Trump being investigated for possible obstruction of justice - Washington Post

[ilostmypassword]

16 minutes ago, hdkane said:

Not a Trump fan, but investigation is not a conviction...it is a normal and expected procedure. Liberals, as well as the media, seem to forget this important feature of checks and balances in democracy.  Whenever Obama was investigated, there were cries of racism. Whenever Clinton was investigated, there were cries of sexism.  Liberals need to stop acting like menstruating 14 year old girls who failed civics class. Let the investigation take place, and stop jumping to conclusions.  The same crowd that cries (literally) about fake news seems determined to create it if fake news suits their own agenda.  

Another "not-a-trump-fan-but.."  Here's a post of yours that I found that makes your claim extremely unlikely. I should add that this wasn't the only post I found that would put you squarely in the Trump camp.

 

no problem...you asked how I was oppressed as a white...let;s go...the government in the usa has an established policy of hiring on the basis of race and gender...if you are a white male, you fall to the bottom of the pile for hiring, promotion, and retention...

 

being Black gives an individual a benefit of 200 SAT/GRE points...for Asians, it is a 50 point deficit...consequently...simply because of skin color, whites/asian are excluded from schools such as harvard, stanford, and yale that would obviously not only provide a better education but employment opportunity...also, there are housing loans that are targeted toward blacks when it comes to buying a home, which is the major financial asset of most people...and of course, there is welfare, which is targeted specifically to Blacks because they have children out of wedlock at a rate that is more than twice whites and asians...

 

let's go...i'm ready to address my white privilege anytime...

Edited June 16, 2017 by ilostmypassword

[selftaopath]

21 hours ago, Jingthing said:

There is very little doubt about that. 

Hopefully the American people can (legally and peacefully) make his pathetic adventure in the white house as brief as possible. 

It would help if a few individuals in congress and the senate had spines, but they're only there to get rich/er so "never mind." Americans MUST vote them out. Is there a "breech of contract" law that can oust them?  They clearly don't seem to be doing the job as most Americans understand their job description. What's their approval rating now? Oh wait http://www.gallup.com/poll/208472/congress-approval-drops-down-february-high.aspx

there it is.

[selftaopath]

21 hours ago, Redline said:

This is a great article written by a conservative journalist.  Everyone should read it:

 

http://time.com/4675860/donald-trump-fake-news-attacks/

Thank you. I include as the article states:

"Shameless rhetoric will always find a receptive audience with shameless people."

That's how I see most individuals who have lost a sense of integrity and applaud the biggest looser yet i.e. 45.

[selftaopath]

21 hours ago, ilostmypassword said:

Thanks for giving us permission to carry on. Just like Trump, you want to claim credit for activities that are out of your control.

I've viewed (R)Richard Painter on several news outlets. I'll state my admiration for this republican. He was the chief White House ethics lawyer in the George W. Bush administration from 2005–2007. 45 and his defenders would be well served if they listened to this man. I would vote for him even while disagreeing with his party affiliation. 

[thaibeachlovers]

4 hours ago, Traveler19491 said:

I will give you that. However, let's take a peek at how that whole "put a stick in its eye" thing is working out.

 

Pence - Establishment

Tillerson - Oligarch/Establishment

Price - Establishment

Mnuchin - Oligarch/Establishment

Sessions - Establishment

Perry - Establishment

DeVos - Oligarch with strong ties to Establishment

Ross - Oligarch with strong ties to Establishment

Acosta - Establishment

Chao - Establishment

Shulkin - Establishment

Pompeo - Establishment

Coats - Establishment

Rogers - Establishment

Haley - Establishment

Mulvaney - Establishment

Priebus - Establishment

 

Of his entire so-called administration, it would appear that the only ones who would qualify as not being a part of or not having ties to the Establishment would be Bannon, Kushner, Ivanka, and Linda McMahon. However, Ivanka and Jared are both Oligarchs, so that pretty much brings it down to the racist provocateur, Bannon and the "What the hell???" appointment of McMahon.

