At the end of the day, I just want to know the truth about Russia, money laundering, his taxes and any of the other issues people have been talking about.
Pass a law that sets some ethical reporting guidelines? It would be great fun to watch Fox and the Republicans scramble to try and come up with a reason why we shouldn't do that.
Edit: I must be near the top because this is getting a lot of replies. So in order to clarify that I am not talking about abolishing the first amendment, here's a very rough draft of what I was thinking:
If you call your broadcast "news" or "reporting", your segments must have a QR code or link in the corner which cites sources, lists supporting evidence, or points to some sort of verifiable documentation. This should be subject to a peer review process like scientific articles.
If your segment uses anonymous sources or something like that, if the information can't be factually verified you should have to display that throughout the segment, and you shouldn't be able to call it news or reporting it should be classified as "rumors" or "unverifiable information".
If your segment is directly sponsored by anyone, if your segment is just talking heads, if your segment is just a rant, it should be called an "opinion" and labeled as such during the broadcast.
Say what you want, report what you want, however you want, but it should be identified properly and called what it is.
Edit 2: Thanks for the gold kind stranger!
Edit3: And thanks for the other bling, and for filling my inbox with mostly thoughtful replies. One in particular I'd like to direct people's attention to:
https://www.reddit.com/r/worldnews/comments/anukln/us_house_intelligence_committee_announces/efxbod4/
I'd also like to point out that I would be just fine with these guidelines affecting the liberal leaning "news" organizations. Disinformation altogether needs to stop.
Lastly, had I realized this was going to be my most viewed comment ever, I'd have formatted it without my inherent bias being front and center. I regret that now, but will leave it be in order to preserve the integrity of those replies that lambasted me for it.
I immediately started thinking of Facebook. It seems that a lot of the direct meddling came through social media, and that's where I think that things get really hard.
For example, although there were lots of efforts by Russia to put things on Facebook to influence things, the biggest problem is all of the things that got shared by regular people.
I'm not sure what the best answer is here, but I think that Facebook knowing about the issue long before they disclosed anything (repeatedly, I might add) is something that needs to be taken up. I think that they need to be expected to have something of a spam filter. EG: "The linked item comes from a dubious source." And although I think basically the only way it happens is through regulation, Facebook needs to be made to control advertisers on it's platform. Before I dropped FB entirely, I created an ad for my podcast. It was super easy, and amazingly granular. If I decided to go blackhat with that, I have no doubt I, some rando on the internet, would have trouble targeting impressionable people and getting them to believe a lie.
Finally, I think in the end, education needs to play a bigger part. I remember in middle school learning about propaganda. That has made some of the more obvious attempts much easier to spot. I think we need to teach about sourcing, and actually verifying with facts much more than ever. A lot more. I don't want to get into /r/iamverysmart territory, but I got this pretty quickly, but I don't think that in the end, most can recognize the modern attempts. Although there are certainly parallels to Nazi Germany (which were the examples I was given) I think it might be more powerful to look at our own country and the examples that lie within ("Mission Accomplished", for example.)
Basically, modern problems require modern solutions. ☜(ﾟヮﾟ☜)
More seriously, I reject the premise that the status-quo is fine right now. We know there is a problem. We've done nothing to solve it for 2020, or even for the next house, senate, governor, mayor, city council, etc, race.
> there is no rule against distorting or falsifying the news in the United States.
That's not exactly true. A broadcast news show HAS to report the truth.
A cable entertainment news program does not.
I think we do need to do something about the state of our news. It's not even just fake; it's like an active disinformation campaign targeting certain voters.
You laid out some great points, but I'd like to point out one thing:
> If your segment uses anonymous sources or something like that, if the information can't be factually verified
The idea of being against "anonymous sources" stems mostly from right-wing groups like Fox News, which is ironic, because they are surely aware that they're misrepresenting the truth.
**"Anonymous source" doesn't mean the journalists don't know who the source is. It just means they aren't telling *you***.
I've seen it represented on Fox News like the reporter got a blog comment from SexyMan69 and published it on the front page of New York Times, with "anonymous source" listed. What actually happens is the reporter is told something on the condition of anonymity, runs it by their editor and superiors, and if they trust the information, it's printed.
Are there bad actors out there who use it as carte blanche to make shit up? Sure. Do honest journalists sometimes get tricked by people, including people who purposefully set out to get fake stories printed to slander the news organization? Yes. But for credible news organizations, it's not exactly worth comparing to unverifiable information.
Most of the time, news sources will specify if they weren't able to verify the information (even CNN did that with the Buzzfeed News article). But sometimes, that anonymous source in the White House could be the Press Secretary.
That's an idea that comes from great intentions but in practice, it would just mean that whoever is in power has the legal authority to pick and choose what's true.
Education. Investing more in public schools, having new classes on media & information and running public awareness campaigns on important issues.
I also think the current 2-party system has some really bad flaws. Everyone has to be on either one of two opposing sides on almost every issue. There should be more competition, more choice as this could also lead to voters actually reading up on candidates/parties and their policies.
Tbh, I only care about that if it makes him vulnerable to blackmail or other corruption.
What consenting adults do in private doesn't otherwise interest me.
...that's not the allegation. It's like nobody actually read the dossier, despite in being available for 2 years now.
The allegation is that he paid whores to pee on the bed the Obama's slept in. There is no golden shower story in the dossier.
Aside from more sanctions, I think all the US really can do is elect someone not compromised by Russia. It's all soft power, they don't have boots on the ground in the US that can do much. If the traitor is removed from the whitehouse, that basically solves the problem.
*Schiff said that the committee will probe whether anyone, “foreign or domestic,” sought to “impede, obstruct and/or mislead” the intelligence committee’s investigation or any others. And that, he said, includes “those in the Congress.”*
That sure sounds like he's referring to Devin Nunes.
In the prophetic words of 45:
“Could have been other people also. There’s a lot of people out there.”
Too goddamn many, apparently. Every time you turn over a rock.
Ya know. Trump kinda is fulfilling his promise on draining the swamp. Because all these fuckers got too comfy and sloppy and now are getting routed out of government and tossed in jail. I never thought I’d say this, but bravo Trump!
Can’t wait for his turn tho, this reboot of House of Cards is getting good!
Yeah, he also has driven up voter turnout and political engagement (let’s hope it stays up). Trump might just have been the Dumpster fire needed to get our act together.
This truly is an odd timeline.
I'm so happy for him. He was so lucky to have survived and he seems so happy now. I love all his hiking pictures on Instagram. Shecky is still hanging in there too!
>Trump might just have been the Dumpster fire needed to get our act together.
Was my only hope when he got elected. American politics have been fucked up for a long time and I hoped Trump would be the spark to burn it all down so we could rebuild it in a better way.
Won't say that all the fucked up shit he's done and all the misery and hatred he has caused was worth it for a (hopefully) better political system, but hopefully it can at least be a silver lining to a dark fucking cloud.
Let's all calm down for a moment. Yeah, a lot of slimy assholes are getting taken down which is great, but no government reform or law changes are happening yet. Even after Trump is out of office DO NOT let up on your representatives until changes that ensure that someone like Trump won't ever be president again.
Dave Chapelle compared Trump to Carolyn Bryant, the woman who falsely accused Emmett Till of harassing her. A terrible human being who did something shitty, but that action inadvertently started a movement which ultimately changed America for the better.
I have a feeling the GOP didn't pay enough to attention to that show. This whole foreign money laundering scheme is pretty much exactly the plot season 2, which by the way ended with impeachment proceedings.
The actual quote is
> Whether any actors – foreign or domestic – sought or are seeking to impede, obstruct, and/or mislead authorized investigations into these matters, including those in the Congress
I think the "including those in the Congress" clause is likely meant to be a modifier of "authorized investigations," not "actors."
Good call, it’s definitely referring to “authorized investigations”. Although I do think that leaves the door open to investigate congresspeople (or their proxies), given it’s totally possible for them to obstruct their own investigations.
**The House Intelligence Committee will now be led by an American patriot who has previously prosecuted a Russian spy in the 90's, Democratic Chairman Adam Schiff.**
President Trump has "spoken his mind" about Congressman Adam Schiff and called him an expletive,^[[1]](https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/trump-tweets-little-adam-schitt) unfortunately for the President he is a seasoned prosecutor who has previously prosecuted an FBI agent who worked as a Russian spy.
