monitoring Trump and relevant contemporary events

Hey winner, look up the word "entreaty," and also the meaning of the phrase, "see your way clear."


He probably also didn't entreat him to fellate him. So what?


What words did I put in his mouth?


M'kay.



Ok, so as congressman Jason Chaffetz put it, "these memoranda raise questions as to whether the president attempted to influence or impede the FBI's investigation."

Got it.


M'kay.

OK



http://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/see+one%27s+way+clear+to

Yeah, right. "feel free," unobstructed."

That's what I said. It's Comey's choice, not an order from Trump. Obstructed by what? Scruples, conscience, propriety, law, etc. The kinds of concerns that would make you UNWILLING to do something.

Trump never suggested that Comey do anything that he was unwilling to do, for whatever reason.

Well, we knew it was coming and here it is:



This is why so many people dismiss the MSM's credibility as nonexistent and are convinced it is on a mission to destroy the Trump presidency.

There are already multiple congressional committee investigations and now a Special Counsel has been appointed for which the Opposition, (incessantly for months now), has been clamoring. Yet within 24 hours or so of their victory, they're declaring that it's not enough.



The editors go on to say that the congressional investigations are important and must continue. Why? There is only a need for an "independent commission" if we can't trust the congressional investigations. Why waste time and money on investigations the Opposition has effectively announced can't be trusted and which will be roundly criticized unless they produce reports damning Trump?

ANSWER: Because they are making a obviously bogus effort to appear that they are only interested in the truth and the interests of the American people, while attempting to engineer yet another line of attack against Trump.

And "independent commission" is needed just in case Mueller's investigation reveals what almost everyone in DC already believes: Trump and his campaign did not collude with the Russians, and if that happens, all the effort put into this Russian Hacking strategy will have been for nothing. Unless of course they get another bite at the apple with an "independent" commission that doesn't have to limit itself to the issue of whether or not any crimes were committed. Lord knows, Trump and his minions, (with the help of their Russian masters of course), are crafty enough to have committed countless crimes but destroyed or hidden all the evidence or committed them in a manner that will allow them to skate on legal technicalities. If Mueller doesn't find anything, it will mean Trump got away with treason!

But with an "independent" commission made up of 5 or 6 individuals selected by the Republicans and 5 or 6 selected by the Democrats, there will certainly be enough members who will get to spin anything and everything "discovered" into a condemnation of Trump.

"None of these actions are technically illegal but they demonstrate a wanton disregard for the principles upon which this nation was founded and at the very least are evidence of gross incompetence which seriously calls into question the fitness of Donald Trump for the high office of President of the United States!"

Sure the other half of the commission will have the opportunity to tell the American people it's all partisan bunk, but they're all portrayed corrupt stooges for the man. The public will be asked, "What do you expect the Republicans to do?"

The only thing worse for the Opposition than a finding by Mueller that no laws were violated, is a quick finding by Mueller that no laws were violated. I'm sure they've already begun working on their talking points for such a possibility but they want this thing to drag on as long as possible. At least until the 2018 elections and preferably as long as 2020. With an "independent" commission with equal numbers of partisans they can exert much greater control over how long it continues.

I hope they keep braying for an "independent commission." Of course it will please their base who is already fully on board with the Destroy Trump mission. At the same time, it's very unlikely to persuade any of Trump's base (who probably all think he should have resisted a Special Counsel to the bitter end), that they should jump ship. On the contrary, they will take it as the evidence it is that the goal here isn't getting to the bottom of the "Russian Issue," it's crippling or destroying the Trump Administration.

However, I suspect that there is a sizable number of people who might be described as being in the middle. People who don't really trust either side and while they don't put much past Trump, find it difficult to believe that he would actively betray his country by colluding with a US adversary to steal an election. These people do want to get to the bottom of the issue. They are sick and tired of all the shrill vitriol being flung back and forth by both sides and they want the government to get things done. When they see the stock market take a dive because of DC generated uncertainty, most of them aren't blaming Trump or the Opposition so much as the entire DC swamp. If Trump's guilty, get rid of him, but if he's not, give it up and move on!