 

Yup, that's really "sticking it in the eye" of the old Establishment. I'm sure they're quivering in their shoes...whenever they're not salivating at the thought of the anticipated growth in their net worth and not laughing up their sleeves at the gullible uneducated that Trump loves so much.

 

Oh get real, he had to have establishment people to form a government. You think the senate would approve people with no government experience? Where are all the people with no government experience that he could use that would be allowed to be in his government?

Trump is the boss- he sets their agenda.

Anyway, him just being the president has apparently put a stick in the establishment's eyes, just looking at the uproar going on- excellent so far.

[thaibeachlovers]

4 hours ago, Traveler19491 said:

...and yet nothing proves he hasn't. Still, many more questions to be asked and answered, or Mueller wouldn't still be in business.

How can he prove a negative when so many are running around saying because they said he did it, it must be true? Plenty of that going on here on TVF.

 

By your argument he is always guilty regardless of the truth.

Mueller has only just got the paper stacked on the table so far. He could have a cushy well paid job for years yet. He might not have finished till after 2024 if his retinue keep leaking unattributed information that needs to be investigated.

Edited June 16, 2017 by thaibeachlovers

[thaibeachlovers]

3 hours ago, Berkshire said:

Eh, not exactly my friend.  What that Russian sanctions bill says is:

 

1.  Russia interfered with America's 2016 elections and must be punished.

2.  Trump and/or his cronies are in deep with the Russians and may try to lift said sanctions.

 

I would think even Trump supporters would not want a foreign adversary meddling in our elections, but I could be wrong. 

Seriously, you think no government ever interfered with the elections in another country before this? I assume that it goes on all the time- that is why countries have expensive intelligence communities to counter such. It's like anyone thinking that what we are writing isn't being stored in the big computers because of "privacy" laws.

 

BTW the CIA has done a fair bit of meddling in other countries elections- how about spanking them for it?

[thaibeachlovers]

5 hours ago, Traveler19491 said:

I will concur that HRC would not have made a good President. I find the woman immoral, untrustworthy, self-serving, and power hungry. However, Trump a "better" President? On that, we will have to agree to disagree. Bigly.

LOL, I'm not saying he is a "good" or even an "average" president, just better than her, which is a pretty low bar- if it were lower it would be on the ground.

There was a choice between two very flawed candidates. I just support the one that I consider to be less bad than the other. Had a better candidate stood they would be president. That they are not is down to the dreadful American election system and the appalling political farce. The Americans, IMO, got the president they deserve.

 

However, if Trump was the average establishment hack I wouldn't care either way as nothing would change, and that is the problem with politics as usual. The rich get richer and the rest of us just get the c*** they throw our way.

Trump for me holds out the hope that he might change politics as usual. It might not happen, but at least he gives me hope, while she would have just carried on 44's agenda.

[thaibeachlovers]

3 hours ago, pegman said:

Never heard of DeepThroat?

Of course, but that was a different era. World's changed. None of the entire present political class give a monkey's, IMO, for the common man. It's all done to keep themselves in power.

 

I don't trust any of them, unless they come out and say it themselves, or if there is actual proof that can't be faked

There is no honour in politics anymore. Shame on them.

[thaibeachlovers]

1 hour ago, selftaopath said:

It would help if a few individuals in congress and the senate had spines, but they're only there to get rich/er so "never mind." Americans MUST vote them out. Is there a "breech of contract" law that can oust them?  They clearly don't seem to be doing the job as most Americans understand their job description. What's their approval rating now? Oh wait http://www.gallup.com/poll/208472/congress-approval-drops-down-february-high.aspx

there it is.

It would help if a few individuals in congress and the senate had spines, but they're only there to get rich/er so "never mind."

I guess you said something I can agree with.

The present farce, whichever side we are on is only showing the taxpayers what a bunch of ********  they are paying for.

[ilostmypassword]

42 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Oh get real, he had to have establishment people to form a government. You think the senate would approve people with no government experience? Where are all the people with no government experience that he could use that would be allowed to be in his government?

Trump is the boss- he sets their agenda.