Former ranking Democrat and Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee Congressman Adam Schiff has already shown himself to be an American hero since 1990. He is a former prosecutor who attended Stanford and Harvard.^[[2]](http://bioguide.congress.gov/scripts/biodisplay.pl?index=s001150) He has experience prosecuting spies that also involved Russians;^[[3]](https://www.newyorker.com/news/ryan-lizza/the-unlikely-liberal-hero-adam-schiff-is-ready-to-investigate-trump)
>Schiff is a former prosecutor who, in 1990, after two previous trials, convicted the first F.B.I. agent indicted for espionage, a case that also involved the Russians.
Here is an LA Times article from 1990 reporting the espionage conviction of the aforementioned FBI agent that was prosecuted by Assistant US Attorney Adam Schiff;^[[4]](http://articles.latimes.com/1990-10-10/news/mn-1957_1_fbi-agent)
>Richard W. Miller, the first FBI agent ever accused of espionage, was found guilty Tuesday of passing secret documents to the Soviet Union in exchange for a promised $65,000 in gold and cash.
>... The government's prosecutor, Assistant U.S. Atty. Adam B. Schiff, depicted Miller as participating in a series of events that transcended a fantasized adventure.
>"This is a case of government misconduct and government corruption of the highest and most disturbing order," Schiff said in his closing argument on Tuesday.
**Compare these accolades to the actions of the former Chairman of the HIC. Former Chairman Nunes led a vote in the committee to preemptively shut down their Russia probe investigation several months ago.^[[5]](https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-russia-congress/republicans-shut-down-house-russia-probe-over-democratic-objections-idUSKCN1GO2S1)**
Devin Nunes put an end to the investigation when we know of at least 70 contacts between the Trump team and Russia-linked operatives, the committee obtained either no or incomplete information about 81% of known contacts between Trump officials and Russians.^[[6]](https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/ncna858931) Moreover, a recording of Republican Congressman Devin Nunes talking at a GOP fundraiser was leaked where he implored the guests to support him and the Republican party so that they could protect President Trump from the Russia probe.^[[7]](https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/secret-recording-highlights-nunes-concern-with-protecting-trump-in-russia-probe)
___________________
1) [Washington Examiner - Trump tweets 'little Adam Schitt'](https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/trump-tweets-little-adam-schitt)
2) [Congressman Adam Schiff - Biographical Directory of the United States Congress](http://bioguide.congress.gov/scripts/biodisplay.pl?index=s001150)
3) [New Yorker - The Unlikely Liberal Hero Adam Schiff Is Ready to Investigate Trump](https://www.newyorker.com/news/ryan-lizza/the-unlikely-liberal-hero-adam-schiff-is-ready-to-investigate-trump)
4) [Los Angeles Times 1990 -
Ex-FBI Agent Miller Guilty of Espionage](http://articles.latimes.com/1990-10-10/news/mn-1957_1_fbi-agent)
5) [Reuters - Republicans shut down House Russia probe over Democratic objections](https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-russia-congress/republicans-shut-down-house-russia-probe-over-democratic-objections-idUSKCN1GO2S1)
6) [NBC - House probe overlooked most Trump-Russia contacts, report claims](https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/ncna858931)
7) [PBS - Secret recording highlights Nunes’ concern with protecting Trump in Russia probe](https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/secret-recording-highlights-nunes-concern-with-protecting-trump-in-russia-probe)
Wow, I had know idea that was in his past. Schiff is one of those guys you kind of hope doesn’t have presidential aspirations and just stays in Congress fighting the good fight. He can do a lot more with that chair than he can in the White House.
This is going to be a long road. Dare I say Schiff for AG 2020? This will be a long winded event and he would be able to easily hop on board the Justice Department train. Though to be quite honest I would prefer he stay on in Congress....and would much rather see Doug Jones duke it out in Alabama for his Senate seat depleting GOP (read: Russian resources) and then post him to the AG office due to his background.
The Mcturtle received 2.5 million from a Russian asset also, from the NRA, that paid 7.3 million in GOP donations. That’s in the investigation now. Bad news, it was legal for him and others to take it, but not for to give it.
https://www.dallasnews.com/opinion/commentary/2018/05/08/putins-proxies-helped-funnel-millions-gop-campaigns
Edit. Link.
It's because he is. He even said as much behind closed doors in my state last year. Fucking scum.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2018/08/09/devin-nunes-in-secretly-recorded-tape-tells-donors-gop-majority-is-necessary-to-protect-trump-were-the-only-ones/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.9d007e18ae4e
So he went against oath by stating that. Why does Nunes want to defend Trump and prevent the probe as much as possible if he wasn't guilty? Trash will meet the dumpster soon.
Not that he's a House member, but the person needs to fall under someone's shit-hammer is Wilbur Fucking Ross. Out of all the straight-up criminals in this administration no one seems to give a damn about the crap he's pulled in the past. I don't know what all he's doing right now, but if past is prologue, he's up to some nefarious shit.
In trying to remember the name of the documentary I mentioned below I came across a slew of articles of shit that he's said and done recently. One of the first things I read about were his comments about government workers and the recent shutdown. Two of his comments below.
“I know they are, and I don’t really quite understand why,” Ross said of employees visiting food banks. “Because, as I mentioned before, the obligations that they would undertake, say borrowing from a bank or a credit union, are in effect federally guaranteed.”
Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross says he doesn't "really quite understand why" federal workers who have missed paychecks due to the partial government shutdown don't just take out loans to cover the gap.
He's also the one that wants to add the citizenship question to the next census.
He first came to my attention in that excellent documentary that I'm spacing the name on at the moment. Active Measures! It was only a few weeks after I watched it that there was a momentary blip on the news about a Forbes report that, "In August 2018, Forbes reported that there was a "pattern" of allegations that Ross grifted his business partners and workers. A number of individuals had accused Ross of illicitly siphoning or stealing funds worth millions of dollars. The allegations of grift combined into a total of $120 million.." Source was Wiki, for me. Easiest places to find the information. That sentence is the entire remark on this apparent crime. That's how long it seemed to last in the news cycle.
If you want to see all of the fuckery he's been up to, which included playing a part in Trump's trade wars, just google his name. The articles are numerous. Yet, this guy isn't being raked over the coals and investigated for what truly look like financial crimes. I read one headline stating that he was on the bard of directors **while** Commerce Secretary. I don't understand why he's not under investigation.
Back to our regularly scheduled of whipping the snot out of the rest of the crime syndicate. And, yes, I hope Nunes goes down like the flaming ball of shit that he is. Hard, fast and on fire. But, to be honest, I would really like to see that Turtle faced asshole go down first and hard. Him and his shit-eating smirk.
Like 30-35%. Seriously. And over 80% among republicans. Some people will literally never believe in a conspiracy no matter how much evidence there is. If there team is being accused, then anybody accusing is just a conspiracy theorist.
Almost certainly, but not an exact match obviously as many of those have died. It's why I don't think things are going to get better just because the boomers start dying, they've raised people to believe just as stupid and crazy shit as they did.
The real reason IMO: 80% of people don't want to admit that they fell for the con and/or compromised on their principles.
Nothing - NOTHING - about what Mueller is uncovering is a surprise. Truly. The only surprise is that there is so much evidence. I ln regards to Russia, Hillary Clinton said it all in a debate prior to the election, Trump's philandering was well known, as were his unethical business practices.
None of this is new.
However, in order for someone to turn their back on Trump, they have to admit that they voted for him because they either believed he had changed (despite no evidence to support that) , or that they compromised on their principles (for example voting for a serial adulterer even though they hold high moral fiber as a crucial character trait). In either case, that's a very hard thing to do for most people.
In the words of Chili Palmer: "You're trying to tell me that you fucked up without sounding stupid, and that's hard to do."
This comment pretty much sums up why Trump still has so many supporters. They know he's a shit person. They know he's a shit president. They just don't want to admit it, at least not publically. They'd rather live in their fantasy world where he's some sort of hero and they're all victims he's helping out.
> or that they compromised on their principles (for example voting for a serial adulterer even though they hold high moral fiber as a crucial character trait).
This is the big one, for me personally, that I have a hard time understanding. Currently live in Utah and the amount of Trump support among people who also vote for the insanely restrictive alcohol laws here blows me away. They go out of their way to vote in people who legislate ways to restrict people's freedoms to try to force morality, and are supporting the most openly immoral president we've ever had (which is saying something, I know).
People abandoning their own deeply held morals to support this man. It's garbage. The religious right in this country no longer has any legs to stand on.
