault, that if he or his employees, whose behavior he is responsible for, cooperated with Russian government officials to coordinate the release of Hillary's emails, which had statistically measurable effects on the outcome of a very close election in which we agree the Russians were trying to influence the outcome, in exchange for the lifting of sanctions, then he is guilty of felonious interference with free elections in collaboration with foreign governments in exchange for political favors, which is ILLEGAL.

I don't want to hear ANY MORE COMPLAINING ABOUT THIS. Trump brought it on himself, and no matter how innocent he ends up being in the end, he has no one to blame for this investigation but himself. Be less of an ahole next time and we won't have to investigate you. The issue is SETTLED. Argue about something else!

there is no crime there. Nothing.

Not only was there NO COLLUSION. No conspiracy. but in fact no crime. Not even obstruction of justice. He is the leader of the executive branch.

The president can fire and hire anyone in the elite levels of the executive branch and do so without cause. he just might not "work well" with someone. So what? its his department.

Just like no one can tell the 11 supreme court justices to do with their opinions. No one can tell Chuck schumer how to vote. And no matter what the evidence says, you can bet your last dollar that Chuck Schummer to vote for impeachment should the house draw up the articles.

and to that point, some R's (like possibly mccain, and likely flake) will vote for it as well. So his only hope is the house.

and this has nothing to do with right or wrong. crime or no crime. If there was an actual crime we would know about it. It would be black and white. especially if he was colluding with a foreign government. The leaks would be out. the campaign to impeach would be in full force and non partisan.

But none of that is happening. Instead its just american politics at play where D's are struggling to regain control so they remain in power. They are desperate to stop immigration reform. They want more and more democrats to immigrate into the united states so that they can remain in power. that is all they care about.

And they are doing this while putting existing americans at risk. existing americans, white, black, and brown have been negatively affected by the flooding of our low end labor pool with immigrants. wages have been stagnant for decades.

I'm not sure why more african americans dont agree with my positions. If i was african-american and been here for hundreds of years!!??? I would be pissed the phuck off!!! If not only did my ancestors build up the country on free labor, suffer jim crow and segregation but now my unemployment rates are 6% while whites and brown people are 4% and lower!!???? Obama had 17% unemployment rates for african americans while the rest of the country was at 10%. And still my wages are lower!!!?? I would be mad as hell at democrats that want to keep allowing more and more low end labor immigrants into the country to keep my people down. That's how I would feel if I was african american and that has a huge affect on my personal feeling being mixed and my family was both already here legally and been here for generations, yet still mostly middle class. Research polls are showing that more and more african americans are feeling similarly. I've seen original numbers of african americans supporting Trump in the 1% range. ended up being 4% on election day. and it moving closer to 6% today. Smart!!!

I'd like to see this trend continue. Trump is a man of his word. This is the most transparent president ever. His political follow through in office is completely based off of his campaign pledges. If more african american people come out more and more and support trump more and more he will most assuredly do more to help them to bring them under his umbrella.

[closg00]

montestewart, you really should look into this. It's not some wacko conspiracy theory. There are A LOT of facts to support it and the timeline is highly suspect.

I would bet my house that this is nothing more than the "alternative facts" crowd writing their own script about the Russia investigation. 100% of their entire narrative is about the investigators, and 0% is about what has actually been uncovered and admitted to, truly Orwellian.

What, exactly, has been "uncovered and admitted to". That some no name hanger-on Papadapoulus was willing to listen to some Russians feeding him information about Clinton and then never even met with Trump about it? That's not a crime. The problem is, it's not enough for a FISA warrant and for a massive surveillance program against a political opponent.

Or maybe you're referring to the "Logan Act violation" when Flynn, DURING THE TRANSITION PERIOD AFTER TRUMP WAS ELECTED, spoke to Russians about last-minute sanctions imposed by Obama two weeks before he left office. What a joke.

Trump and his inner-circle lied about their contacts with Russians during the campaign and Mueller knows why, it just hasn't come out yet. We know that the attempt to influence the Trump campaign was at-least partially successful because the Republican party platform entry on the Ukraine was changed to be of Putin's liking.