Anyway, him just being the president has apparently put a stick in the establishment's eyes, just looking at the uproar going on- excellent so far.

In the words of Charlie Sykes, a principled conservative:

 

But the real heart of anti-anti-Trumpism is the delight in the frustration and anger of his opponents. Mr. Trump’s base is unlikely to hold him either to promises or tangible achievements, because conservative politics is now less about ideas or accomplishments than it is about making the right enemies cry out in anguish.

Mr. Trump’s most vocal supporters don’t have to defend his specific actions as long as they make liberal heads explode, or as Sarah Palin put it so memorably, “It’s really funny to me to see the splodey heads keep sploding.”

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/12/opinion/sunday/if-liberals-hate-him-then-trump-must-be-doing-something-right.html?_r=0

[thaibeachlovers]

5 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

In the words of Charlie Sykes, a principled conservative:

 

But the real heart of anti-anti-Trumpism is the delight in the frustration and anger of his opponents. Mr. Trump’s base is unlikely to hold him either to promises or tangible achievements, because conservative politics is now less about ideas or accomplishments than it is about making the right enemies cry out in anguish.

Mr. Trump’s most vocal supporters don’t have to defend his specific actions as long as they make liberal heads explode, or as Sarah Palin put it so memorably, “It’s really funny to me to see the splodey heads keep sploding.”

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/12/opinion/sunday/if-liberals-hate-him-then-trump-must-be-doing-something-right.html?_r=0

Pity he didn't ask her to be VP. That would have been spectacular.

Edit- I don't think she would have agreed to that, but if she had and they won  

Edited June 16, 2017 by thaibeachlovers

[Berkshire]

4 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Pity he didn't ask her to be VP. That would have been spectacular.

Edit- I don't think she would have agreed to that, but if she had and they won  

Actually, Palin as VP would virtually guarantee that Trump would never be impeached. 

[PattayaJames]

Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein warns against anonymous sources

 

Americans should exercise caution before accepting as true any stories attributed to anonymous ‘officials,’ particularly when they do not identify the country – let alone the branch of agency of government – with which the alleged sources supposedly are affiliated. 

 

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2017/06/15/deputy-attorney-general-rod-rosenstein-warns-against-anonymous-sources/102907698/

 

[smotherb]

7 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

It would if it were true.

Problem for the anti Trump cabal is that after all this time not a single iota of verifiable evidence has come out to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he did collude to influence the election. With all the leaks going on, were there any actual evidence, Trump would be impeached by now.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cabal

A cabal is a group of people united in some close design together, usually to promote their private views or interests in an ideology,

like the Trump cabal?  

 

My dear, not a single iota of evidence. That, we do not know, do we? However, there is enough smoke to investigate him, isn't there?

 

It seems Comey outsmarted Trump. A little leak and Mueller is appointed to continue the investigation and in less than six weeks, Trump is under investigation. I'll wager Drumpf now knows; you don't mess around with Jim.

[smotherb]

2 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Seriously, you think no government ever interfered with the elections in another country before this? I assume that it goes on all the time- that is why countries have expensive intelligence communities to counter such. It's like anyone thinking that what we are writing isn't being stored in the big computers because of "privacy" laws.

 

BTW the CIA has done a fair bit of meddling in other countries elections- how about spanking them for it?

Yes, we interfere with other countries because we are trying to manipulate them to our benefit.

 

Do you want Russia to manipulate us for their benefit?

 

 

[jak2002003]

11 minutes ago, smotherb said:

Yes, we interfere with other countries because we are trying to manipulate them to our benefit.

 

Do you want Russia to manipulate us for their benefit?

 

 

I don't want Russia or America to manipulate my country.  In fact, if I had to choose between the 2... America would be bottom of the list.

[Traveler19491]

2 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Oh get real, he had to have establishment people to form a government. You think the senate would approve people with no government experience? Where are all the people with no government experience that he could use that would be allowed to be in his government?

Trump is the boss- he sets their agenda.

Anyway, him just being the president has apparently put a stick in the establishment's eyes, just looking at the uproar going on- excellent so far.