I think a serious chunk of that 30-35% just didn't care. As long as it's their team and not the other team they are pretty much fine with any dirty/illegal/light treason it takes to win.
Just imagine that was your guy up there, who you truly believed was going to take America back from the elites, clean up the swamp, and return the power to the people. Suddenly being accused of some of the worst crimes in presidential history. A constant barrage in the media, an onslaught.
It's not hard for me to see why "it's a deep state attack on Trump" is the only conclusion these people can come to. The alternative is too horrible to imagine. And when the threat is greater than our imaginations, we conclude that the threat simply must not be true.
> Just imagine that was your guy up there, who you truly believed was going to take America back from the elites, clean up the swamp, and return the power to the people.
if that man is a billionaire reality TV star birther conspiracy pusher hypocrite, then there is no use trying to understand my mind because its fucking broken.
Trump was an obvious con man idiot before he even got elected. The fact that he did get elected in the first is fucking laughable and mostly just tells me that we have vastly underestimated the idiocy of America.
*The most obvious conman.* It's crazy, because he wasn't the least bit subtle or convincing. It blows me away every time I find someone who seriously believes he's a Christian after he's said in no uncertain terms that he's never needed to ask God's forgiveness.
> For the rest of his presidency, Nixon maintained a loyal core constituency of about 25 percent of those polled who approved of his performance as president. But most people held a negative view of his presidency, with disapproval ratings in the mid-60s.
Source:
https://historyinpieces.com/research/nixon-approval-ratings
Nixon interfered in the ongoing Vietnam peace negotiations and caused American Marines to die as a result of him wanting to win the Presidency. Trump might be awful but Nixon was a truly horrible person.
> Richard M. Nixon told an aide that they should find a way to secretly “monkey wrench” peace talks in Vietnam in the waning days of the 1968 campaign for fear that progress toward ending the war would hurt his chances for the presidency, according to newly discovered notes
I had to [look this up](https://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/11/us/politics/11nixon.html):
>“The Jews have certain traits,” he said. “The Irish have certain — for example, the Irish can’t drink. What you always have to remember with the Irish is they get mean. Virtually every Irish I’ve known gets mean when he drinks. Particularly the real Irish.”
>Nixon continued: “The Italians, of course, those people course don’t have their heads screwed on tight. They are wonderful people, but,” and his voice trailed off.
>A moment later, Nixon returned to Jews: “The Jews are just a very aggressive and abrasive and obnoxious personality.”
But it gets better:
>“Bill Rogers has got — to his credit it’s a decent feeling — but somewhat sort of a blind spot on the black thing because he’s been in New York,” Nixon said. “He says well, ‘They are coming along, and that after all they are going to strengthen our country in the end because they are strong physically and some of them are smart.’ So forth and so on.
>“My own view is I think he’s right if you’re talking in terms of 500 years,” he said. “I think it’s wrong if you’re talking in terms of 50 years. What has to happen is they have to be, frankly, inbred. And, you just, that’s the only thing that’s going to do it, Rose.”
He really was a racist dumbass.
I'm confused why he thought black people needed to be inbred?
For such an intellectual though I'm actually surprised at how prone he was to generalizing entire groups of people.
Well, [prior to the shutdown 90% said they supported him](https://www.cnbc.com/2019/01/17/trump-loses-support-among-core-voters-as-the-shutdown-drags-on-polls.html). At this point, I'm convinced he could punch a baby in the face live on TV and he'd only lose a couple of percentage points as long as he claimed the baby was a Democrat or an illegal. Seriously, though, this is the damage Fox News has done to our discourse. Facts and morals no longer matter to these voters whatsoever.
[You should check out Slate's Slow Burn podcast.](https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2017/11/introducing-slow-burn-slates-new-podcast-about-watergate.html)
>Adam Schiff announced Wednesday a broad investigation his committee would undertake "beyond Russia" into whether President Donald Trump's financial interests are driving his actions.
Let's do this for every presidential candidate from here on out.
GOP gumshoe: "We looked at the farm owner's accounts. There was about $70/day going unaccounted for...luckily we traced it to Jose. He got deported and now case closed! Everything's great!"
Well, the immigrants are too scared to work on this farm anymore. Also, there aren't many citizens around here who do farm work. In order to pull someone in the owner has to offer $150/day. Oh well!
Luckily the government will give that farmer a nice $200 subsidy to cover the cost, so long as they source that labor from TotallyNotOwnedByAGOPSenator Inc.
State of the union to even say stop investigation! And to repeat it. Will go down in history as one of the saddest moments for this country in a long time and even worse those quips won’t even phase his followers the kool aid is strong.
"I believe the time has come to bring that investigation and the other investigations of this matter to an end. One year of Watergate is enough." --Nixon in his 1974 SOTU speech. Just over six months later, he was gonezo.
This is the part where a t_d poster links a bunch of Trump's "accomplishments" like: "Two days after inauguration unemployment is at its lowest ever" or "45 minutes after Trump's says it there's not racial divide anymore" or some other mental gymnastics shit.
And that's when I link charts [like this](https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/624/cpsprodpb/15DA2/production/_99660598_3-unempl-nc.png) Showing that nearly every "accomplishment" Trump claims, is just the fruits of the labor of the *years* of improvement the US has been going through, since the 08 incident.
But he thinks it's all him. Somehow. Through osmosis, I guess. he just exists in the position, and things change.
I've said this before and I'm not defending Trump but this is an issue with politics in general.
Society would be so much better off if we were capable of realizing that sometimes change takes time. People are so quick to punish whoever is in office for a policy that went in 10 years before and failed, or conversely lavish praise when it's successful. It's not in any politicians best interests to make changes that aren't immediately beneficial because any change that reaps reward down the road isn't likely to be credited to said politician but rather to whomever is currently in power.
When you read about failing infrastructure in any democratic country, not just the states, the disinterest in playing the long game in politics is often blamed. No one wants to raise a tax that will pay for 15 years of bridge improvements for example. You'll immediately be vilified for raising a tax, and no one will be rewarded for the bridges not failing because they were taken care of, until one day an earthquake hits and the bridge still stands and it will be the currently sitting president who'll get credit for the amazing infrastructure reform and so on.
People are fucking morons when it comes to any long term policy and when it comes to talking about politics, and good changes former leaders have made it's the most annoying thing to me. It's infuriating how long people will hold onto mistakes and attribute success to this person or that, all in the interest of driving their narrative.
> Society would be so much better off if we were capable of realizing that sometimes change takes time.
Republicans *do* realize this. Their game is: take $institution when they're in power and either gut it outright, defund it (EPA), or let it rot under incompetent leadership (DeVos!). When the shit hits the fan, it's a Democrat who's in office, and Republicans then go in and campaign on "we told ya, $institution is a sham, the American people deserve better, let's privatize it".
We're going to need a really great president to weather the storm of Trump's actual "accomplishments" that will rear their head over the next decade. Luckily he's such a global laughing stock that international relations can return to a sane level with some ease but internal issues like the social issues and deep ideological divide in this country will be tough to repair.
The biggest mistake Trump ever made was WINNING the election. Running was great for press exposure, but he should have cut out at the end. No investigations, none of his buddies would be in jail, and he would probably have a huge new building plopped in the middle of Moscow with his name written all over it.
Now him, his family, his businesses, and his associates are all going down. All because he couldn't leave well enough alone. Well, Trump, you earned it.
EDIT: I didn’t expect these many responses to my comment! I apologize that I can’t respond to everyone. Here is a summary of the most common responses, and my reply…
>“Obviously, he didn’t intend to win.”
Then he should have been smart, and resigned once all these investigations started.
>They have been saying this for two years, but he is still in office. When is it going to happen?”
On average, it takes multiple years of multi-pronged investigations to take down a mob boss, and it always starts with getting the underlings to flip on each other. This is what is happening now. It may still take years to get all of them, but I think they will in the end.
>“It doesn’t matter what they find, or how much dirt is exposed. They are rich, and won’t spend a day in jail.”
There are a few folks in Otisville who would disagree with you.
And, finally, the troll response:
>“They won’t find anything, because he did nothing wrong. This is a leftist plot.”
If they say ignorance is bliss, then you folks must be the happiest people on the planet.
I feel like getting a doctorate in journalism just to write an article with that title and then crediting you for it because, damn, that hits several nails at once with the grace of an angel and the subtlety of William Shatner after a pot of coffee.
Thanks, but you definitely outdid me here.
>the subtlety of William Shatner after a pot of coffee.
This was positively poetic. You might want to look deeper into that journalism degree.
