Trump might have not directly told Comey to drop the investigation, but when someone in that high a position of power says "I hope", it's implied that it's what I want to happen. Power corrupts absolutely and Trump is used to getting what he wants and this new reality isn't probably good for his getting a restful 8 hours of sleep.

His biggest problem IMHO is that he has surrounded himself with people that don't know the ropes and what flies in the private sector isn't going to work in the white house. It would have been interesting to rewind the tape and see where we might be had he done just that. Yes I know he doesn't trust anyone but his inner circle of close friends and family; but they don't know crap about the workings of Washington DC.

Bitches about talks Clinton had on the tarmac and yet he can ask everyone to leave the room except the director of the FBI and that isn't worse to the nth degree? So ironic to watch all this unfold.

The size of his hands thing was not braggadocio as much as a retort to a report that his hands were small (implying, idiotically, that his manhood member was therefor also small). It was Trump-like to respond to such idiocy, not Presidential, but he doesn't let anything go. Bush let too much go unanswered. Maybe you can suggest what the perfect balance is.

At any rate, Trump's showing the size of his hands was to disprove the idiotic allegation, not bragging. And, it was proven that the photo accompanying the idiotic article about the size of Trump's hands was photo-shopped--totally fabricated, as is the case in many accusations against Trump.

The difference is that Bill Clinton did not have the legal authority to ask or demand anything from the attorney general. Donald Trump, as President, does have constitutional authority to do so. Consider this article:

http://2164th.blogspot.com/2017/06/a...-sane-and.html

and Bill Clinton, we were told, could be a complete dirt bag/reprobate in his personal/private life(and occasionally in the oval office)...yet simultaneously be a fabulous president...the two were in no way related...Obama could have all kinds of dubious acquaintances and predilections which.... actually made him more qualified for the office as they showed his "open mindedness". Kerry and Gore had HRC had flaws that we were told were either irrelevant or in some perverted way qualifiers for the office they sought :huh:

I've not enjoyed the mainstream news, NPR and on as much as I do currently....non-stop mindless cackling by self-important preeners who are offended by the fact that no one seems to be listening to them.....when you speak day in and day out using the same catch phrases filled with indignation bordering on lunacy complaining about things you've overlooked or condoned and defended not so many years ago, you tend to undermine you own credibility regardless of the seriousness of your message....

for Trumps supporters, every "attack" hardens their resolution...for the folks that find themselves on the same side of the aisle grudgingly affiliated it's just more shoulder shrugging...."Trump might be bad but you people are insane"

it's early...the fun is only beginning :hihi:

“The press is focusing on personality, not substance,” he(Patterson) said recently on public radio’s “On the Media” program. And that reflects “not a partisan bias but a journalistic bias,” the tendency to seek out conflict."

"Thus, home pages of news organizations or hour upon hour of cable news are relentlessly focused on the president — not always because of solid newsworthiness."

We’ve(journalists) got plenty of things to improve on. Giving Trump gratuitous strokes is not one of them."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifes...=.f7760f18a98b


I don't believe Trump has ever asked for a "gratuitous stroke"..though Bill Clinton no doubt regularly requested them... and Obama was tongue bathed in them like no other president in our history....:hihi:

"Maybe you can suggest what the perfect balance is."

What Trey Gowdy would say, is the right answer. Not what Milo what's-his-face would say. I don't even know what words to use to describe Trump anymore. But if they re-did the election tomorrow, and he was the GOP nominee, I'd vote for him in a second.

"it was proven that the photo accompanying the idiotic article about "

Was the video feed fake too? Because his words there...I dunno.


"totally fabricated, as is the case in many accusations against Trump"

The media has gone completely off the deep end.

That sentence right there, is a perfect, exact description of where we are. The hypocrisy and double standard is insane. The party that ran the Clintons, the Kennedys, John Edwards (cheating on his dying wife), is all of a sudden concerned with the personal moral compass of the President. Depends on whose ox is getting gored I guess.

Or fire a special prosecuter that is investigating you.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Since there is no crime to "investigate," firing Mueller would be a nothing-burger. But it would be great political theater. The entertainment should last for months. Hope he does it.

I agree . Meanwhile he continues plugging along with his agenda .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I thought that Flynn likely broke the law by failing to register as a agent of a foreign country as he didn't disclose the payments he received.

???

probably depends on what the meaning of "likely" is :heybaby:

I liked some of the Schaedenfreude but I can't take 4 years of it (there won't be 8, Trump does not have the stamina).

We don't know there is no crime. We have reason to believe DJT is not the focus of the investigation - at least until he stepped on his crank.

And possibly other things as well. I would hope it would be fair and fast for the sake of our county but I now expect it might be painful and long. IN the end, hard to say who will have done worse by out Country; Obama, Obama to Trump, or the mythical Obama to Hillary

I view it as entertainment....politicians are reality tv stars, they don't say things because they mean them, they read from scripts for effect and to cause reaction....and I don't think the media and the left can keep up the pace either...they've become a caricature....obsessed with a caricature ......predictable daily manufactured indignation that has become comical...much to Trumps pleasure and benefit

The problem is that it quickly develops into an impediment to democracy. Just because the Progressives eff up Democracy when it suits them doesn't mean it should be allowable on the right. All must be held to a higher standard. Trump, like Slick Willy and the Bride of Frankenstein, has few standards.