The complete wild card is going to be in the area of Trump and his finances, this is why he keeps chirping "no collusion, no collusion"
The sale of certain Trump properties at grossly inflated prices to Russian or Russian connected people looks like a hornets nest of corruption, God knows what Mueller is uncovering, probably money-laundering at a minimum. Trump will go down for his corrupt business practices in-combination with his collusion with the Russians.

Republicans behind the scenes are well aware of the dirt hence this full, frontal assault of the investigation. When the time comes for Mueller to drop the dime on Trump, his echo-chamber is already out in-front with their deflection defense.

[nate33]

Dear Nate I'm the socialist namby pamby around this forum that you with vitriol seem to condemn as agents of change. I preach tolerance, educational opportunities for all and the hell of socialized healthcare. Yet you defend a administration who conspired with the enemy of all Democracies. You mince your words in to jay walking rather than a minimum of flirting with treason. I'm sure you were fine with Bill Clinton being impeached with a little seamen on a blue dress. You have absolutely no idea nor do any of the pundits on this forum know that Mueller already knows and the net dragging more and more people in.

Continue to worship at the feet of a false god and depend the actions of the leader of the free world who can't go one day without lying.

The fact that the only indictments he has managed to serve after a year of investigation is a couple of counts of false statements is pretty good indication that he has nothing. That's my operating assumption until I hear something otherwise.

Meanwhile, there is very credible evidence that Obama, Hillary and the FBI conspired to abuse the power of the State to surveil a political opponent during an election. So far, we've had 3 or 4 guys get fired, quit, announce their resignation, or be reassigned because of this, we've had 30,000 emails disappear as well as 50,000 texts, we've had the Trump administration abruptly move their operations to New Jersey during the transition period the day after a meeting he had with Admiral Rogers (to avoid the surveillance), and we've had Jim Comey revealing classified information to a friend and later reclassifying that friend as his attorney.

We'll see who is right as more evidence comes out.

[payitforward]

The markets do think. They clearly believe that the future is bright under a Trump administration. That doesn't make them right, but it is what they think.

B.S. (...why do I let myself get pulled back into this thread!?!)

Markets also don't "believe" anything. Markets do "react" to (or, maybe better, "reflect") what people believe -- not about whether the future is "bright" or dim, but about what they think stock prices will do.

Thus, for example, if people think a President will do something "good" for publicly traded corporations they are quite likely to buy more stock, pushing the market up.

But, they will do that -- & be smart to do it -- even if they also think those same policies will be "bad" for other entities or even bad overall.

Now, the above has to be nuanced (shd be "more people" vs. "fewer people" for example), but it has no entailments in any realm other than that. I.e. it's the classic "rational actor" model in economics. Period.

Markets are a reflection of the mood of investors, mostly institutional investors. ... A rapidly rising stock market is an indication that smart money managers think that investing in companies will offer a better return now than they used to.

...apparently, thousands of very smart money managers seem to agree with the decisions that Trump has made so far. ... maybe Trump has some slight idea what he is doing.

nate... you have no trouble w/ logic in any other thread.

If you like "mood of investors" better than "investors' belief that stocks will rise", fine -- but the former has no meaning beyond the latter. & neither of them has any connection with any opinion about Donald Trump (or any other President at any other time -- I'm not picking on him!).

To make the point obvious: as you know, I don't "agree with the decisions that Trump has made so far." & I certainly don't like Trump's economic policies, above all his trade policies which I see as negative factors for economic growth long-term. If I were able to, I'd reverse pretty much every economic policy decision he's made so far.

You & I may disagree, but you know perfectly well what my opinion is. You may disagree w/ my reasons for my opinions, but you are aware, certainly, that I have reasons & you're aware that I've stated them.

Yet, I have put more $$ into stocks. Why? Because I thought they were likely to go up.