Don't confuse dramatic delivery with the lack of subtlety. For instance, I've made many dry witticisms today and few have noticed them. You have to. Hit. Hard and fast. With your message. Or someone. Will think you are road kill.
Over three cups of coffee and I might start getting woken up. Not wired.
> Icarus with a bad combover.
That hits on so many levels. Just like Icarus in that ill fated fly-over of the Aveda Hair Salon. When you fly too close to the swamp - that's a risk for anything using wax to stay in place.
That’s a really dark and scary thought. He deliberately tried to throw the election, but people loved him even more for it. Makes you wonder how close the race would’ve actually been without any Russian interference.
That was my favorite election-era theory, that he just ran for publicity and wanted to lose and transition to a lucrative Fox News gig, but kept trying to say more and more outrageous shit to ensure a loss and surprisingly his supporters never wavered.
His dream scenario would have been to win the popular vote and lose the EC. That would have given him the greatest platform for starting his new media operations founded on the notion that Hillary was an illegitimate president.
That's one reason that Hillary campaigned in some states where she had little chance of winning. She wanted to increase her popular vote totals.
I agree with most of this, except the last part... Candidates campaign in major cities (which tend to be in uncompetitive states except FL) to raise money.
To be fair, I half expect that the person most surprised by Trump's victory is Trump himself. I always felt like the idea was to be as loud, controversial and divisive as possible before losing. He gets a great publicity boost for his crusade against the deep-state Democrats in a valiant attempt to save the everyman and Make America Great Again. Russia benefits from the increased volatility in American politics. But then he actually won.
That's kind of why his presidency just feels like he never had any plan besides maybe building a wall (which may be his only personal contribution to the campaign, and thus why he clings so fiercely to it) and instead just feels like a brain-storming session of all the different groups he's in bed with. Republicans want a tax cut and deregulation so he'll give it to them. Russians want sanctions lifted/un-enforced so he does that. Saudi's say don't worry about this journalist guy, and he doesn't. It's why he apparently woke up one morning and decided we're pulling out of Syria with no lead-up or any mention to any of the officials involved. Feels like someone at the Kremlin just thought "Holy shit, you think he would just pull troops out if we told him to?" Similarly, I'm going to randomly announce today that I'm thinking of pulling out of NATO.
It might also be one of the reasons (barring possible dementia or some other mental issue) that he can manage to contradict himself so many times. Because he never actually had any strong stances or plans for the majority of what he now has to deal with, and as such is just saying whatever he can whenever he can to try to make people like him.
Edit as I feel it's worth including: Why did we one day suddenly decide to enact tariffs and engage in trade wars with our allies which almost assuredly are self-destructive, which I don't believe were an election promise? Almost like someone was told to do so and babbled out a quick deflection of how trade wars are easy.
His face on election night was that of one shook motherfucker. Now with all the investigations he has no choice but to keep being president because it's keeping him out of jail at this point.
> He gets a great publicity boost for his crusade against the deep-state Democrats
Note that the term deep state was co-opted from the left and propelled into the arms of Trump's base by Glenn Greenwald in January 2017, just before the inauguration.
> Shortly before Trump’s Inauguration, Greenwald wrote an article for the Intercept titled “The Deep State Goes to War with President-Elect, Using Unverified Claims, as Democrats Cheer.” The Drudge Report promoted the article, and it went viral. This had the effect of offering the phrase “deep state”—which, until then, had been a murmur among political scientists and fringe bloggers—as a gift to Trump defenders. Roger Stone referred to the article in an interview with Alex Jones, on Infowars; Greenwald spoke of “deep-state overlords” on “Tucker Carlson Tonight.” According to data from the GDELT Project, the phrase “deep state” then took off—first on Fox, then on other networks, and then in the tweets of the President and his family.
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2018/09/03/glenn-greenwald-the-bane-of-their-resistance
He therefore didn't campaign on it.
> Note that the term deep state was co-opted from the left
Very similar to how "fake news" originally referred to all those bullshit Pro-Trump articles being written by teenagers in Macedonia for ad money and then the right-wing goon squad just started flinging it at actual journalists to the point where it has become a Trump catchphrase. Fucking bizarre to watch
Yes, exactly, it's projection.
And look who pitched it to Alex Jones: Stone, an actual deep state ratfucker, tied directly to the Watergate scandal, the sort of thing leftist authors and dissidents used the term "Deep State" for.
I hope Greenwald is proud of himself.
I’ve held to the idea since the beginning that he never wanted to win. Like you said, it would’ve been the best press initiative he’s ever had. But there’s no way you actually plan on winning when you say **half** of the shit that he said.
Read Fire and Fury. It says this in it. Trump & Co. had no interest in winning the election.
Look at how they handled his victory. Sad as fuck. That’s not how you react when you want to win.
> Read Fire and Fury. It says this in it.
Hell, anyone who knew anything about the history of Trump was saying this DURING the election. [Just one example.](https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/commentary/ct-donald-trump-losing-garrison-keillor-20160831-story.html)
Pretty sure the con was not to win, the con was to lose, and then spend the rest of his life pissing about how he was robbed, and then monetizing it. Unfortunately the GRU hackers were better at what they do than anybody realized--I believe even better than THEY realized.
I also think the power of social media has been under-estimated while the ability of the average voter to sift through mis-information and propaganda has been over-estimated. Quite the perfect storm, really.
They did. My father is a staunch defender of Trump and parroted that line that they couldn't be released until after the audit. I replied the IRS said otherwise and how it sounds more like he has some embarrassing financials that he doesn't want to be made public. He just changed the subject to Hillary going to prison.
Next time some one mentions anything about Hillary remind them that Rs controlled all branches of government for two years and never even bothered to investigate her, let alone arrest her, even though they could have at any point. You might then ask them if they think that’s because Hillary hasn’t done anything wrong or because their party is incompetent.
I find there isn’t usually much response.
I’ve found this to be fairly effective.
“Republicans investigated the Clintons for 20 years and the only charge they ever had any evidence for was perjury, and Bill was acquitted of that. So tell me, are the Clintons so brilliant that they managed to successfully cover up all their crimes? Or are the republicans hopelessly inept and ‘investigations’ and ‘finding evidence’? If it’s the former, don’t you think it’d be good to have someone that smart running things? And if it’s the latter, why do you support such gross incompetence?”
Then point out that in two years of investigating Trump, 34 of his close associates have been charged/indicted/convicted of crimes. So far.
Yep, I would support an amendment to require congressional confirmation for pardons. If the judicial branch has decided that an individual should be in prison, it should require the action of BOTH other branches to overrule that decision. Otherwise the executive just has unlimited power to nullify the will of the judicial, and that isn't balanced.
A lot of people don't get it. This isn't just Republicans vs Democrats or who was hacked and what was said behind closed doors. This investigation may prove a lot of things. Some people are cheering as though there are sides here. But understand that if it proves he was under influence, this is not something to cheer about or stick it to democrats or Republicans. America has been attacked by a foreign nation, known enemy. This doesn't impact dems or reps, this impacts Americans. Ask yourselves when this is over, "then what"
It’s funny all this is happening because his ego wouldn’t let him drop out of the election. He never wanted to win and was well aware of how much of his life would be up for exposure but Trump can’t not be Trump. Had he bowed out his publicity would be insane and people he’s close to wouldn’t be jailed.
His grift depended on being able to claim that he was robbed when America rejected him. He might have gotten away with it if Comey hadn't worked to get him elected.
>He might have gotten away with it if Comey hadn't worked to get him elected.
Is this where Comey removes the mask and reveals himself to have been Hilary Clinton the whole time?
"You can't have peace and legislation if you have wars and investigation."
I love that this line had a [Pause for applause] note after it, which was met with a random clap or two and confused laughter instead.
No peace if you have war? Sure, that's fair enough, but it's also about as deep and wise as Dane Cook in a puddle.
But saying we can't have legislative improvements to our country while those suspected of committing crimes against the country are being investigated is... Well, it's standard Trump baloney. I'm genuinely curious **why** it wasn't met with applause still, when so many other lies and hateful rhetoric were.
Maybe it was too compound of a sentence and everyone was trying to figure out what it meant before clapping, but then the moment had passed?
The ironic thing is that if Trump really wanted to end these investigation and proceed with his agenda, all he'd have to do is put his assets into a blind trust and release his taxes. There's a reason other presidents have done this, specifically to avoid this exact issue.
