Robert Mueller, Former F.B.I. Director, Is Named Special Counsel for Russia Investigation

You literally can't make this crap up...... How embarrassing for Trump that his own BS'ing makes him look foolish.

 

Karma, do you believe in it.

 

Seems like an oversimplification and broad generalization.

There is a real story about Russian interference into the election. What comes out of the investigation remains to be determined.

 

How do you think Trump won the election?

 

The media isn't missing that story. Trump himself is getting in the way of that story. He keeps putting lies, boneheaded policy making, horrible decisions, that demand coverage and overshadow a story like you are suggesting.

The fact that an entitled billionaire who has been a publicity hound for 30 years and was also a reality television star wins the nomination and eventually the election is a big story, but the fact that almost nobody else is in a position to do that prevents it from making political parties obsolete.

 

Huh? Why would I comment on your education level?

Very happy to see the results of the Independent Prosecutor's investigation (as well as the two congressional investigations). As someone that has called out for the need for such an investigation, I find it important to let Mueller and team look through all the available facts that will either clear Trump and his people fully or determine that there has been inappropriate and/or illegal interactions between Trump, his campaign, and/or his administration with Russia.

While I disagree with your comment that "something hasn't happened yet" (you'd have to completely ignore all that has been reported already) I think we agree that the investigation needs to look at all possible connections and information that would help rule out any wrong-doing. All audio records, all written records, interviews with any key individuals (including Comey, Flynn, Manafort, Stone, Sessions, Pence, and Trump). And since there are many questions about financial implications, that should also involve a look at Trump's tax records.

"It hasn't been great"? Understatement much?

 

Collusions between an enemy of the state (Russia/Putin) and the Trump campaign to affect the outcome of the 2016 election? Like coordinating the wikileaks releases with the campaign? Like promising Russia concession for the wikileaks releases?

 

Don't understand how you or anyone else can support a president that tweets out things that so many people find offensive or objectionable enough to respond in "rage". I also don't understand and agree that its to people's best interest to ignore or give the president a pass each time he does it. Wrong is wrong,whether he does it once or he does it every day. Ignoring it simply means you are enabling him.. Acquiescing simply suggests you agree with what he tweets/says.

Here's an example... the resident gets invited to speak at two university graduations this past week. College graduations should be recognition of hard work and achievement of the students graduation. trump uses the opportunity to complain about the media and whine about how he is being treated. if I was a graduating student I would be offended. If I was a parent, spouse, family member or friend I would be offended. Sure, there are many worse things he has done... but in that moment and time... his words and actions warrant objection.

 

I'm sad to say when the news first broke, I looked on it with great suspicion. I thought, what is Sessions trying to pull? If you have a special prosecutor, does that short circuit the FBI? Does it short circuit the Congressional investigations? But no, this looks like a very promising development. It should give the FBI the space it needs to work and give people confidence in the outcome. And they picked the right guy for the job. Seems like a good move for the republic. We'll see how things go, but right now I have high confidence and trust with the investigation.

 

Trump won the election first and foremost by the Democrats putting up a Washington elitist who is backed by a party who has lost touch with their base. Contrary to the die hard party lemmings on both sides, there is a good portion of people who are tired of the Washington elitist who are bought out by big money.

Secondly, Trump won because the DNC party was exposed for their unethical behavior and corruption ... regardless of who exposed this behavior. Removing those who were *caught* and immediately focusing on RUSSIA RUSSIA RUSSIA for exposing the corruption is ignorant. The leftist mentality for blaming Russia for exposing this corrupt behavior and raging how Russia interfered is exactly my case in point. Blaming Russia for using fake news and exposing the corrupt behavior is a piss poor excuse to accuse Russia of election fraud. The reality is there is very little evidence of a Trump/Russia connection. The Democrats should be more concerned about their eroding base instead of focusing all of their energy into a 'Benghazi' RUSSIA RUSSIA RUSSIA.

Third, Trump won because he tapped into the emotions of the blue collared workers. Basically he took votes away from the group of people who the Democrats started to ignore.

Ive been reading a lot of Scott Adams following of Trump. He explains why Trump won and why he came to this conclusion. He has stated on a few occasions that he is not a Trump supporter, only that he predicts a Trump victory. naturally, he is labeled as a die hard Trump support because he doesnt waste his energies blasting Trump over stupid **** in favor of crowing about how great Clinton is. (same mentality found here).
Scott Adams did an interview for Bloomburg in response to his opinions on the election. He explains what he predicted in his blog and the outcome.

http://blog.dilbert.com/post/158709087061/some-fake-news-about-me-from-bloomberg

This is the actual bloomberg story.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2017-03-22/how-dilbert-s-scott-adams-got-hypnotized-by-trump

This is the twisted view of modern politics; why we should vote for the lesser of two evils. The DNC and MSM were determined to paint Trump as the worst possible person all while ignoring Clintons full on baggage of ****. Democrats were more interested in getting a "D" in office, regardless of who it was, instead of putting up a good candidate.

They should have spent more time promoting why Clinton should be in office and what she would do and making promises to the American people ... but of course that is a dangerous scenario considering it was ... Clinton.

 

I think the biggest reason he won is because gullible people believed all his promises that he will not be able to deliver IMO.

 

Are you really this dumb? When an attention w**** does something for attention, you simply give them attention because "ignoring him simply means you're enabling them"? How hard is it to understand he says the stuff he does to get the exact reaction the likes of you are giving? You're a gullible fool for falling for it. Trump is not a master of distraction. He is only stirring the simple minded low hanging fruit to get the response and distractions he wants.

