Robert Mueller appointed special counsel

[Bill4411]

Your underlying premise is wrong. The media and Democrat resistance don't care about Russia or collusion. The objective here is to drive Trump out of the Oval Office. If Russia doesn't work out, it would be emoluments. if emoluments doesn't pan out, it would be about conflicts of interest. And so on and so on and so on. There will always be something to cause the Democrats to not meaningfully participate in government so long as Trump is POTUS.

I don't even think this is about Trump as much as it is about Hillary. She was supposed to shatter the highest glass ceiling. She was supposed to be the image of women FINALLY achieving parity. She was supposed to be the one to perpetuate and build on the Obama legacy. Any Republican who might have won the election would face severe resistance from all the media, from all the Democrats, and from large segments of the country. Trump with his stupid tweets and hamfisted way of doing things just provides more ammunition than somebody else woud have.

So you think the possibility of team Trump making deals with the Russians so he could become the President is a big "Nothing burger"? Come on that is absurd. I would think any loyal American doesn't want to see any foreign power have a direct result on our elections, especially an adverse one like Russia. I hope it becomes clear that team Trump did no such thing so we can get back to normal governance. I hate to think what a disaster it will be if he is forced out of office. He won't go out nicely like Nixon it isn't in him.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

Well that would certainly make for an interesting conundrum -- as Congress has already established precedent that a president lying under oath does not constitute grounds for removal from office.

Incorrect. The Senate found Clinton "Not Guilty." They didn't find him "Guilty, but no big deal."

 

[CO. Hoosier]

There is one poster here who does insist on turning every thread about Trump into a rant about Hillary or Obama. Methinks he is simply projecting here.

LOL. You make the same mistake over and over and over and over. Reading would help you. Thinking about what you read would help more.

 

[stollcpa]

So you think the possibility of team Trump making deals with the Russians so he could become the President is a big "Nothing burger"? Come on that is absurd. I would think any loyal American doesn't want to see any foreign power have a direct result on our elections, especially an adverse one like Russia. I hope it becomes clear that team Trump did no such thing so we can get back to normal governance. I hate to think what a disaster it will be if he is forced out of office. He won't go out nicely like Nixon it isn't in him.

The problem is even if Mueller finds nothing with the Russians this isn't stopping. The dems and media are hell bent on leading a coup against Trump.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

LOL. You make the same mistake over and over and over and over. Reading would help you. Thinking about what you read would help more.

Ah, the null genericisms of a man who has no retort, but is physically incapable of remaining silent. Delish!

 

[SuperHoosierFan]

That's a misinterpretation of your average Trump voter. Not only do they continue to believe he is very fit for office, but they, in fact, believe this entire scandal is simply the "swamp monster" fighting back.

Trump is the singular embodiment of every asshole who's ever said "They need to put me in Washington, I'd show them what's what", while never having one second of experience in how a government works. Trump getting elected is akin to the owner of an NBA team signing a random player from the local Y. It's not gonna work out all that well.

 

[Aloha Hoosier]

Well that would certainly make for an interesting conundrum -- as Congress has already established precedent that a president lying under oath does not constitute grounds for removal from office.

There's that, and if you've read the censure resolution proposed by the Democrats and many of their individual statements for the record, it's clear that they agreed he was guilty. They just wouldn't vote to convict. I understand their vote - he was actually popular and wasn't wildly unpredictable, so they could justify it. Trump won't have the same status if it ever comes to that. Plus he's never been popular among a large segment of Republicans, I'd say a majority, even though plenty of those voted for him as the lesser of two evils.

 

[UncleMark]

Maybe all they established is if you lie about a BJ and using a cigar on a young intern you're okay? VBG

<pedant>
I though she used it on herself?
</pedant>

 

[SuperHoosierFan]

The problem is even if Mueller finds nothing with the Russians this isn't stopping. The dems and media are hell bent on leading a coup against Trump.

You mean like investigation after investigation after investigation after investigation after investigation after investigation after investigation after investigation after investigation after investigation into Benghazi! that showed nothing? Something like that?

 

[CO. Hoosier]

physically incapable of remaining silent. Delish!

LOL. Project much? (Yeah I succumbed to my snark impulse, but you always provide an irresistible a target rich environment.)

 

[Marvin the Martian]

This has everything to do with Hillary.