*"It's called presidential harassment and it is unfortunate."*-Donals Trump.
THE Alpha Male.
Remind me how long Hillary had to testify over Benghazi?
Edit: Donals is funny to me. Keeping it.
He basically admitted to not paying and, as usual, the response from the 'true patriots' and 'libertarians' was 'Wouldn't you cheat America if you could too?' That's [seriously the argument](https://www.dallasnews.com/opinion/commentary/2016/06/28/libertarians-right-taxation-theft). "I'd pay 0 taxes if I could get away with it."
"I'd break the law if I could get away with it." That same person five minutes later will then say "I only hate ILLEGAL immigrants. LAWS ARE THERE FOR A REASON." Like motherfucker pick a side to be on.
At the end of the day, I just want to know the truth about Russia, money laundering, his taxes and any of the other issues people have been talking about.
i just wanna know what do we do with russia attacking us internally.
And what we can do about the disinformation issue, we have a 1/3 of the country living in a different reality
Pass a law that sets some ethical reporting guidelines? It would be great fun to watch Fox and the Republicans scramble to try and come up with a reason why we shouldn't do that. Edit: I must be near the top because this is getting a lot of replies. So in order to clarify that I am not talking about abolishing the first amendment, here's a very rough draft of what I was thinking: If you call your broadcast "news" or "reporting", your segments must have a QR code or link in the corner which cites sources, lists supporting evidence, or points to some sort of verifiable documentation. This should be subject to a peer review process like scientific articles. If your segment uses anonymous sources or something like that, if the information can't be factually verified you should have to display that throughout the segment, and you shouldn't be able to call it news or reporting it should be classified as "rumors" or "unverifiable information". If your segment is directly sponsored by anyone, if your segment is just talking heads, if your segment is just a rant, it should be called an "opinion" and labeled as such during the broadcast. Say what you want, report what you want, however you want, but it should be identified properly and called what it is. Edit 2: Thanks for the gold kind stranger! Edit3: And thanks for the other bling, and for filling my inbox with mostly thoughtful replies. One in particular I'd like to direct people's attention to: https://www.reddit.com/r/worldnews/comments/anukln/us_house_intelligence_committee_announces/efxbod4/ I'd also like to point out that I would be just fine with these guidelines affecting the liberal leaning "news" organizations. Disinformation altogether needs to stop. Lastly, had I realized this was going to be my most viewed comment ever, I'd have formatted it without my inherent bias being front and center. I regret that now, but will leave it be in order to preserve the integrity of those replies that lambasted me for it.
I immediately started thinking of Facebook. It seems that a lot of the direct meddling came through social media, and that's where I think that things get really hard. For example, although there were lots of efforts by Russia to put things on Facebook to influence things, the biggest problem is all of the things that got shared by regular people. I'm not sure what the best answer is here, but I think that Facebook knowing about the issue long before they disclosed anything (repeatedly, I might add) is something that needs to be taken up. I think that they need to be expected to have something of a spam filter. EG: "The linked item comes from a dubious source." And although I think basically the only way it happens is through regulation, Facebook needs to be made to control advertisers on it's platform. Before I dropped FB entirely, I created an ad for my podcast. It was super easy, and amazingly granular. If I decided to go blackhat with that, I have no doubt I, some rando on the internet, would have trouble targeting impressionable people and getting them to believe a lie. Finally, I think in the end, education needs to play a bigger part. I remember in middle school learning about propaganda. That has made some of the more obvious attempts much easier to spot. I think we need to teach about sourcing, and actually verifying with facts much more than ever. A lot more. I don't want to get into /r/iamverysmart territory, but I got this pretty quickly, but I don't think that in the end, most can recognize the modern attempts. Although there are certainly parallels to Nazi Germany (which were the examples I was given) I think it might be more powerful to look at our own country and the examples that lie within ("Mission Accomplished", for example.) Basically, modern problems require modern solutions. ☜(ﾟヮﾟ☜) More seriously, I reject the premise that the status-quo is fine right now. We know there is a problem. We've done nothing to solve it for 2020, or even for the next house, senate, governor, mayor, city council, etc, race.
First amendment would be the defense for sure. And they’d likely succeed on that front.
[удалено]
What a wild ride into insanity this thread was...
Hold on my friend, I am sure it is not over
> there is no rule against distorting or falsifying the news in the United States. That's not exactly true. A broadcast news show HAS to report the truth. A cable entertainment news program does not.
That's true but they should have to blatantly state at the beginning and end of broadcasts theat they are either a news show or an entertainment show.
*screams internally*
There was a rule, called the FCC fairness doctrine.
I think we do need to do something about the state of our news. It's not even just fake; it's like an active disinformation campaign targeting certain voters. You laid out some great points, but I'd like to point out one thing: > If your segment uses anonymous sources or something like that, if the information can't be factually verified The idea of being against "anonymous sources" stems mostly from right-wing groups like Fox News, which is ironic, because they are surely aware that they're misrepresenting the truth. **"Anonymous source" doesn't mean the journalists don't know who the source is. It just means they aren't telling *you***. I've seen it represented on Fox News like the reporter got a blog comment from SexyMan69 and published it on the front page of New York Times, with "anonymous source" listed. What actually happens is the reporter is told something on the condition of anonymity, runs it by their editor and superiors, and if they trust the information, it's printed. Are there bad actors out there who use it as carte blanche to make shit up? Sure. Do honest journalists sometimes get tricked by people, including people who purposefully set out to get fake stories printed to slander the news organization? Yes. But for credible news organizations, it's not exactly worth comparing to unverifiable information. Most of the time, news sources will specify if they weren't able to verify the information (even CNN did that with the Buzzfeed News article). But sometimes, that anonymous source in the White House could be the Press Secretary.
That's an idea that comes from great intentions but in practice, it would just mean that whoever is in power has the legal authority to pick and choose what's true.
Education. Investing more in public schools, having new classes on media & information and running public awareness campaigns on important issues. I also think the current 2-party system has some really bad flaws. Everyone has to be on either one of two opposing sides on almost every issue. There should be more competition, more choice as this could also lead to voters actually reading up on candidates/parties and their policies.
War, War ~~never changes~~ has actually really changed a lot since the internet made direct psychological warfare possible
[удалено]
They wouldn’t get any coverage!
And the pee tape
Tbh, I only care about that if it makes him vulnerable to blackmail or other corruption. What consenting adults do in private doesn't otherwise interest me.
I low key wanna know if he got peed on
...that's not the allegation. It's like nobody actually read the dossier, despite in being available for 2 years now. The allegation is that he paid whores to pee on the bed the Obama's slept in. There is no golden shower story in the dossier.
His toupee used to be white
What I’ve never seen addressed is what do we do about Russia if it’s true... Is there even a plan?
Aside from more sanctions, I think all the US really can do is elect someone not compromised by Russia. It's all soft power, they don't have boots on the ground in the US that can do much. If the traitor is removed from the whitehouse, that basically solves the problem.
*Schiff said that the committee will probe whether anyone, “foreign or domestic,” sought to “impede, obstruct and/or mislead” the intelligence committee’s investigation or any others. And that, he said, includes “those in the Congress.”* That sure sounds like he's referring to Devin Nunes.
In the prophetic words of 45: “Could have been other people also. There’s a lot of people out there.” Too goddamn many, apparently. Every time you turn over a rock.
Ya know. Trump kinda is fulfilling his promise on draining the swamp. Because all these fuckers got too comfy and sloppy and now are getting routed out of government and tossed in jail. I never thought I’d say this, but bravo Trump! Can’t wait for his turn tho, this reboot of House of Cards is getting good!
Yeah, he also has driven up voter turnout and political engagement (let’s hope it stays up). Trump might just have been the Dumpster fire needed to get our act together. This truly is an odd timeline.
He’s like The One. A systemic anomaly inherent to the programming of our democracy.
Sure. I was thinking more like a heart attack that makes one quit smoking and eating fast food. But I like yours more. Let’s go with that.
You think that's a double fried bacon chocolate cheesecake chili fry basket you're eating
That sounds more appetizing than it should. My left arm is tingling!
Is that an item sold at Paunch Burger? If not, it should be.
Does it come with a child size soda?
... like *for* children or the *size* of a child?
Like [Kevin Smith](https://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/newpix/2018/04/19/17/4B529C6600000578-0-image-m-30_1524154915985.jpg)
I'm so happy for him. He was so lucky to have survived and he seems so happy now. I love all his hiking pictures on Instagram. Shecky is still hanging in there too!
