President Donald Trump

[Hornsby]

Well, see, we can agree on somethings. I guess what I was attempting to point out, and you apparently picked up on it which I appreciate, is that while this may appear to be a predominately “Trump“ centered investigation, I suspect the seine netting that Mueller has cast is going to catch a lot of fish, big and small, to varying degrees of wrong doing and regardless of the R or D after thier TV headlined name. Admittedly, I suspect there will be more Rs than Ds.

What happens with this Dossier? The HRC campaign and the DNC claim they didn’t know they were paying foreign operatives for “intelligence” gathering on candidate Trump? Why didn’t they admit to this sooner? And does the fact that a GOP operative ran an earlier less salacious version, give both absolution?

There are many Facets to this investigation, and many questions have to be answered.

The "Dossier" is nothing more than a red herring, IMO, it's opposition research, which is as old as politics itself. And as you pointed out, it was originally commissioned by a GOP rival group...and where did you read that the Dems didn't know that they were paying for potential dirt on Trump from any and all sources?

Just for curiosity's sake...any idea just what crimes that the Trump people and his supporters wish HRC to be charged with? Because I still see many tweets that call for her to be "locked up", but I don't see any specific reference to why.

[Bernie Brewer]

The "Dossier" is nothing more than a red herring, IMO, it's opposition research, which is as old as politics itself. And as you pointed out, it was originally commissioned by a GOP rival group...and where did you read that the Dems didn't know that they were paying for potential dirt on Trump from any and all sources?

Google DNC denies paying for Fusion GPS Dossier. CNN, the Washington Post the N.Y. Times all reported thier denial in some form.

Just for curiosity's sake...any idea just what crimes that the Trump people and his supporters wish HRC to be charged with? Because I still see many tweets that call for her to be "locked up", but I don't see any specific reference to why.

So this is the part where, since I’m not singing out of the same hymnal as the hardcore Trump haters on this board, I should answer the hyperbolic question you pose on the behalf of all the people who weren’t in the “With Her” crowd? I don’t mean to be snarky as you may be attempting to genuinely ask the question, but I have no clue and didn’t support Trump. Personally, I can’t imagine HRC being charged with anything and the whole “Lock Her Up” business was unbecoming of a Presidential candidate and campaign. We can circle back to discuss the election, if we must, and I would tell you both sides were pretty despicable and beyond the pale in their rhetoric, conduct and tone. One side was just worse, Much worse.

[baldgriff]

So this is the part where, since I’m not singing out of the same hymnal as the hardcore Trump haters on this board, I should answer the hyperbolic question you pose on the behalf of all the people who weren’t in the “With Her” crowd? I don’t mean to be snarky as you may be attempting to genuinely ask the question, but I have no clue and didn’t support Trump. Personally, I can’t imagine HRC being charged with anything and the whole “Lock Her Up” business was unbecoming of a Presidential candidate and campaign. We can circle back to discuss the election, if we must, and I would tell you both sides were pretty despicable and beyond the pale in their rhetoric, conduct and tone. One side was just worse, Much worse.

The fact that you didnt support Trump, is well irrelevant - any vote not for HRC was by default for Trump.... so quit your defending him....

[Redbirds Fan]

Weak sauce, Bernie. Nobody claims that Tony Podesta isn't subject to the same legal scrutiny applied to others. But to suggest that John is somehow guilty of something because his brother is a scumbag...that's an attitude which flies in the face of the so-called Christian belief system.

And, just my opinion, it is pretty easy for someone to drop in and suggest that both sides were guilty of despicable rhetoric, conduct and tone during the campaign. But that is like saying Hell and Arizona are both hot. It's a false equivalency. What we now know is that one side acted not only in a despicable manner, but in an illegal manner. Nobody on 'your' side can now say there is "no evidence" of collusion. A member of the Trump campaign has now confessed in federal court that he colluded with the Russians.

First Trump said the Russians did not interfere in the election. That was proven to be a lie. Then he fell back to saying that nobody in his organization colluded. That has proven to be a lie. The next step will be showing what he knew and when he knew it.

But since you want to play the game, bernie, let's play. Let's forget that the dossier was originally funded by a conservative organization. Let's imagine it was conceived and created by Hillary herself and paid for out of her own pocket. So what? What impact does that have on the contents of the dossier? Each aspect of it would be subject to the same verification regardless of its provenance. Yet Trump and his minions would have you believe that it must automatically be false, and therefore that the whole Russia investigation must be fake news. Forget the fact that the investigation did not rely upon the dossier. Trumpers don't let facts stand in the way of demagoguery.

[Hornsby]

Google DNC denies paying for Fusion GPS Dossier. CNN, the Washington Post the N.Y. Times all reported thier denial in some form.