Now, I'm not angling to be included among those "very smart money manager" you mentioned -- believe me! But all the same, my case demonstrates that you don't need to "agree with the decisions that Trump has made so far" or think he "has some... idea what he is doing" in order to put $$ into stocks.

IOW, the market going up is not evidence that money managers agree w/ Trump or think he's good at his job. Above all, the market going up is not evidence that either his decisions or his performance has been good.

As to the new tax bill, whether it is good or bad for the economy, or for our society, is an empirical question -- a set of them, actually -- which will be answered in time.

In any case, however, "good for the economy" does not equal "causes the market to rise" or vice versa. Sometimes, things that are good for the economy cause the market to rise, sometimes not. Sometimes the market rising is good for the economy, sometimes not.

[closg00]

SD 20, are you a mole on Mueller's investigation team? Why do you keep speaking for them as-if know what he has and is planning to do?

[nate33]

nate... you have no trouble w/ logic in any other thread.

If you like "mood of investors" better than "investors' belief that stocks will rise", fine -- but the former has no meaning beyond the latter. & neither of them has any connection with any opinion about Donald Trump (or any other President at any other time -- I'm not picking on him!).

To make the point obvious: as you know, I don't "agree with the decisions that Trump has made so far." & I certainly don't like Trump's economic policies, above all his trade policies which I see as negative factors for economic growth long-term. If I were able to, I'd reverse pretty much every economic policy decision he's made so far.

You & I may disagree, but you know perfectly well what my opinion is. You may disagree w/ my reasons for my opinions, but you are aware, certainly, that I have reasons & you're aware that I've stated them.

Yet, I have put more $$ into stocks. Why? Because I thought they were likely to go up.

Now, I'm not angling to be included among those "very smart money manager" you mentioned -- believe me! But all the same, my case demonstrates that you don't need to "agree with the decisions that Trump has made so far" or think he "has some... idea what he is doing" in order to put $$ into stocks.

IOW, the market going up is not evidence that money managers agree w/ Trump or think he's good at his job. Above all, the market going up is not evidence that either his decisions or his performance has been good.

As to the new tax bill, whether it is good or bad for the economy, or for our society, is an empirical question -- a set of them, actually -- which will be answered in time.

In any case, however, "good for the economy" does not equal "causes the market to rise" or vice versa. Sometimes, things that are good for the economy cause the market to rise, sometimes not. Sometimes the market rising is good for the economy, sometimes not.

Fair enough, payitforward. I'll just point out that this new upward trajectory of the stock market happened literally the exact day of Trump's election and has continued relentlessly upward ever since. You may choose to believe that is 100% coincidental. I don't.

[gtn130]

The fact that the only indictments he has managed to serve after a year of investigation is a couple of counts of false statements is pretty good indication that he has nothing. That's my operating assumption until I hear something otherwise.

It's not a good indication of anything. That's a totally misguided assumption.

[Zonkerbl]

Dear Nate I'm the socialist namby pamby around this forum that you with vitriol seem to condemn as agents of change. I preach tolerance, educational opportunities for all and the hell of socialized healthcare. Yet you defend a administration who conspired with the enemy of all Democracies. You mince your words in to jay walking rather than a minimum of flirting with treason. I'm sure you were fine with Bill Clinton being impeached with a little seamen on a blue dress. You have absolutely no idea nor do any of the pundits on this forum know that Mueller already knows and the net dragging more and more people in.

Continue to worship at the feet of a false god and depend the actions of the leader of the free world who can't go one day without lying.

The fact that the only indictments he has managed to serve after a year of investigation is a couple of counts of false statements is pretty good indication that he has nothing. That's my operating assumption until I hear something otherwise.

Meanwhile, there is very credible evidence that Obama, Hillary and the FBI conspired to abuse the power of the State to surveil a political opponent during an election. So far, we've had 3 or 4 guys get fired, quit, announce their resignation, or be reassigned because of this, we've had 30,000 emails disappear as well as 50,000 texts, we've had the Trump administration abruptly move their operations to New Jersey during the transition period the day after a meeting he had with Admiral Rogers (to avoid the surveillance), and we've had Jim Comey revealing classified information to a friend and later reclassifying that friend as his attorney.