The largest march in the history of the United States was the Women's March on Washington. People marched in every state and every city. This was the Hillary supporters response to Trump. The "Resist!" slogan originated there, Hillary joined the resistance as did millions of others.

Are you suggesting everything would have played out exactly the same with president Jeb!? I seriously doubt that the response would be in the same galaxy of what it is.

 

[UncleMark]

I understand their vote - he was actually popular and wasn't wildly unpredictable, so they could justify it. Trump won't have the same status if it ever comes to that.

IIRC, the majority feeling was that he (Clinton) was a pig personally, but he was competent and things were going okay governance-wise. As you say, I don't think Trump would be viewed similarly. Except for the pig part, which didn't prevent him from being elected.

 

[anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa]

I wouldn't say it's butthurt over Hillary losing (did anybody actually like her?)...just butthurt over Trump winning.

Hell, I didn't like Trump then and I don't like him now. He was, for me, the better of two bad options. And I still don't regret my vote. But we held the election and he won, fair and square. If he does something that compels removal from office, then he should be removed from office...same for any other president or elected official. But to just conjure something up to try to negate the result, well that's beyond the pale.

No argument over the last statement.

And he certainly did win fair and square, and perhaps the greatest service he can perform his country is to have used the first 100 days to completely destroy the steady-state, and then he can disappear into retirement and we can reassemble this government the way it should be assembled.

But it is not healthy for a president to agree with whichever last person he talked to you on any given topic, it's not OK to share top-secret intelligence with our number one adversary in the name of braggadocio and is not OK to attempt to obstruct justice (albeit that hasnt been proven yet).

 

[RBB89]

The problem is even if Mueller finds nothing with the Russians this isn't stopping. The dems and media are hell bent on leading a coup against Trump.

A coup? Stop.

His downfall will be his own fault. Do you seriously not see his daily buffoonery as a huge issue? Hell, a significant portion of his own problems comes from his rampant tweeting.

 

[Aloha Hoosier]

Incorrect. The Senate found Clinton "Not Guilty." They didn't find him "Guilty, but no big deal."

The Senate found him "Not Guilty," because Democrats voted him "Not Guilty" despite believing him guilty, and because they thought it wasn't a big enough deal.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

There's that, and if you've read the censure resolution proposed by the Democrats and many of their individual statements for the record, it's clear that they agreed he was guilty. They just wouldn't vote to convict. I understand their vote - he was actually popular and wasn't wildly unpredictable, so they could justify it. Trump won't have the same status if it ever comes to that. Plus he's never been popular among a large segment of Republicans, I'd say a majority, even though plenty of those voted for him as the lesser of two evils.

That's true. It's probably fair to say a majority of Senators did believe Clinton committed perjury, but that a majority also didn't find it cause to remove from office. Those who believed both, however, could probably make the argument that his perjury was simply not germane to his fitness as President, based on the nature of the proceedings. And undoubtedly some of those Not Guiltys were genuine, which would explain why the perjury charge received the lesser support of the two articles of impeachment.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

The Senate found him "Not Guilty," because Democrats voted him "Not Guilty" despite believing him guilty, and because they thought it wasn't a big enough deal.

See my response above.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

So you think the possibility of team Trump making deals with the Russians so he could become the President is a big "Nothing burger"? Come on that is absurd. I would think any loyal American doesn't want to see any foreign power have a direct result on our elections, especially an adverse one like Russia. I hope it becomes clear that team Trump did no such thing so we can get back to normal governance. I hate to think what a disaster it will be if he is forced out of office. He won't go out nicely like Nixon it isn't in him.

First of all, it is not a crime for Trump to make a deal with the Russians. Russian deal making and money is spread all over Washington. (ISS, rocket engines, uranium, rare earths, energy etc.) Even Podesta worked for them. The crime is accepting campaign contributions from foreign interests. And given globalization, there is some ambiguity these days on what is a foreign interest. I suppose accepting bribes could also enter the picture. The problem with that is that we have made many iterations of bribery entirely legal in the way we do politics.

Don't get me wrong, I don't like Russian influence in our elections any more than the next guy. But the realities are Russians as well as many other foreign governments legally lobby our government and legally push their policy agenda with us all the time.

I've said since day one, if there are any crimes committed by the Trump campaign, the Russians, or other people in connection with this election, those crimes should be prosecuted. But crimes are one thing and politics is another. For millions of people, that difference isn't recognized.