They approved DeVos. They approved Mnuchin. They approved Tillerson. They approved Ross. None with any experience in government, but all deeply embedded in the swamp.

 

"He was elected by people sick to the back teeth with the Washington political establishment, and the establishment is both Dems and the GOP." Your words. You are saying in one breath that the people elected him to do something, then you immediately turn around and contradict yourself by insisting that what he was elected to do was impossible ("he had to have establishment people")...thereby admitting that Trump is either an idiot or a liar who campaigned on an idea that, according to you, he couldn't possibly follow through on. And if you are fine with him "putting a stick in the establishment's eyes" just to upset the establishment then you are little more than an anarchist.

[Traveler19491]

2 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

LOL, I'm not saying he is a "good" or even an "average" president, just better than her, which is a pretty low bar- if it were lower it would be on the ground.

There was a choice between two very flawed candidates. I just support the one that I consider to be less bad than the other. Had a better candidate stood they would be president. That they are not is down to the dreadful American election system and the appalling political farce. The Americans, IMO, got the president they deserve.

 

However, if Trump was the average establishment hack I wouldn't care either way as nothing would change, and that is the problem with politics as usual. The rich get richer and the rest of us just get the c*** they throw our way.

Trump for me holds out the hope that he might change politics as usual. It might not happen, but at least he gives me hope, while she would have just carried on 44's agenda.

On the flip side, 26 million wouldn't be looking at the very real possibility of losing their insurance coverage and people with pre-existing conditions wouldn't be sweating bullets. We wouldn't have to be sweating having climate change regulations rolled back, or Wall Street and the big banks being allowed to once again plunder the economy. We wouldn't be looking at the deficit and debt both exploding due to tax cuts coupled with unfettered spending. Sorry, you will never convince me that Trump was ever more than a pathetic joke.

[Jingthing]

They approved DeVos. They approved Mnuchin. They approved Tillerson. They approved Ross. None with any experience in government, but all deeply embedded in the swamp.
 
"He was elected by people sick to the back teeth with the Washington political establishment, and the establishment is both Dems and the GOP." Your words. You are saying in one breath that the people elected him to do something, then you immediately turn around and contradict yourself by insisting that what he was elected to do was impossible ("he had to have establishment people")...thereby admitting that Trump is either an idiot or a liar who campaigned on an idea that, according to you, he couldn't possibly follow through on. And if you are fine with him "putting a stick in the establishment's eyes" just to upset the establishment then you are little more than an anarchist.

Or accidental nihilist anyway.

[dutchisaan]

3 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Oh get real, he had to have establishment people to form a government. You think the senate would approve people with no government experience? Where are all the people with no government experience that he could use that would be allowed to be in his government?

Trump is the boss- he sets their agenda.

Anyway, him just being the president has apparently put a stick in the establishment's eyes, just looking at the uproar going on- excellent so far.

To answer your statement, please look at this youtube video.

And please, let me know why Mr. Sanders is wrong!

 

[thaibeachlovers]

3 hours ago, PattayaJames said:

Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein warns against anonymous sources

 

Americans should exercise caution before accepting as true any stories attributed to anonymous ‘officials,’ particularly when they do not identify the country – let alone the branch of agency of government – with which the alleged sources supposedly are affiliated. 

 

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2017/06/15/deputy-attorney-general-rod-rosenstein-warns-against-anonymous-sources/102907698/

 

Which is what Comey also said. However, in their eagerness to destroy Trump, the antis seized on this piece of unverified leaking with glee, and took no notice.

[thaibeachlovers]

2 hours ago, smotherb said:

like the Trump cabal?  

 

My dear, not a single iota of evidence. That, we do not know, do we? However, there is enough smoke to investigate him, isn't there?

 

It seems Comey outsmarted Trump. A little leak and Mueller is appointed to continue the investigation and in less than six weeks, Trump is under investigation. I'll wager Drumpf now knows; you don't mess around with Jim.