We'll see who is right as more evidence comes out.

You lost me here. This is just regurgitated right-wing flim flam. The moment you mention Hillary's 30,000 emails you lose all credibility.

Don't be a patsy! Think for yourself!

[nate33]

Dear Nate I'm the socialist namby pamby around this forum that you with vitriol seem to condemn as agents of change. I preach tolerance, educational opportunities for all and the hell of socialized healthcare. Yet you defend a administration who conspired with the enemy of all Democracies. You mince your words in to jay walking rather than a minimum of flirting with treason. I'm sure you were fine with Bill Clinton being impeached with a little seamen on a blue dress. You have absolutely no idea nor do any of the pundits on this forum know that Mueller already knows and the net dragging more and more people in.

Continue to worship at the feet of a false god and depend the actions of the leader of the free world who can't go one day without lying.

The fact that the only indictments he has managed to serve after a year of investigation is a couple of counts of false statements is pretty good indication that he has nothing. That's my operating assumption until I hear something otherwise.

Meanwhile, there is very credible evidence that Obama, Hillary and the FBI conspired to abuse the power of the State to surveil a political opponent during an election. So far, we've had 3 or 4 guys get fired, quit, announce their resignation, or be reassigned because of this, we've had 30,000 emails disappear as well as 50,000 texts, we've had the Trump administration abruptly move their operations to New Jersey during the transition period the day after a meeting he had with Admiral Rogers (to avoid the surveillance), and we've had Jim Comey revealing classified information to a friend and later reclassifying that friend as his attorney.

We'll see who is right as more evidence comes out.

You lost me here. This is just regurgitated right-wing flim flam. The moment you mention Hillary's 30,000 emails you lose all credibility.

Don't be a patsy! Think for yourself!

So 30,000 emails weren't lost, erased by BleachBit and cell phones weren't smashed?

[gtn130]

Meanwhile, there is very credible evidence that Obama, Hillary and the FBI conspired to abuse the power of the State to surveil a political opponent during an election. So far, we've had 3 or 4 guys get fired, quit, announce their resignation, or be reassigned because of this, we've had 30,000 emails disappear as well as 50,000 texts, we've had the Trump administration abruptly move their operations to New Jersey during the transition period the day after a meeting he had with Admiral Rogers (to avoid the surveillance), and we've had Jim Comey revealing classified information to a friend and later reclassifying that friend as his attorney.

We'll see who is right as more evidence comes out.

LOL

Nate, you're missing a step here. 50,000 texts from an FBI agent to another is indicative of what exactly? They need to have falsified evidence or something. Evidence that they dislike Trump, as 70% of the country does, is not relevant. You failed to mention that Peter Strzok was taken off the investigation btw.

Meanwhile Trump demanded fealty from McCabe and asked who he voted for - but you're good with that, right? No big deal?

[nate33]

Meanwhile, there is very credible evidence that Obama, Hillary and the FBI conspired to abuse the power of the State to surveil a political opponent during an election. So far, we've had 3 or 4 guys get fired, quit, announce their resignation, or be reassigned because of this, we've had 30,000 emails disappear as well as 50,000 texts, we've had the Trump administration abruptly move their operations to New Jersey during the transition period the day after a meeting he had with Admiral Rogers (to avoid the surveillance), and we've had Jim Comey revealing classified information to a friend and later reclassifying that friend as his attorney.

We'll see who is right as more evidence comes out.

LOL

Nate, you're missing a step here. 50,000 texts from an FBI agent to another is indicative of what exactly? They need to have falsified evidence or something. Evidence that they dislike Trump, as 70% of the country does, is not relevant. You failed to mention that Peter Strzok was taken off the investigation btw.

Meanwhile Trump demanded fealty from McCabe and asked who he voted for - but you're good with that, right? No big deal?