I also suspect a great number of these people welcomed the appointment of a Special Counsel and give credit to the Trump Administration for taking the step. With all of the obvious political rancor and chaos I'm sure a lot of folks perceive that turning the mess over to an "independent" investigator (And a former FBI Director at that!) to sort it all out and let the chips fall where they may makes a great deal of sense. I'm also sure that in lunch rooms, bars, and kitchens around the nation people are saying things like "Hey, Trump didn't have to appoint a Special Counsel, but he did anyway. He wants to get this over with as much as we do. Is that something a guilty man would do?"

It's immaterial that the reality is more complex than this. It will seem right to a lot of people and they will tip their hats to Trump. However, continued squealing about adding another layer to the already multi-layer investigatory process is, I bet, going to seem like piling on to a whole lot of people and in those same locations people will be saying things like "Jesus Christ! What more do these people want? They got their independent former FBI Director investigating the mess, but that isn't good enough? Maybe that Republican guy I heard last night saying this is all a political witch hunt is right."

The Opposition is, as expected, poised to overplay their hand and for the same reasons they did so with the Neal Gorsuch nomination: Many of them are rabidly anti-Trump and really do want to see him destroyed and the rest believe their political fortunes rest in the hands of rabidly anti-Trump voters and donors who may or may not be a minority of their support in terms of numbers but wield disproportionate influence on their careers. There's a reason Chuck Schumer went from actually talking about areas where he could conceive of working with his long time personal friend Donald Trump to All Resistance - All the Time. Whatever anyone thinks of Schumer he's proven to have great skill at riding the political waves of his constituency and party.

Washington DC is, today, filled with and driven by intrigue, betrayal, deception, corruption, ambition and the base emotions of hatred and jealousy. To one extent or another this has probably always been the case, as it is with any seat of power, but throughout history there have been notable cases where these forces have been present in excess like Byzantium of the Holy Roman Empire and Florence of the Medici. Our capital, the seat of most concentrated and extensive power in the world is right up there will all of the most notorious political centers in history.

Generally speaking, I eschew conspiracy theories and especially elaborate ones that require incredible levels of competency and secrecy from all of the conspirators. Large groups of people capable of doing everything just right and never revealing anything to anyone outside the conspiracy only exist in thriller novels. However, it's clear that conspiracies have existed, because they have been revealed (largely due to incompetency and and the inability to keep mouths shut) so it's only logical to assume that they continue to exist.

I think that the components of the Opposition are very definitely conspiring to bring down the Trump Presidency in the sense that they are working together, however I wouldn't label their effort a conspiracy since it is not at all a secret. Sure, if asked directly, the most prominent Opposition figures would answer that not only is there no coordination of efforts among the MSM, the Democrat Party and deep state operatives (who they deny even exist), they would flatly, and disingenuously, deny that their goal is to bring down Trump. They simply are all pursuing the truth in service to the American people.If Trump's presidency ends because of their efforts, it will be his own fault and not by their design. Of course just about all of them would, if asked, distinguish their efforts from the vast right wing conspiracy that tried to take Bill Clinton down and was successful in robbing Hillary Clinton of the presidency. If you want to see pernicious harassment motivated solely by partisan politics look at the Benghazi Investigation. The Russian Investigation is something entirely different.

I imagine they don't want to publicize meetings, phone calls or e-mail used to coordinate efforts so that would be secret activity...which all would deny, however the release of DNC and Podesta e-mails showed us that coordination between the MSM and the Democrats has occurred. Does anyone think that they learned their lesson from those leaks and have put a complete stop to it?

Even if we can call it a conspiracy, I don't think it's something tightly organized on a grand scale where there are overall leaders providing direction and compartmentalized cells given responsibility for certain task. That's a conspiracy from one of those thriller novels and while may have existed in the past or may even exist today, the Opposition isn't one of them. They don't have to be because secrecy isn't a major goal and all the players know their role. Again, I'm sure there is some coordination going on but nothing that requires clandestine meetings of leaders and detailed plans and strategies.

That is not of such a nature, is the typical argument for why it doesn't exist at all, but it's a disingenuous argument. The Opposition doesn't have to operate like the Illuminati to effectively work together towards a common goal.