 

[iu_a_att]

Your underlying premise is wrong. The media and Democrat resistance don't care about Russia or collusion. The objective here is to drive Trump out of the Oval Office. If Russia doesn't work out, it would be emoluments. if emoluments doesn't pan out, it would be about conflicts of interest. And so on and so on and so on. There will always be something to cause the Democrats to not meaningfully participate in government so long as Trump is POTUS.

I don't even think this is about Trump as much as it is about Hillary. She was supposed to shatter the highest glass ceiling. She was supposed to be the image of women FINALLY achieving parity. She was supposed to be the one to perpetuate and build on the Obama legacy. Any Republican who might have won the election would face severe resistance from all the media, from all the Democrats, and from large segments of the country. Trump with his stupid tweets and hamfisted way of doing things just provides more ammunition than somebody else woud have.

For my part, this is about Trump and the manner in which he points the country toward a non-democratic (with a small d) future ala Russia, Hungary, Egypt and myriad South American strong men. Whatever policy disagreements we should have a common value of protecting our core democratic institutions. What we have learned is that the GOP supporters of Trump seem perfectly willing to risk those institutions in the pursuit of power. Trump has zero understanding and nothing but contempt for our institutions. I was temporarily encouraged when you said that perhaps Trump had crossed a line with Comey. But, while I think you imagine there is a line that Trump could cross that would cause you to cease support the reality is that whenever Trump gets close to any such line you will rationalize pushing the line further out. You will push the line further and further out because to actually stick to the line will mean you will have to admit you were wrong not to have drawn the line earlier. Rather than distrust the motives of others you would do well to look within and inquire about what hidden motives drive your own continuing rationalizations. Whatever line you draw Trump is going to cross it eventually. In Trump's mind lines are for losers. You and the GOP have a perfectly decent way out now...impeach Trump and replace him with Pence. You get all your policy goals and preserve our shared democratic values. The cost is that you have to admit you screwed up. The longer you wait, the more lines Trump transgresses, the bigger the screw up. You and your demographic are the only ones who can push Trump out of the driver's seat...you should do it for your well-being as well as the rest of us.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

Are you suggesting everything would have played out exactly the same with president Jeb!? I seriously doubt that the response would be in the same galaxy of what it is.

Well, the Media and Democrats have branded every GOP president since Reagan racist, sexist, looking out for the rich, hurting the poor, hurting the middle class, anti-environment, pro-war, tied to Big Oil (not Trump so far), not caring about privacy, etc. They even branded Romeny with these labels who is really underserving. Why should I think JEB! woud have been spared?

 

[Bill4411]

First of all, it is not a crime for Trump to make a deal with the Russians. Russian deal making and money is spread all over Washington. (ISS, rocket engines, uranium, rare earths, energy etc.) Even Podesta worked for them. The crime is accepting campaign contributions from foreign interests. And given globalization, there is some ambiguity these days on what is a foreign interest. I suppose accepting bribes could also enter the picture. The problem with that is that we have made many iterations of bribery entirely legal in the way we do politics.

Don't get me wrong, I don't like Russian influence in our elections any more than the next guy. But the realities are Russians as well as many other foreign governments legally lobby our government and legally push their policy agenda with us all the time.

I've said since day one, if there are any crimes committed by the Trump campaign, the Russians, or other people in connection with this election, those crimes should be prosecuted. But crimes are one thing and politics is another. For millions of people, that difference isn't recognized.

I hope we don't find that Russian money go directly into Trump team members with quid pro quo understanding of future American policies. My fear has always been that Manafort made agreements with Russia over Ukraine and the direct ceding of Crimea to it for the Presidency and presumably Trump agreed with this deal. If I'm wrong then I am very sorry for my suspicions and distrust of Trump and his inner circle. We are treaty bound to protect Ukraine when they agreed to give up what was at the time the 3rd largest nuclear arsenal in the world.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

I hope we don't find that Russian money go directly into Trump team members with quid pro quo understanding of future American policies. My fear has always been that Manafort made agreements with Russia over Ukraine and the direct ceding of Crimea to it for the Presidency and presumably Trump agreed with this deal. If I'm wrong then I am very sorry for my suspicions and distrust of Trump and his inner circle.