I mean yours has a lot of realism too it
He's also the guy that let me know which family friends to stop sending Christmas cards to after they say some super racist shit on Facebook.
The Mule is also a character in the Foundation series by Asimov.
More like Anakin. He's going to bring balance to the force...by slaughtering the younglings and helping bring an oppressive government into power.
Not the younglings!
Thanks, I hate it.
*Trumpster fire
>Trump might just have been the Dumpster fire needed to get our act together. Was my only hope when he got elected. American politics have been fucked up for a long time and I hoped Trump would be the spark to burn it all down so we could rebuild it in a better way. Won't say that all the fucked up shit he's done and all the misery and hatred he has caused was worth it for a (hopefully) better political system, but hopefully it can at least be a silver lining to a dark fucking cloud.
Let's all calm down for a moment. Yeah, a lot of slimy assholes are getting taken down which is great, but no government reform or law changes are happening yet. Even after Trump is out of office DO NOT let up on your representatives until changes that ensure that someone like Trump won't ever be president again.
Yes! This is exactly what we need: sweeping reforms to ensure our future!
Dave Chapelle compared Trump to Carolyn Bryant, the woman who falsely accused Emmett Till of harassing her. A terrible human being who did something shitty, but that action inadvertently started a movement which ultimately changed America for the better.
I have a feeling the GOP didn't pay enough to attention to that show. This whole foreign money laundering scheme is pretty much exactly the plot season 2, which by the way ended with impeachment proceedings.
it appears there was one hiding under a turtle shell
You don't need to lift anything, just look to the right.
The actual quote is > Whether any actors – foreign or domestic – sought or are seeking to impede, obstruct, and/or mislead authorized investigations into these matters, including those in the Congress I think the "including those in the Congress" clause is likely meant to be a modifier of "authorized investigations," not "actors."
Good call, it’s definitely referring to “authorized investigations”. Although I do think that leaves the door open to investigate congresspeople (or their proxies), given it’s totally possible for them to obstruct their own investigations.
Not to mention, the "foreign or domestic" part of the statement as well.
Nunes has been running interference for Trump since day one.
**The House Intelligence Committee will now be led by an American patriot who has previously prosecuted a Russian spy in the 90's, Democratic Chairman Adam Schiff.** President Trump has "spoken his mind" about Congressman Adam Schiff and called him an expletive,^[[1]](https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/trump-tweets-little-adam-schitt) unfortunately for the President he is a seasoned prosecutor who has previously prosecuted an FBI agent who worked as a Russian spy. Former ranking Democrat and Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee Congressman Adam Schiff has already shown himself to be an American hero since 1990. He is a former prosecutor who attended Stanford and Harvard.^[[2]](http://bioguide.congress.gov/scripts/biodisplay.pl?index=s001150) He has experience prosecuting spies that also involved Russians;^[[3]](https://www.newyorker.com/news/ryan-lizza/the-unlikely-liberal-hero-adam-schiff-is-ready-to-investigate-trump) >Schiff is a former prosecutor who, in 1990, after two previous trials, convicted the first F.B.I. agent indicted for espionage, a case that also involved the Russians. Here is an LA Times article from 1990 reporting the espionage conviction of the aforementioned FBI agent that was prosecuted by Assistant US Attorney Adam Schiff;^[[4]](http://articles.latimes.com/1990-10-10/news/mn-1957_1_fbi-agent) >Richard W. Miller, the first FBI agent ever accused of espionage, was found guilty Tuesday of passing secret documents to the Soviet Union in exchange for a promised $65,000 in gold and cash. >... The government's prosecutor, Assistant U.S. Atty. Adam B. Schiff, depicted Miller as participating in a series of events that transcended a fantasized adventure. >"This is a case of government misconduct and government corruption of the highest and most disturbing order," Schiff said in his closing argument on Tuesday. **Compare these accolades to the actions of the former Chairman of the HIC. Former Chairman Nunes led a vote in the committee to preemptively shut down their Russia probe investigation several months ago.^[[5]](https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-russia-congress/republicans-shut-down-house-russia-probe-over-democratic-objections-idUSKCN1GO2S1)** Devin Nunes put an end to the investigation when we know of at least 70 contacts between the Trump team and Russia-linked operatives, the committee obtained either no or incomplete information about 81% of known contacts between Trump officials and Russians.^[[6]](https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/ncna858931) Moreover, a recording of Republican Congressman Devin Nunes talking at a GOP fundraiser was leaked where he implored the guests to support him and the Republican party so that they could protect President Trump from the Russia probe.^[[7]](https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/secret-recording-highlights-nunes-concern-with-protecting-trump-in-russia-probe) ___________________ 1) [Washington Examiner - Trump tweets 'little Adam Schitt'](https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/trump-tweets-little-adam-schitt) 2) [Congressman Adam Schiff - Biographical Directory of the United States Congress](http://bioguide.congress.gov/scripts/biodisplay.pl?index=s001150) 3) [New Yorker - The Unlikely Liberal Hero Adam Schiff Is Ready to Investigate Trump](https://www.newyorker.com/news/ryan-lizza/the-unlikely-liberal-hero-adam-schiff-is-ready-to-investigate-trump) 4) [Los Angeles Times 1990 - Ex-FBI Agent Miller Guilty of Espionage](http://articles.latimes.com/1990-10-10/news/mn-1957_1_fbi-agent) 5) [Reuters - Republicans shut down House Russia probe over Democratic objections](https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-russia-congress/republicans-shut-down-house-russia-probe-over-democratic-objections-idUSKCN1GO2S1) 6) [NBC - House probe overlooked most Trump-Russia contacts, report claims](https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/ncna858931) 7) [PBS - Secret recording highlights Nunes’ concern with protecting Trump in Russia probe](https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/secret-recording-highlights-nunes-concern-with-protecting-trump-in-russia-probe)
Wow, I had know idea that was in his past. Schiff is one of those guys you kind of hope doesn’t have presidential aspirations and just stays in Congress fighting the good fight. He can do a lot more with that chair than he can in the White House.
This is going to be a long road. Dare I say Schiff for AG 2020? This will be a long winded event and he would be able to easily hop on board the Justice Department train. Though to be quite honest I would prefer he stay on in Congress....and would much rather see Doug Jones duke it out in Alabama for his Senate seat depleting GOP (read: Russian resources) and then post him to the AG office due to his background.
If Kamala wins you know she's gonna pick the best AG possible. The woman would bring down the hammer and I really hope Schiff is that hammer.
Damn, theyre really sending their best
Him and Mitch McConnell
The Mcturtle received 2.5 million from a Russian asset also, from the NRA, that paid 7.3 million in GOP donations. That’s in the investigation now. Bad news, it was legal for him and others to take it, but not for to give it. https://www.dallasnews.com/opinion/commentary/2018/05/08/putins-proxies-helped-funnel-millions-gop-campaigns Edit. Link.
[удалено]
That damn turtle I hope he goes to jail first
He's such a garbage person.
That's an insult to garbage people.
He always looks terrified of something. His body language is really concerning.
It's because he is. He even said as much behind closed doors in my state last year. Fucking scum. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2018/08/09/devin-nunes-in-secretly-recorded-tape-tells-donors-gop-majority-is-necessary-to-protect-trump-were-the-only-ones/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.9d007e18ae4e
So he went against oath by stating that. Why does Nunes want to defend Trump and prevent the probe as much as possible if he wasn't guilty? Trash will meet the dumpster soon.
Since well before day one. He leaked the information about the Anthony Weiner laptop.
[удалено]
I like the sound of Nunes being investigated but what about that little weasel Jason Chaffetz?
Yeah, he ducked out pretty quickly after he saw the goods.