Seems that Comey was indeed a clever chap. Trump should remember not to insult people that can make his life harder, but then he wouldn't be "Trump", would he? 

I guess people like I have to put up with the less attractive aspects of his personality as the price for keeping HRC out of the big chair.

[thaibeachlovers]

2 hours ago, Traveler19491 said:

On the flip side, 26 million wouldn't be looking at the very real possibility of losing their insurance coverage and people with pre-existing conditions wouldn't be sweating bullets. We wouldn't have to be sweating having climate change regulations rolled back, or Wall Street and the big banks being allowed to once again plunder the economy. We wouldn't be looking at the deficit and debt both exploding due to tax cuts coupled with unfettered spending. Sorry, you will never convince me that Trump was ever more than a pathetic joke.

Perhaps you should look at what is happening with Obamacare in the real world. People are losing their cover anyway as companies pull out, and many can't afford it. Obama care was doomed, but some don't or won't accept reality.

Banks can't plunder anything without people giving them their money- buyer beware.

Climate change regulations didn't do anything to stop/ reverse climate change, and people can stop driving cars or flying in planes without the government telling them to.

Obama nearly doubled the debt in his 8 years.

 

Trump is a joke, but he is the president and she isn't. Job done.

[boomerangutang]

Here we are, and the only people in Trump's inner circle who aren't covered in muck are Bannon and Spicer.  Bannon, because he seems to only have had a few tentative ties to Russian operatives, and Spicer because he only tries to convey what the prez tells him to say.   Absolutely no one could do Spicer's job without getting shit thrown at them.    Not much different than being Mussolini's press liaison, if he had one.

 

Priebus doesn't count, because he's essentially an errand boy.   

 

 

[thaibeachlovers]

2 hours ago, Jingthing said:

Or accidental nihilist anyway.

Deeply cynical certainly and don't trust politicians whatever their party. People like me always get the shaft whoever is in the big chairs, so at least I prefer to have some attractive people ( his daughter is a nice bit of totty ) on tv rather than some horrid old crone and her lecherous hubby.

[boomerangutang]

                                The deal with Pence hiring a personal lawyer; The press corps is going easy on that bit of news by saying it's no big deal.   .....as if Pence is an innocent player in the multi-level imbroglio.  

 

                       Pence is not an innocent player.  He's got some seriously ugly stuff to answer for:   Not least:  openly lying to Americans several times (trying to create smoke screens for Flynn and Trump, among other things).   Pence has also been abysmal at his job as chief vetter for incoming cabinet nominees.  

 

                  If he was being judged on competence, he'd get an F.  Is it criminal for a VP to continually lie to Americans, and to allow inner circle people to cheat on their security forms?  It's not criminal to lie, but the latter issue could open Pence up to disciplinary proceedings.

 

                             Imagine this: You're the boss at Skunk Works (they make Stealth fighters and other state-of-the-art aircraft). The person you appoint to head security/vetting, allows several top positions to be filled by people who plainly lied on their security forms (said they weren't Russian agents, when in fact they were).  That's the sort of thing which is tolerated in the Oval Office. 

[Traveler19491]

13 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Perhaps you should look at what is happening with Obamacare in the real world. People are losing their cover anyway as companies pull out, and many can't afford it. Obama care was doomed, but some don't or won't accept reality.

Banks can't plunder anything without people giving them their money- buyer beware.

Climate change regulations didn't do anything to stop/ reverse climate change, and people can stop driving cars or flying in planes without the government telling them to.

Obama nearly doubled the debt in his 8 years.

 

Trump is a joke, but he is the president and she isn't. Job done.

Aaaaaand once again, you have swallowed an overly generous portion of Trump's bovine fecal matter. Obamacare is not "failing", as the orange one and his minions would love you to believe. Trump and the GOP are sabotaging it.

1) Companies pulling out of state exchanges leaving no coverage available. While this is true in a very few cases, most state exchanges are stable.