John - I would like to say thank you to you, our dear exalted leader for spreading your blessings on us by graciously and magnanimously allowing us to serve and fulfill your agenda in having this forum.

can't decide if that's creepy or snarky :scream:

Creepy from the original source, snarky from scottw. Just my guess.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Errr, OK ?

My Agenda? How does this forum get me closer to serious time with Gal Gadot?

Snark I'm more than OK with :rotf2:

Come on I was channeling my inner Reince.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I do not recall:(

My reference was to your "Or fire a special prosecuter that is investigating you." Your quote did not refer to Flynn, it obviously referred to Trump. If not, it made no sense. What crime did Trump commit that the special prosecutor is investigating?

Who cares?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Quote:
Originally Posted by detbuch
Since there is no crime to "investigate," firing Mueller would be a nothing-burger. But it would be great political theater. The entertainment should last for months. Hope he does it.

Quote:
Reply by JohnR
We don't know there is no crime. We have reason to believe DJT is not the focus of the investigation - at least until he stepped on his crank.

Quote:
Reply by Detbuch
If we don't know if there is a crime, why is there an investigation? Doesn't a crime actually have to be established before there is an investigation? It seems awfully strange to be investigating if a crime has been committed. That sort of process has no bounds. The "investigation" has already seemed to leave the Russian collusion by Trump behind and is morphing into obstruction of justice by Trump and can morph into something else if there is no end until SOME crime is found to have been committed by SOMEBODY.

No doubt, that is what some hope happens.

that was apparently a fake news story that Paul found on the internets...

The investigation is to determine if members of Trumps TEAM coordinated with Russia. I am OK with them finding out.

If they didn't then knock it the eff off.

Due process would require that a crime was committed. And if no specific crime has been determined to have actually happened, then there must be definitive evidence that a crime occurred. Accusation out of thin air, or for political reason, without evidence, does not warrant an official investigation.

The mere possibility that a crime was committed, again, without evidence, leaves us with no official reason to investigate. Possibility, without evidence, is infinite. There is always the possibility that a crime has been committed somehow, somewhere, by someone.

Hearsay and accusation are not evidence. Newspaper and Media reports, especially by unnamed sources, are not evidence. Conjecture by legal experts is not evidence.

Vagaries such as "likely broke the law by failing to register as a agent of a foreign country as he didn't disclose the payments he received" and "possibly other things as well" are suppositions not evidence. If Flynn broke the law by failing to register as a foreign agent, that should not require a special prosecutor to determine. That should be an easy case and already determined by now.

What, specifically, was coordinated? Did the coordination break a law?

As far as Trump coordinating anything illegal with the Russians, all that is continually being reiterated is that there is no evidence of it. If anyone, whether they were on Trump's team or not, illegally coordinated with the Russians, what actual evidence is there of it, and why has there been no prosecution by now? Why appoint a special prosecutor to catch little fish when the perpetrators can be charged and tried in a court of law? Obviously, Trump is the target, one way or another, if you can't get him, implicate members of his administration, even if they are no longer part of it. It's basically a show trial to cast grave doubt about his administration. And a quick resolution is not desired by those opposed to Trump. Dragging this on without resolution (which would probably exonerate Trump personally) casting the air of negativity and corruption surrounding Trump until the mid-term election is exactly the desired outcome.

Different rules / argument.

If the intelligence services saw something during normal intercepts & intel gathering and then forwarded to FBI/Justice Department for follow up / investigation.

I assume the "something" that was seen was actual evidence of collusion, otherwise why forward it to FBI/Justice Department. Now that there is a special prosecutor, that "something" will finally be revealed. Amazing that the "something" has not already been leaked. The FBI/Justice Department haven't told us what the evidence of collusion they must have had for a long time now is. But the SP can finally tell us and lay the hammer down. Shouldn't take long, should it?

Now that it is all in the hands of the SP, shouldn't the argument be the same as any criminal prosecution--an actual crime being committed and actual incriminating evidence presented?

[QUOTE=detbuch;1123483If we don't know if there is a crime, why is there an investigation? Doesn't a crime actually have to be established before there is an investigation? It seems awfully strange to be investigating if a crime has been committed. That sort of process has no bounds. The "investigation" has already seemed to leave the Russian collusion by Trump behind and is morphing into obstruction of justice by Trump and can morph into something else if there is no end until SOME crime is found to have been committed by SOMEBODY.

No doubt, that is what some hope happens.[/QUOTE]

Uh-huh. The scope of the investigation has widened.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politi...cid=spartandhp

So much for "The investigation is to determine if members of Trumps TEAM coordinated with Russia." It will no doubt widen until "something" is found. The "Different rules / argument" change by the day. The lawyers Mueller (who it is reported is a good friend and mentor of Comey) is bringing on board to help in the "investigation" are hard core Democrats. Not looking good for the Trumpster. The "investigation" is not really about collusion, but about finding "something" which can lead to impeachment. Any little fish such as Flynn that can be fried along the way are just collateral damage.