Finally, in anticipation of certain responses, I don't think that DC is a nest of Democrat vipers alone. It is a nest of political vipers of all scales who are all vying for the largest shares they can grab of a finite amount of power. If one group has greater skill at intrigue than another I think it can be explained on the basis of shared origins and experiences within the group rather than ideology. Progressive ideology doesn't produce more successful conspirators than it's conservative counterpart or visa versa. I don't hold firm to a position that conservatives are fundamentally better people than progressives and that all of this countries ills are due to progressives and can only be solved by conservatives. I have a rather low regard for both the Democrat and Republican parties, however Republican policies are far more often aligned with my ideology than those of the Democrats (many of which I think are harmful rather than simply erroneous) and since for now we have only a binary choice, I am going to continue to generally prefer and support Republicans.

The two parties have always been in conflict and that is to be expected and can be productive and benefit the nation, but at this point in time it appears to me that they are at war. I can allow my disgust for the situation to cause me to check out and withdraw from any contemplation, commentary or activism. At my age and with my financial status, there's a chance I could comfortably ride out the rest of my days without paying much attention to the absolute mess in Washington and in other parts of the country. I don't think Texas is going to turn blue in my lifetime, but if it does, I will have the option of moving. I don't think the nation is currently on the edge of a cliff, but it could be, and the future I fear for myself, but more importantly my family, could be a lot closer than I think. In a war you either hide or chose sides and I don't think anyone doesn't know the side I've chosen.

(Besides, I'm addicted to this stuff and would only be kidding myself if I said I was going to ignore it all)

NYT

So what happens if Trump goes to trial over something, he is found guilty, republicans still don't start impeachment proceedings?

Making peace with Russia is hardly treason.

As for prosecution of Republicans for every minor transgression, that is already being done by the Democrats' witch hunt.



I have a very good memory. And yes, when it came to that birther nonsense, Trump was just a fringe lunatic.

I'd rather not do so either. But when Russia invades a former-Soviet country that is not a member of NATO, and the only way to dislodge them is to send our own troops into combat against Russia, it seems that we do end up conceding them.

Unless the sanctions will eventually work, but I don't think they will.

We made a big mistake when we ignored international law and took Kosovo away from Serbia. It gave Putin an easy precedent for his own uses of force to redraw international borders.

I agree that Putin is using the alleged plight of Russian expats cynically.

The Democrats' newfound concerns with Russia are obviously fake. All they care about is persecuting innocent Republicans.

I certainly favored resisting an independent council. It is very clear that the only goal here is to harm people that the Democrats disagree with.

Can't try a sitting president to begin with.

But he isn't guilty of anything. He would not be found guilty unless the Democrats managed to rig the trial. (Which of course being Democrats they would try to do.)

Yes you can. Bill Clinton was tried during his presidency for the Paula Jones thing.

Did you post this excerpt simply as a news update or is there some point to it?



Getting a little ahead of yourself don't you think?

"Still don't" suggests you think either they should have already started the proceedings or should but won't if he's charged.

Hypothetical questions can be fun but you might as well be asking

"What happens if Trump has a heart attack during his sentencing?"

It seems you have forgotten Bill Clinton and Jones case? Granted that was a civil lawsuit.

I was honestly curious, so sue me I guess.

Clinton wasn't "tried" for a crime. That was a civil matter.

I don't know about you Frogs, but in the parlance of American jurisprudence, you don't "try" someone for damages in a civil matter. You "sue" them for damages.

Not very likely.



Like a couple others just said, that was a civil lawsuit.

As you say, that was a civil lawsuit.

Why do you cheese-eaters try so hard to deny is something any reasonable person can easily see for themselves, to wit:

I can express my desires, and/or give my advice, even if unsolicited, all while conceding that it's not my decision to make.

For example: I would hope you could see your way clear to separating from your abusive husband.

Why do you try so hard to "enforce" unreasonable arguments with transparent sophistry? Don't bother answering. The answer to that question is also readily apparent.

Yeah, we need to get politics out of the environmental arguments, eh?



http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/exclusive-far-left-green-groups-invited-to-advise-epa-on-scientific-integrity/article/2623512

Jason Chaffetz was referred to earlier by some cheese-eater with the suggestion that he thinks Trump did something improper in connection with the russian investigation.



https://www.buzzfeed.com/buzzfeednews/live-updates-trump-classified-information?utm_term=.cen0v6w3a#.efLnEKWpa

With regard to the Comey memo in particular:



Assuming the memo's "raise questions," Chaffetz wants those questions answered, directly by Comey. He clearly did not say, or conclude, that this memo, standing alone, PROVES any impropriety, as the cheese-eaters claim.