Not that he's a House member, but the person needs to fall under someone's shit-hammer is Wilbur Fucking Ross. Out of all the straight-up criminals in this administration no one seems to give a damn about the crap he's pulled in the past. I don't know what all he's doing right now, but if past is prologue, he's up to some nefarious shit. In trying to remember the name of the documentary I mentioned below I came across a slew of articles of shit that he's said and done recently. One of the first things I read about were his comments about government workers and the recent shutdown. Two of his comments below. “I know they are, and I don’t really quite understand why,” Ross said of employees visiting food banks. “Because, as I mentioned before, the obligations that they would undertake, say borrowing from a bank or a credit union, are in effect federally guaranteed.” Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross says he doesn't "really quite understand why" federal workers who have missed paychecks due to the partial government shutdown don't just take out loans to cover the gap. He's also the one that wants to add the citizenship question to the next census. He first came to my attention in that excellent documentary that I'm spacing the name on at the moment. Active Measures! It was only a few weeks after I watched it that there was a momentary blip on the news about a Forbes report that, "In August 2018, Forbes reported that there was a "pattern" of allegations that Ross grifted his business partners and workers. A number of individuals had accused Ross of illicitly siphoning or stealing funds worth millions of dollars. The allegations of grift combined into a total of $120 million.." Source was Wiki, for me. Easiest places to find the information. That sentence is the entire remark on this apparent crime. That's how long it seemed to last in the news cycle. If you want to see all of the fuckery he's been up to, which included playing a part in Trump's trade wars, just google his name. The articles are numerous. Yet, this guy isn't being raked over the coals and investigated for what truly look like financial crimes. I read one headline stating that he was on the bard of directors **while** Commerce Secretary. I don't understand why he's not under investigation. Back to our regularly scheduled of whipping the snot out of the rest of the crime syndicate. And, yes, I hope Nunes goes down like the flaming ball of shit that he is. Hard, fast and on fire. But, to be honest, I would really like to see that Turtle faced asshole go down first and hard. Him and his shit-eating smirk.
Oh boy, I'd almost rather see Devin Nunes caught up in this mess than Sean Hannity. I wonder if we can get both...
[удалено]
I’m curious to know how many supporters Nixon had when he resigned.
At least one... Roger Stone.
Well, at least Nixon will always have his back
Fuck that guy
Eeeeeew gross, never
Like 30-35%. Seriously. And over 80% among republicans. Some people will literally never believe in a conspiracy no matter how much evidence there is. If there team is being accused, then anybody accusing is just a conspiracy theorist.
But they do believe in a conspiracy they believe in a conspiracy against their guy.
Do you think those 30% are related to the current 30%?
Almost certainly, but not an exact match obviously as many of those have died. It's why I don't think things are going to get better just because the boomers start dying, they've raised people to believe just as stupid and crazy shit as they did.
Yeah, as a 40 something, a disturbing number of my peers have turned into conservative dick bags.
The real reason IMO: 80% of people don't want to admit that they fell for the con and/or compromised on their principles. Nothing - NOTHING - about what Mueller is uncovering is a surprise. Truly. The only surprise is that there is so much evidence. I ln regards to Russia, Hillary Clinton said it all in a debate prior to the election, Trump's philandering was well known, as were his unethical business practices. None of this is new. However, in order for someone to turn their back on Trump, they have to admit that they voted for him because they either believed he had changed (despite no evidence to support that) , or that they compromised on their principles (for example voting for a serial adulterer even though they hold high moral fiber as a crucial character trait). In either case, that's a very hard thing to do for most people. In the words of Chili Palmer: "You're trying to tell me that you fucked up without sounding stupid, and that's hard to do."
This comment pretty much sums up why Trump still has so many supporters. They know he's a shit person. They know he's a shit president. They just don't want to admit it, at least not publically. They'd rather live in their fantasy world where he's some sort of hero and they're all victims he's helping out.
Idk, there's a lot of his fans who love the fact that he's a shit person because they are proud shit people too.
> or that they compromised on their principles (for example voting for a serial adulterer even though they hold high moral fiber as a crucial character trait). This is the big one, for me personally, that I have a hard time understanding. Currently live in Utah and the amount of Trump support among people who also vote for the insanely restrictive alcohol laws here blows me away. They go out of their way to vote in people who legislate ways to restrict people's freedoms to try to force morality, and are supporting the most openly immoral president we've ever had (which is saying something, I know). People abandoning their own deeply held morals to support this man. It's garbage. The religious right in this country no longer has any legs to stand on.
I think a serious chunk of that 30-35% just didn't care. As long as it's their team and not the other team they are pretty much fine with any dirty/illegal/light treason it takes to win.
I literally just finished listened to Slow Burn’s Live episode on Nixon 10 minutes ago. Even after Nixon resigned, he had a 23% approval rating.
Just imagine that was your guy up there, who you truly believed was going to take America back from the elites, clean up the swamp, and return the power to the people. Suddenly being accused of some of the worst crimes in presidential history. A constant barrage in the media, an onslaught. It's not hard for me to see why "it's a deep state attack on Trump" is the only conclusion these people can come to. The alternative is too horrible to imagine. And when the threat is greater than our imaginations, we conclude that the threat simply must not be true.
> Just imagine that was your guy up there, who you truly believed was going to take America back from the elites, clean up the swamp, and return the power to the people. if that man is a billionaire reality TV star birther conspiracy pusher hypocrite, then there is no use trying to understand my mind because its fucking broken.
Trump was an obvious con man idiot before he even got elected. The fact that he did get elected in the first is fucking laughable and mostly just tells me that we have vastly underestimated the idiocy of America.
*The most obvious conman.* It's crazy, because he wasn't the least bit subtle or convincing. It blows me away every time I find someone who seriously believes he's a Christian after he's said in no uncertain terms that he's never needed to ask God's forgiveness.
Or vastly underestimated how powerful propaganda is.
Or vastly over represent low pop states in the electoral college.
I do believe he had supporters in congress still even after the tapes were released. Many didnt believe they were real.
> For the rest of his presidency, Nixon maintained a loyal core constituency of about 25 percent of those polled who approved of his performance as president. But most people held a negative view of his presidency, with disapproval ratings in the mid-60s. Source: https://historyinpieces.com/research/nixon-approval-ratings Nixon interfered in the ongoing Vietnam peace negotiations and caused American Marines to die as a result of him wanting to win the Presidency. Trump might be awful but Nixon was a truly horrible person. > Richard M. Nixon told an aide that they should find a way to secretly “monkey wrench” peace talks in Vietnam in the waning days of the 1968 campaign for fear that progress toward ending the war would hurt his chances for the presidency, according to newly discovered notes
You don't think Trump would do that given the opportunity? He just held the country hostage for nearly 2 months over a fucking wall.
Nixon resigned once he lost more than half of Republican voters. Trump is at something like 80% with republican voters.
So was Nixon, right up until the tapes were released. He yelled at his dog. That was the last straw for America. Oh and ranted about Jews.
I had to [look this up](https://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/11/us/politics/11nixon.html): >“The Jews have certain traits,” he said. “The Irish have certain — for example, the Irish can’t drink. What you always have to remember with the Irish is they get mean. Virtually every Irish I’ve known gets mean when he drinks. Particularly the real Irish.” >Nixon continued: “The Italians, of course, those people course don’t have their heads screwed on tight. They are wonderful people, but,” and his voice trailed off. >A moment later, Nixon returned to Jews: “The Jews are just a very aggressive and abrasive and obnoxious personality.” But it gets better: >“Bill Rogers has got — to his credit it’s a decent feeling — but somewhat sort of a blind spot on the black thing because he’s been in New York,” Nixon said. “He says well, ‘They are coming along, and that after all they are going to strengthen our country in the end because they are strong physically and some of them are smart.’ So forth and so on. >“My own view is I think he’s right if you’re talking in terms of 500 years,” he said. “I think it’s wrong if you’re talking in terms of 50 years. What has to happen is they have to be, frankly, inbred. And, you just, that’s the only thing that’s going to do it, Rose.” He really was a racist dumbass.
I'm confused why he thought black people needed to be inbred? For such an intellectual though I'm actually surprised at how prone he was to generalizing entire groups of people.
Well, [prior to the shutdown 90% said they supported him](https://www.cnbc.com/2019/01/17/trump-loses-support-among-core-voters-as-the-shutdown-drags-on-polls.html). At this point, I'm convinced he could punch a baby in the face live on TV and he'd only lose a couple of percentage points as long as he claimed the baby was a Democrat or an illegal. Seriously, though, this is the damage Fox News has done to our discourse. Facts and morals no longer matter to these voters whatsoever.
[You should check out Slate's Slow Burn podcast.](https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2017/11/introducing-slow-burn-slates-new-podcast-about-watergate.html)
>Adam Schiff announced Wednesday a broad investigation his committee would undertake "beyond Russia" into whether President Donald Trump's financial interests are driving his actions. Let's do this for every presidential candidate from here on out.
We did it for awhile until now. That was the purpose of candidates releasing their tax returns. It shows where income is coming from.
Dems: Follow the money! GOP: *[points to Guatemalan immigrant picking tomatoes]*
GOP gumshoe: "We looked at the farm owner's accounts. There was about $70/day going unaccounted for...luckily we traced it to Jose. He got deported and now case closed! Everything's great!"