Additionally, when have I supported Trump? Please. Tell me this. Is it because I am not raging "dur dur dur Trump said something intentionally stupid again, let me go mindlessly respond".

Here is an example. Trump doesn't give a **** what it means to be a positive influence. Why do you keep expecting a president who "speaks so well" to mindlessly drivel about something they truly do not give a **** about. Trump is not Obama. Quit expecting it. If it really bothers you, go find a reason to legitimately impeach him over so we can get a unified Republican Congress backed behind Pence .... so they can actually get legislation passed that will truly piss off Democrats.... instead of a current administration who is getting nothing done.

 

Hillary Clinton was a poor candidate with 30+ years of political baggage that many voters could not ignore. In hindsight, it's obvious and I think any introspective liberal should admit the same. However, I do not understand your constant desire to downplay the relationship between Russia and key members of the Trump campaign like Michael Flynn and Paul Manafort. Here is a timeline with sources, posted on Reddit (yes, it's Reddit, but the creator of Dilbert has also been cited, so we're getting creative), of Michael Flynn's actions:

Why did President Trump hire somebody who was being paid to possibly work against the US' best interests? Why did President Trump ignore the warnings of President Obama, and Flynn himself, and install him as NSC even when he knew that Flynn was a foreign agent who vetoed an operation in Raqqa possibly because it involved Kurds that Turkey doesn't like?

You want to talk about Washington politicians being bought. Here is a former National Security Advisor who we know was bought, was only fired after his actions to undermine US policy became public and whose FBI investigation President Trump attempted to quash over dinner with James Comey.

 

Wrong.

(6 / 140 characters)

 

First off... the personal insults suggest I struck a nerve.

here's a clip of Amanda Carpenter, former senior communications advisor and speechwriter for Senator Cruz, calling out republicans/conservatives for enabling Trump and dragging the republican party (and America) down. So you can continue to enable Trump, or you can speak out whenever Trump says or does something objectionable.

Oh my gosh... every thing you post here is in defense of Trump. Every one. And often coupled with a "I don't support Trump, but..." Perhaps a bit of honest reflection is a good thing here. Why do you find it difficult to admit you voted for him... you are a republican and a conservative... who else would you have voted for? Its possible you voted write-in, but unlikely. You surely didn't vote for Clinton. And if you don't support him, and don't mean to defend him, why are all your posts just that? Your claims would be more believable if you would on occasion post a criticism.

And btw there are more than two possibilities, you can object to something Trump says or does and not be "raging "dur dur dur Trump said something intentionally stupid again, let me go mindlessly respond".

I apologize... having trouble diving my way through this. I think you mean to use it as an example of something wrong I am doing. I see Obama's name thrown in there too. And a reference to Pence. But here goes...

I think we agree Trump does NOT want to be a positive influence. That's unfortunate, as you would hope the President of the United States would want to be a role model and positive influence to all Americans, especially our young. I'd want that of all our Presidents, but if I am understanding your post, we shouldn't expect that from Trump. And I think we are in agreement, we did get that from Obama. I guess that is just one reason so many of us are disappointed in our current president.

I don't find that to be an impeachable offense however. In fact, I don't even know for sure Trump has done an impeachable offense yet. That's for the new Independent Prosecutor and the two congressional investigation to find out and the Congress to then determine. Probably why I haven't posted that Trump should be impeached.

If he were to be impeached, and Pence were to be named acting President, I am not all that certain that the outcome would be very clear. Looking at the previous instance when Nixon left office and Ford became President, I don't recall that Ford was all that effective. I seem to recall that the years he was President were simply a holding pattern where neither congress nor the President accomplished much. Instead, it seemed that Americans looked to the next administration as an opportunity to restore faith in the government. I'd guess that would also happen *if* Trump was replaced. Americans have little faith in Trump (I'd guess that would also be true of Pence). And little faith in congress. I'd anticipate significant changes in both. But again, I wouldn't expect Trump's agenda, or a "republican agenda" to be supported by Americans or pushed through congress.

 

I find this to be a very lucid and compelling point. Presidents should be role models- and they should be able to spell the word counsel.

(137 / 140 characters)

 

I believe he is a role model, and not able to spell but yet has the power he has is part of the appeal. Don't we all love Ron Jeremy?

 

Amanda Carpenter delivered a body blow last night on CNN with her rant and then she indirectly called Congressman Jack Kingston and "surrogate" Kayleigh trained penguins flapping their fins lol.

 

Absolutely, and fair enough. Sorry to have been a lil preachy. I just see it a very different way (esp. with Sessions).

But I'll grant you this: I don't think Trump is racist, at all, in any traditional sense. Aside from getting their votes, he cares or doesn't care about your average black person in the same way he cares or doesn't care about your average white person. He definitely exploited all kinds of dog whistles to scared old whites to help him win the election.

But in the end, by all evidence (and you've watched him for a while), here's what's obvious about Donald Trump. Every person who is not him falls into one of two categories: (1) an asset, utility, receptacle or easy mark, versus (2) an impediment, hurdle, inconvenience or enemy. There's no evidence that he sees human beings in any other way, no matter their skin tone or nationality.

 

i love the "democrats lost touch with their base and the blue collar voters" quip immediately followed up by "that's why trump got elected." nothing says "I understand the plight of the blue collar man" then donald "multi-millionaire, manhattan penthouse, private jet, $10k suit- wearing, factories in china owning, money swindling, p***y-grabbing, egomaniac" trump.

the fact that so many "blue collar" folk voted for him is absolutely a indictment on just how gullible and yes, downright stupid, a lot of them are.