I don't think that point is entirely unfounded. Trump canned Manafort once that came to light. But what Manafort, Stone, or others do in their private businesses is not a legal problem for the Trump campaign without some very obvious dot connecting.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

Well, the Media and Democrats have branded every GOP president since Reagan racist, sexist, looking out for the rich, hurting the poor, hurting the middle class, anti-environment, pro-war, tied to Big Oil (not Trump so far), not caring about privacy, etc. They even branded Romeny with these labels who is really underserving. Why should I think JEB! woud have been spared?

And name the Dem who hasn't been an anti-military, anti-gun, anti-religion, communist in favor of forcing Americans into homosexual marriages?

But the visceral reaction to Trump has been far more than it would have been against Jeb!. I doubt there would have been the protests.

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

Incorrect. The Senate found Clinton "Not Guilty." They didn't find him "Guilty, but no big deal."

He admitted lying under oath, Goat. We didn't have to rely on the Senate to determine whether he did or didn't do that.

Whether they intended to or not, they established (a very bad, IMO) precedent when they acquitted him.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

And name the Dem who hasn't been an anti-military, anti-gun, anti-religion, communist in favor of forcing Americans into homosexual marriages?

But the visceral reaction to Trump has been far more than it would have been against Jeb!. I doubt there would have been the protests.

I agreeTrump stimulates more visceral reaction than Jeb would have. But that isn't to say the Democrats would have been any more cooperative with meaningful participation in government with Jeb, or any other Republican in the White House.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

And name the Dem who hasn't been an anti-military, anti-gun, anti-religion, communist in favor of forcing Americans into homosexual marriages?

But the visceral reaction to Trump has been far more than it would have been against Jeb!. I doubt there would have been the protests.

Jeb might have inspired some online whining, but nothing that required expending physical energy.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

I hope we don't find that Russian money go directly into Trump team members with quid pro quo understanding of future American policies. My fear has always been that Manafort made agreements with Russia over Ukraine and the direct ceding of Crimea to it for the Presidency and presumably Trump agreed with this deal. If I'm wrong then I am very sorry for my suspicions and distrust of Trump and his inner circle. We are treaty bound to protect Ukraine when they agreed to give up what was at the time the 3rd largest nuclear arsenal in the world.

More about this from Forbes:

The media’s focus on Trump’s Russian connections ignores the much more extensive and lucrative business relationships of top Democrats with Kremlin-associated oligarchs and companies. Thanks to the Panama Papers, we know that the Podesta Group (founded by John Podesta’s brother, Tony) lobbied for Russia’s largest bank, Sberbank. “Sberbank is the Kremlin, they don’t do anything major without Putin’s go-ahead, and they don’t tell him ‘no’ either,” explained a retired senior U.S. intelligence official. According to a Reuters report, Tony Podesta was “among the high-profile lobbyists registered to represent organizations backing Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovich.” Among these was the European Center, which paid Podesta $900,000 for his lobbying.


That’s not all: The busy Podesta Group also represented Uranium One, a uranium company acquired by the Russian government which received approval from Hillary Clinton’s State Department to mine for uranium in the U.S. and gave Russia twenty percent control of US uranium. The New York Times reported Uranium One’s chairman, Frank Guistra, made significant donations to the Clinton Foundation, and Bill Clinton was paid $500,000 for one speech from a Russian investment bank that has “links to the Kremlin that was promoting Uranium One stock.” Notably, Frank Giustra, the Clinton Foundation’s largest and most controversial donor, does not appear anywhere in Clinton’s “non-private” emails. It is possible that the emails of such key donors were automatically scrubbed to protect the Clinton Foundation.

​

 

[CO. Hoosier]

Jeb might have inspired some online whining, but nothing that required expending physical energy.

So low energy is contagious?

 

[CO. Hoosier]

He admitted lying under oath, Goat. We didn't have to rely on the Senate to determine whether he did or didn't do that.

Whether they intended to or not, they established (a very bad, IMO) precedent when they acquitted him.

He was also disbarred.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

He admitted lying under oath, Goat. We didn't have to rely on the Senate to determine whether he did or didn't do that.

Whether they intended to or not, they established (a very bad, IMO) precedent when they acquitted him.