So this is the part where, since I’m not singing out of the same hymnal as the hardcore Trump haters on this board, I should answer the hyperbolic question you pose on the behalf of all the people who weren’t in the “With Her” crowd? I don’t mean to be snarky as you may be attempting to genuinely ask the question, but I have no clue and didn’t support Trump. Personally, I can’t imagine HRC being charged with anything and the whole “Lock Her Up” business was unbecoming of a Presidential candidate and campaign. We can circle back to discuss the election, if we must, and I would tell you both sides were pretty despicable and beyond the pale in their rhetoric, conduct and tone. One side was just worse, Much worse.

Simple question...you can either answer it, or choose not to. Your choice, nobody's putting a gun to your head. Because I honestly don't know...and you may.

[Redbirds Fan]

Well, see, we can agree on somethings. I guess what I was attempting to point out, and you apparently picked up on it which I appreciate, is that while this may appear to be a predominately “Trump“ centered investigation, I suspect the seine netting that Mueller has cast is going to catch a lot of fish, big and small, to varying degrees of wrong doing and regardless of the R or D after thier TV headlined name. Admittedly, I suspect there will be more Rs than Ds.

What happens with this Dossier? The HRC campaign and the DNC claim they didn’t know they were paying foreign operatives for “intelligence” gathering on candidate Trump? Why didn’t they admit to this sooner? And does the fact that a GOP operative ran an earlier less salacious version, give both absolution?

There are many Facets to this investigation, and many questions have to be answered.

This, bernie. This is why you have to answer the question...because you transition from asking reasonable questions about the dossier to suddenly implying that it should be made part of a federal criminal investigation, while failing to suggest that there was any actual criminal activity involved.

In this country, unlike the one our president seems to admire so much, we do not conduct criminal investigations of our political opponents simply because they opposed us in an election. In this country, there must be some articulable reason to commence a criminal investigation of a person. What that means, in simple terms, is that if one is willing to call for someone to be investigated for a crime, one must be ready to say what crime that person may have committed. Otherwise, to do so is at best irresponsible, at worst un-American.

[Redbirds Fan]

Meanwhile, at the WH, hilarity ensues. Soon-to-be-former-President Trump puts as much distance as he can between himself and George "what's-his-name", saying he was a nobody and a liar. One official says he was only a coffee boy for the campaign.

This all comes after George Papadopoulos, along with Carter Page, were the first two people named by Trump as his campaign's foreign policy advisors. Papadopoulos, according to Trump, was an "excellent guy".

As for Paul Manafort, he played no meaningful role in the campaign. What significance is a Campaign Manager at the GOP Convention, anyway?

Sarah Huckabee Sanders shrugs off Papadopoulos and Manafort. She seems to think that a person's status as a volunteer means they have no ability to impact an operation. Perhaps she should touch base with any of our remaining veterans of World War II.

These people truly have no shame. They will say anything. They will lie about how many people were present at an inauguration or whether the President has met a person or made a statement. They will lie when the facts are staring them in the face. Can you imagine what they are prepared to do when things are not so black and white?

[onejayhawk]

I would explain Trump if there were any explanation. He is who he is and has done what he has done because he is inexplicable.

I can only say he is not a nut job. Whether by luck or design, he is exposing decades of corruption built into the Washington establishment, particularly the Democrats. Podesta is a part of that. The Clintons are another, and the Obama administration is a third. Even the Bush's are swept into it. That is too much like a campaign promise to be coincidence.

J

[Fresno Bob]

I would explain Trump if there were any explanation. He is who he is and has done what he has done because he is inexplicable.

I can only say he is not a nut job. Whether by luck or design, he is exposing decades of corruption built into the Washington establishment, particularly the Democrats. Podesta is a part of that. The Clintons are another, and the Obama administration is a third. Even the Bush's are swept into it. That is too much like a campaign promise to be coincidence.

J

"He" is not exposing anything....other than narcissism on his part, and head in the sand denial-driven insanity from his supporters

[Redbirds Fan]

I would explain Trump if there were any explanation. He is who he is and has done what he has done because he is inexplicable.

I can only say he is not a nut job. Whether by luck or design, he is exposing decades of corruption built into the Washington establishment, particularly the Democrats. Podesta is a part of that. The Clintons are another, and the Obama administration is a third. Even the Bush's are swept into it. That is too much like a campaign promise to be coincidence.

J

Okay, let's go with that. What corruption has he exposed? "The Clintons" have been investigated for the past 30 years. Hillary has not been charged with so much as shoplifting, despite the efforts of two Independent Counsel and over a half dozen Congressional investigations.

According to some of the same sources upon which Trump regularly relies, Hillary has murdered upwards of sixty (60) persons, around the globe, over the last 30 years. That puts her in the category of some of the greatest assassins of all time. What makes this such an amazing feat is that none of her minions has come forward to offer evidence against her, or at least none have done so and lived. It makes me wonder why someone with this international network of killers didn't simply wipe out her political opposition in 2008 or in 2016. She could have blamed it on her friends, the Russians.