2) Huge premium increases. This is primarily due to Trump and the Republicans introducing completely unwarranted instability into the marketplace by refusing to indicate whether tax subsidies will be continued. If tax subsidies are terminated, participation in the individual marketplace will drop dramatically, thereby shrinking the pool of younger insureds who account for most of the insurance companies profits. Companies are pricing that risk into their premiums.

3) Enrollments in the ACA have been good, this year exceeding expectations. That is largely due to the government's aggressive campaign of promoting the program. However, one of Trump's first actions was to eliminate all funding for promotion, the intent being to curtail enrollments and thus fulfill his prophecy that the ACA is "failing".

4) Trump seeks to eliminate the requirement for everyone to have insurance. That will lead to healthy young people declining to enroll, thus starving insurance companies of the needed healthy people to offset the claims by older, less healthy participants and therefore driving rates up, or companies pulling out altogether.

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/03/trump-sabotaging-obamacare/521256/

 

All of this is nothing less than a callous effort to inflict a death-by-a-thousand-cuts on Obamacare. The program has many faults, but none that can't be corrected. Whatever the GOP comes up with will more than likely prove to be disastrous for the poor, sick, and elderly, as the House's initial effort so adequately demonstrated. If the Senate version is going to be so good, then why is it being crafted in secret? Why is the public, all of whom will be affected by whatever they do, not being allowed to observe the process? Why is the public not being given every assurance that pre-existing conditions will be covered, that lifetime caps will not be permitted, that profit margins will not be capped, and that subsidies will be continued?

 

Why? Because that would preclude their ability to fork over huge tax breaks to the wealthy. Those provisions are exactly what the GOP intends to use to fund those tax cuts, and the poor, sick, and elderly will be the ones required to pay for it. Your continued slavish adulation of the orange one is keeping you from seeing what he and his GOP sycophants are doing to real people.

[Traveler19491]

13 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Banks can't plunder anything without people giving them their money- buyer beware.

Climate change regulations didn't do anything to stop/ reverse climate change, and people can stop driving cars or flying in planes without the government telling them to.

Obama nearly doubled the debt in his 8 years.

 

Trump is a joke, but he is the president and she isn't. Job done.

1

Your willful ignorance regarding these matters is appalling.

Banks can and do plunder at will. Are you aware of how money is created? When you deposit one dollar in any bank, that bank is immediately permitted to literally create lend $10. Where did that $10 come from? Thin air. Literally.

"The credit markets have become a funnel for money distribution. However, in a fractional reserve banking system, new loans actually create even more new money. With a legally required reserve ratio of 10%, the new $100 billion in bank reserves could potentially result in a nominal monetary increase of $1 trillion." (Investopedia.com)

Your assertion that "Banks can't plunder anything without people giving them their money - buyer beware" is indicative of a pathetically poor understanding of how economics, the Federal Reserve, investments, and banking work. Banks don't need depositors per se. They need the Federal Reserve and borrowers. That's all. And with the money that is created by their borrowing from the Fed, they can then turn around and play with that money in the markets, putting that money into high-risk investments (like mortgages given to people who can't afford them, or exotic instruments that have high yields but also astronomical risks. Sound familiar?)

Your ludicrous assertion that "Banks can't plunder without people giving them their money - buyer beware") reveals a gross lack of knowledge/understanding about how banks, the Federal Reserve, investments, and money all work. Please try to gain at least a modicum of understanding about a subject before trying to make an intelligent sounding remark. It doesn't do you justice.

[Traveler19491]

14 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Obama nearly doubled the debt in his 8 years.

One more example of you spouting off on a subject you either know little about, or are trying to use the same tactics that Trump and the GOP have developed such a deep love for...willful misinformation.

The debt did, in fact, nearly double during Obama's tenure. But failing to properly attribute the causes is what constitutes misinformation. The debt is a direct function of the deficit. Obama was handed a $1.4 trillion deficit when he took office. There were also two wars still going on. That deficit was primarily attributable to Bush engaging in massive tax cuts while simultaneously involved in two wars, the first President in history to do so. Obama cut the deficit by nearly two-thirds. Nice try, but you'll have to do better next time.

Edited June 17, 2017 by Traveler19491