Meh. Not really. For reasons I stated above to Aloha. Besides, Trump hasn't even committed perjury yet, so we shouldn't be trying to apply precedent to a crime that hasn't even happened.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

I agreeTrump stimulates more visceral reaction than Jeb would have. But that isn't to say the Democrats would have been any more cooperative with meaningful participation in government with Jeb, or any other Republican in the White House.

The meaningful cooperation issue is systemic beyond this president or one party.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

More about this from Forbes:

The media’s focus on Trump’s Russian connections ignores the much more extensive and lucrative business relationships of top Democrats with Kremlin-associated oligarchs and companies. Thanks to the Panama Papers, we know that the Podesta Group (founded by John Podesta’s brother, Tony) lobbied for Russia’s largest bank, Sberbank. “Sberbank is the Kremlin, they don’t do anything major without Putin’s go-ahead, and they don’t tell him ‘no’ either,” explained a retired senior U.S. intelligence official. According to a Reuters report, Tony Podesta was “among the high-profile lobbyists registered to represent organizations backing Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovich.” Among these was the European Center, which paid Podesta $900,000 for his lobbying.


That’s not all: The busy Podesta Group also represented Uranium One, a uranium company acquired by the Russian government which received approval from Hillary Clinton’s State Department to mine for uranium in the U.S. and gave Russia twenty percent control of US uranium. The New York Times reported Uranium One’s chairman, Frank Guistra, made significant donations to the Clinton Foundation, and Bill Clinton was paid $500,000 for one speech from a Russian investment bank that has “links to the Kremlin that was promoting Uranium One stock.” Notably, Frank Giustra, the Clinton Foundation’s largest and most controversial donor, does not appear anywhere in Clinton’s “non-private” emails. It is possible that the emails of such key donors were automatically scrubbed to protect the Clinton Foundation.

​

And there you go again. Just can't help yourself.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

The meaningful cooperation issue is systemic beyond this president or one party.

Indeed. But is getting worse and the reaction to Trump has accellerated the issue.

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

No argument over the last statement.

And he certainly did win fair and square, and perhaps the greatest service he can perform his country is to have used the first 100 days to completely destroy the steady-state, and then he can disappear into retirement and we can reassemble this government the way it should be assembled.

But it is not healthy for a president to agree with whichever last person he talked to you on any given topic, it's not OK to share top-secret intelligence with our number one adversary in the name of braggadocio and is not OK to attempt to obstruct justice (albeit that hasnt been proven yet).

You know, taking away all the kerfuffle stuff about it, I don't really have a problem with sharing intelligence on ISIS with the Russians. I very much don't think the president should just sloppily offer it up without going through proper protocol (even if he legally can, which he can). It's just too delicate a matter to be handled so cavalierly. But, then, it's also true that we share intelligence with other nations all the time -- and they share it with us (the info came from the Israelis, in this particular case). I certainly can't argue with those who say that Trump was sloppy here -- but I'm not sure it warranted the pearl-clutching it caused...and probably wouldn't have had it been anybody but Trump.

Anyway, I don't really agree with CO H that this is "all about Hillary" -- because as you and many others have pointed out, not too many people liked her much either. I think a lot of people who voted for her used a similar rationale that I used to vote for Trump: both options are bad, she's less bad than the Donald. But I do think there's still a whole lot of butthurt people about Trump having won -- and I see this whole Russia thing as something for those people to grasp onto to help them deal with the trauma. That's why I've been hoping for some kind of truly independent investigation.

Now, I certainly understand that this could hamper much of the core agenda for the time being -- a lot of which I very much do support. And I'm sure, in the eyes of some, this is precisely why they were wanting this....even if they doubt, which I suspect they do, that Mueller is going to come up with something. But those people might also watch out for a classic "be careful what you wish for" moment.

 

[Bill4411]

Indeed. But is getting worse and the reaction to Trump has accellerated the issue.

Trump's reaction to the press is not helping him at this point. His distane for it just increases there desire to react negatively to him. What worked as candidate Trump is not the same approach he should have toward it now.

 

[anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa]

You know, taking away all the kerfuffle stuff about it, I don't really have a problem with sharing intelligence on ISIS with the Russians. I very much don't think the president should just sloppily offer it up without going through proper protocol (even if he legally can, which he can). It's just too delicate a matter to be handled so cavalierly. But, then, it's also true that we share intelligence with other nations all the time -- and they share it with us (the info came from the Israelis, in this particular case). I certainly can't argue with those who say that Trump was sloppy here -- but I'm not sure it warranted the pearl-clutching it caused...and probably wouldn't have had it been anybody but Trump.

