I thought the libs said that the Russia/Trump affair wasn't political, and that it represented a threat to the very fabric of our country? If so, then they should/would never drop this issue. But after the recent election, the light bulb went on: nobody believes it. There was no tampering,there is no evidence, and the voters know that Russia didn't elect Donald Trump....WE ourselves did.
I don't think that they are yet ready to admit that the election was also a repudiation of their liberal values which they pushed too far, but a few more losses might convince them of that too.
So, it really WAS all political. We'll see if CNN/MSNBC/ABC start airing any other stories besides Trump/Russia 24/7 now. If they do (and they will), it is further evidence of the link between the Dem Party and the MSM. But we voters all already know that too.
Link: http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/339248-dems-push-leaders-to-talk-less-about-russia
And while you are not going to like what he says, I hope you believe him.
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
his BFF Comey?
No one with R aspirations or affiliations wants any part of investigating an R president.
Precisely who would you have suggested he hire?
(no message)
He served apolitically as head of the FBI under the presidents. He is a lifelong Republican, but the professionals in the FBI take pride in their nonpartisanship.
Hiring Clinton donors to investigate someone who beat their candidate isn't "apolitical".
94 is correct. The actual FBI investigators are a political. But the attorney supervisors who are good and lean R aren't going to want this. No one at that level of expertise is a political. I would anticipate that most of the experienced attorney investigators will be D's as no R attorney in that town would take this job. Mueller though makes the calls and the actual investigators are FBI.
I also guarantee you that Mueller could explain each and every hire without reference to their donation history.
I would like an impartial investigation. Mueller's relationship with Comey gives me doubts.
If concrete evidence is established against Trump or any of his staff, then heads should roll.
Which "no political ties" people have any experience in investigating obstruction of justice and a political campaign? Who do you suggest?
(no message)
Way to go.
Dontcha have a date with Natasha or something?
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
......the fact that he has expanded outside of his initial mandate because he found nothing with that, and his past history with Comey..........I will take anything Mueller says with a grain of salt.
Mueller had a chance to make this nonpolitical, but he chose not to do so. I am sure he will find what the establishment wants him to find. And it is a foregone conclusion that it will be negative for Trump. But this kind of thing is kind of like a negative event that is already factored into the stock market.
The Left has so clearly demonstrated a desire to ruin Trump in any way possible - even by making things up regularly (see most recent post below), that the people that voted for him don't care. As long as the GOP refuses to go along with the Dems (and other than McCain, they won't after the recent election results showed them that the people are still in support of Trump), it will be nothing more than another roast of Trump on liberal MSM networks - and what is new about that?
Baron, try to grasp this: he has just started.
And he chose to make this political? You continue to depress.
he has done nothing to make me think he won't be unbiased. i think his conclusions are pre-ordained.
I understand why you would be bothwered by this, but that is why it was important to pick a nonbiased person from the start. I know what stupid MSM and politicans said about the guy, but his background alone should have precluded him. Further, he did nothing wrt to his appointments to help change that perception at all. And then there are his leaks - just like Comey.
(no message)
Not the long-time apolitical FBI director, appointed by Bush and serving two presidents?
He was universally praised when first hired. Then, the Trump hit machine got fired up. And people like you swallowed it.
You have essentially said that you will believe nothing he finds. And the damage Trump has already done to this country will outlast all of us.
...and why did they pick the close friend of the man that was fired? And why did he make it so problematic by hiring the Clinton/Obama donors? Why no Trump donors or conservatives? Why no balance?
I do not believe that any person actually keeps their politics out of this in Washington. I think that view is very naive. Look at Comey. he had the same kind of sterling rep about a year ago. I will guarantee you that there are a lot of FBI agents who would get a chuckle out of the notion of an "apolitical FBI director".
And regarding your point about how he was appointed by Bush.....how exactly is that relationship going between Trump and Bush? No bad blood there?
All of the people that chose Mueller are very unhappy that Trump got elected.
(no message)
the CNN retraction below? I just want to make sure you scratch that off of your "fact sheet".
Sometimes the media gets it wrong, but believe it or not, journalism is a profession.
Most of its members try to be accurate.
and then retracting it subtly later. You notice that it was on Friday evening at 1044PM? Why then?. Why so often? Why so many hosts of CNN in the news for their marked liberal bias and outrageous behavior?
I will agree with you that they wish to maintain the veneer of being a news outlet more than MSNBC does, but that is an extremely low bar.
If Drudge hadn't noticed it, none of us would have even known that CNN retracted it.
And, judging by Chris' post, they succeeded.
Journalism is a profession. Only people who know no journalists would think the good ones don't try hard to get it right.
But that's what Trump wants you to think, so people like you will doubt any inconvenient info that comes out.
It's depressing how many people buy it.
(no message)
Journalism is struggling as an industry. They are now letting unpaid interns write articles for them.
They don't care about getting it right when a statement hurts Trump. Remember when, on day one, Trump fired his ambassadors. The New York Times called that a "break with precedent" in the title of their article. Two second google search would have revealed that Obama did the exact same thing. But, the "break with precedent" angle fit their bias, so they didn't bother to fact check it. The Gray Lady, the pinnacle of the profession, just fabricated that fact, and then published it. This happens all the time. All the leaks. They only fact check when a fact supports Trump, and then they will just bury the lead.
(no message)
comparison.
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
threads.
(no message)
Seriously, you started eight threads just on this page,
(no message)
(no message)
That is all you post. And you continually start threads on these subjects.
(no message)
Just like I called Obama and Clinton on theirs. You can read my posts.
And I wouldn't talk about psychosis, if I had posted about an America prez fucking America in the ass, despising America and wanting it to fail. Pretty lame performance on that front.
We elected him, not Russia. And he deserves his chance to be president. The Never-Trumpers have been talking impeachment even before he took office.
First collusion with Russia - no evidence, no evidence, no evidence.
Then it was his staff - no evidence mentioned yet.
Then it was obstruction.
Then it was a cover up.
And always the twice weekly armageddon story from "anonymous sources" leaked from the Obama IC holdover's and the MSM themselves colluding to try to bring down a president.
YOU LOST. YOU LOST. YOU LOST.
DEAL WITH IT.
You can't weasel out the back door. You have to accept that he will be your president. Enjoy the good things even you admit that he has already brought you: a recovering economy, Neil Gorsuch (and soon possibly another), and dropping out of the Paris Accord.
subject. Like what I say plays any role in the perception of his legitimacy.
Perhaps its not surprising though as you are shilling for the first US president elected with the help and endorsement of the Russians. That isn't in dispute. And it's a truly sad thing.
Your unsubstantiated attacks against Bobby Mueller's integrity are shameful.
His reputation and trustworthiness are beyond reproach.
His character is a complete 180 from President Trump.
What Mueller finds is what he finds. I will patiently wait and respect his findings.
(no message)