That last sentence should have "allegedly" in front of it. It was a leak to the media from an anonymous source. You'll forgive me if I don't give it too much weight as the media's anonymous sources haven't been too credible lately.

Are you okay with McCabe being a lead investigator of Trump when his wife received $550,000 from Terry McCauliff?

[nate33]

Meanwhile, there is very credible evidence that Obama, Hillary and the FBI conspired to abuse the power of the State to surveil a political opponent during an election. So far, we've had 3 or 4 guys get fired, quit, announce their resignation, or be reassigned because of this, we've had 30,000 emails disappear as well as 50,000 texts, we've had the Trump administration abruptly move their operations to New Jersey during the transition period the day after a meeting he had with Admiral Rogers (to avoid the surveillance), and we've had Jim Comey revealing classified information to a friend and later reclassifying that friend as his attorney.

We'll see who is right as more evidence comes out.

LOL

Nate, you're missing a step here. 50,000 texts from an FBI agent to another is indicative of what exactly? They need to have falsified evidence or something. Evidence that they dislike Trump, as 70% of the country does, is not relevant. You failed to mention that Peter Strzok was taken off the investigation btw.

Meanwhile Trump demanded fealty from McCabe and asked who he voted for - but you're good with that, right? No big deal?

Those 50,000 texts were from to FBI people who had already been proven to have an agenda against Trump including talk of an "insurance policy" if he is elected. It's convenient that the time period of those lost texts were during the height of the investigation.

[stilldropin20]

SD 20, are you a mole on Mueller's investigation team? Why do you keep speaking for them as-if know what he has and is planning to do?

i'm just a regular guy like you. put my pants on one leg at a time, but when i do put my pants on I can read the room, any room, as well as anyone on the entire planet.

Maybe it was mostly growing up mixed in a white neighborhood? Maybe it was also living in poor minority neighborhoods too? maybe it was launching up leadership roles on attack spy submarines as a diver that did ops with navy Seals? Maybe it was then my doctorate degree? and then maybe it was my time hanging out with B list celebrities and also multimillionaires of all socio-economic backgrounds including those from so-called "elite" families?

Either way and whatever it is, i'm not sure. i do put my pants on, one leg at a time, just like you, but when i do i can just read the room as well as anyone on the planet.

In this particular room?

1. Obama weaponized his DOJ against a political opponent and did so under the pretense of a completely false Russian dossier. thats the lead. The only lead that should matter.

2. Do i think Strzok or Mccabe had a promise from HRC to be the next FBI director? yes. But they needed "evidence" to take higher up the chain and HRC paid for it and provided it. Could Lynch and Obama himself be the unknowing idiots in this entire scandel? yes. possibly. Unlikely. Obama and Lynch knew what was at stake. And both know their legacies would/will be on the line if this kind of scandal fully erupts.

3. this scandal has a 30% chance of fully erupting. That depends on trump who doesn't care about a career in politics. Any other politician and this has a 0% chance of fully erupting.

4. because a deal would be struck. D's have as much to lose as R's if this scandal fully erupts. And there is no reason to put the american people through unless Trump is so damn fed up with the DC swamp that he goes scorched earth and still decides to expose it all.

5. Which is why the mueller investigation exists. they(D's and just enough R's) will (hope to) impeach trump (crime or no crime) before he can fully expose the political espionage scandal to the point that main stream media will also cover it.

6. If D's regain control in in 2018 of both houses they will impeach trump. crime or no crime.

7. The establishments goal is another sit on his hands president that can do nothing.

8. The establishments problem? Doc holiday sits in the oval office and he is game.

[stilldropin20]

Meanwhile, there is very credible evidence that Obama, Hillary and the FBI conspired to abuse the power of the State to surveil a political opponent during an election. So far, we've had 3 or 4 guys get fired, quit, announce their resignation, or be reassigned because of this, we've had 30,000 emails disappear as well as 50,000 texts, we've had the Trump administration abruptly move their operations to New Jersey during the transition period the day after a meeting he had with Admiral Rogers (to avoid the surveillance), and we've had Jim Comey revealing classified information to a friend and later reclassifying that friend as his attorney.