Anyway, I don't really agree with CO H that this is "all about Hillary" -- because as you and many others have pointed out, not too many people liked her much either. I think a lot of people who voted for her used a similar rationale that I used to vote for Trump: both options are bad, she's less bad than the Donald. But I do think there's still a whole lot of butthurt people about Trump having won -- and I see this whole Russia thing as something for those people to grasp onto to help them deal with the trauma. That's why I've been hoping for some kind of truly independent investigation.

Now, I certainly understand that this could hamper much of the core agenda for the time being -- a lot of which I very much do support. And I'm sure, in the eyes of some, this is precisely why they were wanting this....even if they doubt, which I suspect they do, that Mueller is going to come up with something. But those people might also watch out for a classic "be careful what you wish for" moment.

Well you got what you wanted already mainly right...Gorsuch in the robe. Using your criteria for voting for him I think your primary objective is accomplished.

I am fine with Gorsuch and again, if this is all Trump does other than scare the bejeesus out of run-of-the-mill pols, then I'd consider him a patriot if he got the hell out of office before he royally screws something up. I don't think he's going I be able to get any of his agenda accomplished but mostly because he's inept and his positions are half-baked at best.

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

Meh. Not really. For reasons I stated above to Aloha. Besides, Trump hasn't even committed perjury yet, so we shouldn't be trying to apply precedent to a crime that hasn't even happened.

Not really? LOL. Yes, really.

It's not even debatable, Goat. And, as CO-H pointed out, he agreed to a deal that saw him pay out Paula Jones, and accept disbarment, etc. Why'd he do that? Did you read the transcript of his deposition?

Come on, lose the partisan hat once in a while. It's quite liberating.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

Not really? LOL. Yes, really.

It's not even debatable, Goat. And, as CO-H pointed out, he agreed to a deal that saw him pay out Paula Jones, and accept disbarment, etc. Why'd he do that? Did you read the transcript of his deposition?

Come on, lose the partisan hat once in a while. It's quite liberating.

No, I mean you're blowing this whole "precedent" concern out of proportion. I'm not saying he was genuinely innocent. I'm just saying it's not true the Senate set a precedent that perjury isn't removable. At worst, they set a precedent that perjury under a specific set of circumstances isn't removable. A set of circumstances that doesn't apply to Trump, as he hasn't even committed perjury yet, and still might not apply even if he does.

 

[Univee2]

The problem is even if Mueller finds nothing with the Russians this isn't stopping. The dems and media are hell bent on leading a coup against Trump.

This is the best of options.

But it will be a Pyrrhic victory.

"Coup" is a little strong, but a Trump departure will have a number of consequences:

• We'll get President Pence and VP Daniels or VP Condi Rice.
• Republican and conservative voters will be hard-pressed to forget and forgive the relentless media and Hollywood/entertainment industry campaign to run Trump from office. You see the massive, over-the-top and vile things everywhere you look - here, television, the internet, newspapers, you name it. The fevered, wild-eyed crazies, with smoke coming from every orifice, bring little credit to their points, causes and issues when they rant on. They can wear their cute, trite pussy hats. Sun Tzu would advise we just get out of the way.
• Border security, economic growth, job growth, and two more conservative judges are in the offing once business is re-addressed. This is what we voted for when we voted for Trump. We knew the Democrat Party has abandoned logic and the needs/desires of great swaths of this country. A vote for Trump was a vote for Neil Gorsuch and the eventual, and superior, replacements for Kennedy and Ginsberg.

Let the loons continue in their Madame Defarge quest for revenge. They "win" the short-term battle, Trump resigns or is impeached and we are rid of him. But the war is long. This is a fight that was destined. Enough voters are fed up with the Washington swamp and the ever-encroaching government involvement in more aspects of daily life. Call it the "Deep State" or whatever, but the political establishment is being told to get their - and, thus, our - house in order. With Trump gone the true push towards the proper reforms coalesces and grows.

 

[stollcpa]

You mean like investigation after investigation after investigation after investigation after investigation after investigation after investigation after investigation after investigation after investigation into Benghazi! that showed nothing? Something like that?

This seems different but point taken.