monitoring Trump and relevant contemporary events

He knows farmerman, you the MSM and everyone else calling for Trump head dont have evidence of collusion.

I mean, like, when legal experts disagree, how is a mere layman supposed to know who's right? I would trust my homeys before I would some damn Supreme Court Justices who I aint even never met.

He couldn't take it, because he can't take even the slightest criticism gracefuly. That's how insecure the guy is.

And all he had to do to keep FAUX firmly on his side was to answer a few harmless questions by a woman, who was on his side anyway.

Quote:

He knows farmerman, you the MSM and everyone else calling for Trump head dont have evidence of collusion.

Collusion nd other things are what the investigations are about, lets see what comes out of it.
Recall, in the early days of the Trump regime all the White Housers were denying ANY CONNECTION with Russia before the election. Also, the entire issue of Flynn's hiring , when everyone knew from where he stood.
Why does Trump give the appearance that hes trying to hide something.
Just yesterday in his daily "Netwhine" he announced as to how he was the most ill treated by the "media" of all past presidents, .Then he stated that there ws no collusion s far as HE WAS INVOLVED. Hes already drawing the line to set up "plausible deniability.

You're entitled to your opinions based on your interpretation of things said and done, but the fact remains you are not aware of any evidence that proves collusion between Trump or his campaign and the Russians. It won't grind the investigations to a screeching halt or ensure a second term for Trump if you acknowledge that fact.

We have no choice but to see what comes out of the investigations. I'm not arguing for them to be ended only for them to conducted thoroughly and expeditiously. I would have a hard time believing that you deny that the opposition to Trump would prefer these investigations drag on as long as possible and that if there is a way to stretch them out, they will do so.

Obviously they may, before they are ended, turn up evidence that proves collusion. It's not an impossibility, however given the vast resources that have been directed towards finding that evidence; beginning prior to Trump's election, if there is evidence out there it's not going to be easily found. While the absence of evidence of guilt doesn't necessary confirm the absence of guilt, the right of due process recognizes that there must be reasonable limitations to the search for it. If you were accused of a crime you didn't commit you certainly wouldn't be happy if the authorities were allowed to conduct an endless investigation for their Holy Grail if the process greatly disrupted your personal and professional lives and you would have the legal means to end it, or at least it's disruptive aspects. I am hopeful that Special Counsel Mueller will not follow an endless path and that he will not allow rumors and innuendo or merely an appearance of something shady to extend a fallow investigation for years.

PS-you really were addressing Blickers not me.

No kidding? That's probably why I included you by name and Blickers as "you" in my response to Blickers' post. BTW - That post was a response to brandon's which in turn was a response to yours; hence your inclusion in my response. I can see how you might be confused but follow the trail back and all will be revealed.

No kidding? That's probably why I included you by name and Blickers as "you" in my response to Blickers' post. BTW - That post was a response to brandon's which in turn was a response to yours; hence your inclusion in my response. I can see how you might be confused but follow the trail back and all will be revealed.

When one is a public servant, one has to face criticism and questions from the media.

If Trump were running a restaurant instead of the presidency and there was as much proof of poor hygiene as there is of proof of collusion with the Russians, then only a bloody idiot would contemplate eating there.

Quote:

look up... the meaning of the phrase, "see your way clear."

OK

Quote:

see one's way to
Also, see one's way clear to. Find it possible or feel free to do something, as in Can you see your way to lending me the car for the week?...This expression, which transfers seeing one's path to something unobstructed, was first recorded in 1774.

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.

see your way (clear) to doing something

to be able to do something and agree to do it Do you think you could see your way clear to lending me a bit more money?

By saying, "I hope... Trump asked...
Cute attempt at subterfuge, though, trumpee.