We'll see who is right as more evidence comes out.

LOL

Nate, you're missing a step here. 50,000 texts from an FBI agent to another is indicative of what exactly? They need to have falsified evidence or something. Evidence that they dislike Trump, as 70% of the country does, is not relevant. You failed to mention that Peter Strzok was taken off the investigation btw.

Meanwhile Trump demanded fealty from McCabe and asked who he voted for - but you're good with that, right? No big deal?

abso-effin-lutely "good" with it. he was interviewing him for head of FBI. He can ask (almost)whatever the eff he wants. He needs an FBI director that will have his back and enforce his version of justice based on whatever ideology and campaign pledges that particular president has or campaigned on. Its a "will of the people" position just like cabinet members. and supreme court justices selections.

whats more! and perhaps more interesting. is that Trump already knew about Mccabe's wife campaign donations conflict with HRC/the dossier/Fusion. It was already known!!!!! Trump is the head of the executive branch. That makes trump the "top cop" in the nation. trump asking mccabe about these campaign issues is all part of mccabe investigation.

and make no mistake about it. mccabe, his wife, strzok, lisa page, Fusion, steele, HRC are under full investigation right now. FULL INVESTIGATION!! No stone will be left unturned and this investigation is hoping some points the finger at yates or Lynch who then may or may not point the finger at either HRC or Obama.

And fi you are not aware. Mccabes wife accepted a $500K campaign donation from a 100% connected HRC crony. This was an unusual donation for this donor. And this donation was made to mccabe's wife while mccabe was texting and discussing "insurance policies" against a Donald trump election. And trump knew all about this at the time he asked that question.

Let me ask you guys a question. And this goes back to my las tpost about reading the room. Do you not understand the level of petty that Donald Trump holds? This man cares about his brand. His brand has been ruined for half of the country. He wants his brand back. i guarantee you he wants his brand back. The only way he gets his brand back is by exposing those that used dirty politics to make him look bad while simultaneously "fixing the economy" in a sustainable way.

And if he does do just that, he will fulfill my prediction. GOAT president of the modern era. Its his only path. and he's got $8 Billion and a somewhat helpful republican congress (for at least 1 more year) to help get him there.

[payitforward]

SD 20, are you a mole on Mueller's investigation team? Why do you keep speaking for them as-if know what he has and is planning to do?

i'm just a regular guy like you. put my pants on one leg at a time, but when i do put my pants on I can read the room, any room, as well as anyone on the entire planet.

Maybe it was mostly growing up mixed in a white neighborhood? Maybe it was also living in poor minority neighborhoods too? maybe it was launching up leadership roles on attack spy submarines as a diver that did ops with navy Seals? Maybe it was then my doctorate degree? and then maybe it was my time hanging out with B list celebrities and also multimillionaires of all socio-economic backgrounds including those from so-called "elite" families?
...

Or maybe it's that you're a conceited jackass, & that makes you think you can "read the room, any room?"

What do you think? Could be, huh?

[Kanyewest]

Watergate took about 2 years. https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/complete-watergate-timeline-took-longer-realize

This investigation could take longer.

[stilldropin20]

SD 20, are you a mole on Mueller's investigation team? Why do you keep speaking for them as-if know what he has and is planning to do?

i'm just a regular guy like you. put my pants on one leg at a time, but when i do put my pants on I can read the room, any room, as well as anyone on the entire planet.

Maybe it was mostly growing up mixed in a white neighborhood? Maybe it was also living in poor minority neighborhoods too? maybe it was launching up leadership roles on attack spy submarines as a diver that did ops with navy Seals? Maybe it was then my doctorate degree? and then maybe it was my time hanging out with B list celebrities and also multimillionaires of all socio-economic backgrounds including those from so-called "elite" families?
...

Or maybe it's that you're a conceited jackass, & that makes you think you can "read the room, any room?"

What do you think? Could be, huh?

Watch on YouTube