Likewise, she has illegally gathered at least a billion dollars over the same period, yet there is no record of her personally having control (or spending) any of it. There are no assets in her name, nor are there records of her spending $850,000 on pantsuits. There are no records of her flipping resort properties at 100% profit to her Clinton-loving cronies in Russia.

This all seems reasonable to me...that someone as liberal and clueless as she is could put together a billion dollar murder syndicate without leaving a trace over a thirty year period.

And Obama...what corruption did Trump expose there? The fact that he was not born in the United States? He went with that for several years.

Don't just give me that 'he exposed corruption' business. We're way past that. We now have hard evidence that Team Trump is a criminal organization. It's time to put up or shut up.

[Sour Masher]

The polls suggesting that going after Trump is a witch hunt/"fake news", and even the polls suggesting the Mueller investigation is unfair and untrustworthy, do not surprise me as much as this one, that indicates that around 80% of Trump voters think he should stay in office EVEN IF, he really did collude with Russia and that is proven in a way that they can believe. So, basically, they are like whatevs, we don't care what he does. He may have been right when he said he could walk down the street and shoot someone and wouldn't lose his voters.

I just don't get the fervent loyalty of his fan base. Nothing seems to sway them, and he hasn't really done anything special to warrant that sort of lo loyalty on their part.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/poll-vast-majority-of-trump-voters-say-he-should-stay-in-office-even-if-russia-collusion-is-proven/ar-AAuheEM?li=BBnbcA1

[TranaGreg]

The polls suggesting that going after Trump is a witch hunt/"fake news", and even the polls suggesting the Mueller investigation is unfair and untrustworthy, do not surprise me as much as this one, that indicates that around 80% of Trump voters think he should stay in office EVEN IF, he really did collude with Russia and that is proven in a way that they can believe. So, basically, they are like whatevs, we don't care what he does. He may have been right when he said he could walk down the street and shoot someone and wouldn't lose his voters.

I just don't get the fervent loyalty of his fan base. Nothing seems to sway them, and he hasn't really done anything special to warrant that sort of lo loyalty on their part.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/polit...eEM?li=BBnbcA1

my simplistic interpretation (it's obviously complex, but that's never stopped me from formulating opinions ... ) - for these people this reflects the degree of dissatisfaction with the perceived establishment (aka feelings of alienation, not seeing a future, etc). Everyone else who has ever run could be considered part of the establishment - Trump's problems just demonstrate that he's not part of that, he doesn't play by those rules.

it's been said many times for many years that the move from the industrial age to the information age will have winners & losers ... this is what that process looks like.

[Redbirds Fan]

The polls suggesting that going after Trump is a witch hunt/"fake news", and even the polls suggesting the Mueller investigation is unfair and untrustworthy, do not surprise me as much as this one, that indicates that around 80% of Trump voters think he should stay in office EVEN IF, he really did collude with Russia and that is proven in a way that they can believe. So, basically, they are like whatevs, we don't care what he does. He may have been right when he said he could walk down the street and shoot someone and wouldn't lose his voters.

I just don't get the fervent loyalty of his fan base. Nothing seems to sway them, and he hasn't really done anything special to warrant that sort of lo loyalty on their part.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/polit...eEM?li=BBnbcA1

I gained some insight into this portion of the electorate, running three campaigns in a county which later gave Hillary 35% of the vote in state where Trump won 68 out of 76 counties. The part of the state around where I was generally went 70-80% Trump. Having learned what I did from 2004, 2008 and 2012, I wasn't surprised at all.

It's hard to generalize about human behaviour, but there are a few common threads among the 'base'. The particular threads which are shared also indicate which Trump supporters are most likely to bail on him as his orbit gets closer and closer to the sun.

[Bernie Brewer]

The fact that you didnt support Trump, is well irrelevant - any vote not for HRC was by default for Trump.... so quit your defending him....

Alrighty then! Was it irrelevant or irreverent? I think that was actually one of Hillary’s 55 reasons for losing as published in her recent book.

[Bernie Brewer]

Simple question...you can either answer it, or choose not to. Your choice, nobody's putting a gun to your head. Because I honestly don't know...and you may.

Just for curiosity's sake...any idea just what crimes that the Trump people and his supporters wish HRC to be charged with? Because I still see many tweets that call for her to be "locked up", but I don't see any specific reference to why.

I have no clue and didn’t support Trump. Personally, I can’t imagine HRC being charged with anything and the whole “Lock Her Up” business was unbecoming of a Presidential candidate and campaign.

I think I answered it as best I can. I cannot speak for people who think that she should be locked up any more than you can.

BTW, how did your google search go?