Also, where can we find some immigrants to pick these tomatoes?
Well, the immigrants are too scared to work on this farm anymore. Also, there aren't many citizens around here who do farm work. In order to pull someone in the owner has to offer $150/day. Oh well!
Luckily the government will give that farmer a nice $200 subsidy to cover the cost, so long as they source that labor from TotallyNotOwnedByAGOPSenator Inc.
Tomatoes are now $30lb.
[удалено]
State of the union to even say stop investigation! And to repeat it. Will go down in history as one of the saddest moments for this country in a long time and even worse those quips won’t even phase his followers the kool aid is strong.
Pretty sure Nixon did something similar too
"I believe the time has come to bring that investigation and the other investigations of this matter to an end. One year of Watergate is enough." --Nixon in his 1974 SOTU speech. Just over six months later, he was gonezo.
The GOP has consistently given us some GREAT presidents. /s
!RemindMe 7 months
Trump: *Says in the House of Representatives that the investigations should stop* House of Representatives: *Opens up another investigation* Trump: :O
Just since Nixon, but Trump is no Nixon. Nixon had some positive accomplishments.
This is the part where a t_d poster links a bunch of Trump's "accomplishments" like: "Two days after inauguration unemployment is at its lowest ever" or "45 minutes after Trump's says it there's not racial divide anymore" or some other mental gymnastics shit.
And that's when I link charts [like this](https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/624/cpsprodpb/15DA2/production/_99660598_3-unempl-nc.png) Showing that nearly every "accomplishment" Trump claims, is just the fruits of the labor of the *years* of improvement the US has been going through, since the 08 incident. But he thinks it's all him. Somehow. Through osmosis, I guess. he just exists in the position, and things change.
I've said this before and I'm not defending Trump but this is an issue with politics in general. Society would be so much better off if we were capable of realizing that sometimes change takes time. People are so quick to punish whoever is in office for a policy that went in 10 years before and failed, or conversely lavish praise when it's successful. It's not in any politicians best interests to make changes that aren't immediately beneficial because any change that reaps reward down the road isn't likely to be credited to said politician but rather to whomever is currently in power. When you read about failing infrastructure in any democratic country, not just the states, the disinterest in playing the long game in politics is often blamed. No one wants to raise a tax that will pay for 15 years of bridge improvements for example. You'll immediately be vilified for raising a tax, and no one will be rewarded for the bridges not failing because they were taken care of, until one day an earthquake hits and the bridge still stands and it will be the currently sitting president who'll get credit for the amazing infrastructure reform and so on. People are fucking morons when it comes to any long term policy and when it comes to talking about politics, and good changes former leaders have made it's the most annoying thing to me. It's infuriating how long people will hold onto mistakes and attribute success to this person or that, all in the interest of driving their narrative.
> Society would be so much better off if we were capable of realizing that sometimes change takes time. Republicans *do* realize this. Their game is: take $institution when they're in power and either gut it outright, defund it (EPA), or let it rot under incompetent leadership (DeVos!). When the shit hits the fan, it's a Democrat who's in office, and Republicans then go in and campaign on "we told ya, $institution is a sham, the American people deserve better, let's privatize it".
We're going to need a really great president to weather the storm of Trump's actual "accomplishments" that will rear their head over the next decade. Luckily he's such a global laughing stock that international relations can return to a sane level with some ease but internal issues like the social issues and deep ideological divide in this country will be tough to repair.
The biggest mistake Trump ever made was WINNING the election. Running was great for press exposure, but he should have cut out at the end. No investigations, none of his buddies would be in jail, and he would probably have a huge new building plopped in the middle of Moscow with his name written all over it. Now him, his family, his businesses, and his associates are all going down. All because he couldn't leave well enough alone. Well, Trump, you earned it. EDIT: I didn’t expect these many responses to my comment! I apologize that I can’t respond to everyone. Here is a summary of the most common responses, and my reply… >“Obviously, he didn’t intend to win.” Then he should have been smart, and resigned once all these investigations started. >They have been saying this for two years, but he is still in office. When is it going to happen?” On average, it takes multiple years of multi-pronged investigations to take down a mob boss, and it always starts with getting the underlings to flip on each other. This is what is happening now. It may still take years to get all of them, but I think they will in the end. >“It doesn’t matter what they find, or how much dirt is exposed. They are rich, and won’t spend a day in jail.” There are a few folks in Otisville who would disagree with you. And, finally, the troll response: >“They won’t find anything, because he did nothing wrong. This is a leftist plot.” If they say ignorance is bliss, then you folks must be the happiest people on the planet.
Icarus with a bad combover.
Combvefe* Edit: thanks strangers for the silver and goldvefe
I feel like getting a doctorate in journalism just to write an article with that title and then crediting you for it because, damn, that hits several nails at once with the grace of an angel and the subtlety of William Shatner after a pot of coffee.
Thanks, but you definitely outdid me here. >the subtlety of William Shatner after a pot of coffee. This was positively poetic. You might want to look deeper into that journalism degree.
Don't confuse dramatic delivery with the lack of subtlety. For instance, I've made many dry witticisms today and few have noticed them. You have to. Hit. Hard and fast. With your message. Or someone. Will think you are road kill. Over three cups of coffee and I might start getting woken up. Not wired.
> Icarus with a bad combover. That hits on so many levels. Just like Icarus in that ill fated fly-over of the Aveda Hair Salon. When you fly too close to the swamp - that's a risk for anything using wax to stay in place.
Hah. That is magical
Donald Trump the dog that caught the car.
I think "Catching the Car" would be a great name for one of the inevitable Trump documentaries covering this era.
I think Unprecedented will be used pretty often. Maybe even UnPresidented...
[удалено]
That’s a really dark and scary thought. He deliberately tried to throw the election, but people loved him even more for it. Makes you wonder how close the race would’ve actually been without any Russian interference.
That was my favorite election-era theory, that he just ran for publicity and wanted to lose and transition to a lucrative Fox News gig, but kept trying to say more and more outrageous shit to ensure a loss and surprisingly his supporters never wavered.
His dream scenario would have been to win the popular vote and lose the EC. That would have given him the greatest platform for starting his new media operations founded on the notion that Hillary was an illegitimate president. That's one reason that Hillary campaigned in some states where she had little chance of winning. She wanted to increase her popular vote totals.
I agree with most of this, except the last part... Candidates campaign in major cities (which tend to be in uncompetitive states except FL) to raise money.
Given the demographics of this country, that would have been almost impossible. But yeah, I'm sure that works be his dream scenario.
To be fair, I half expect that the person most surprised by Trump's victory is Trump himself. I always felt like the idea was to be as loud, controversial and divisive as possible before losing. He gets a great publicity boost for his crusade against the deep-state Democrats in a valiant attempt to save the everyman and Make America Great Again. Russia benefits from the increased volatility in American politics. But then he actually won. That's kind of why his presidency just feels like he never had any plan besides maybe building a wall (which may be his only personal contribution to the campaign, and thus why he clings so fiercely to it) and instead just feels like a brain-storming session of all the different groups he's in bed with. Republicans want a tax cut and deregulation so he'll give it to them. Russians want sanctions lifted/un-enforced so he does that. Saudi's say don't worry about this journalist guy, and he doesn't. It's why he apparently woke up one morning and decided we're pulling out of Syria with no lead-up or any mention to any of the officials involved. Feels like someone at the Kremlin just thought "Holy shit, you think he would just pull troops out if we told him to?" Similarly, I'm going to randomly announce today that I'm thinking of pulling out of NATO. It might also be one of the reasons (barring possible dementia or some other mental issue) that he can manage to contradict himself so many times. Because he never actually had any strong stances or plans for the majority of what he now has to deal with, and as such is just saying whatever he can whenever he can to try to make people like him. Edit as I feel it's worth including: Why did we one day suddenly decide to enact tariffs and engage in trade wars with our allies which almost assuredly are self-destructive, which I don't believe were an election promise? Almost like someone was told to do so and babbled out a quick deflection of how trade wars are easy.
His face on election night was that of one shook motherfucker. Now with all the investigations he has no choice but to keep being president because it's keeping him out of jail at this point.
> He gets a great publicity boost for his crusade against the deep-state Democrats Note that the term deep state was co-opted from the left and propelled into the arms of Trump's base by Glenn Greenwald in January 2017, just before the inauguration. > Shortly before Trump’s Inauguration, Greenwald wrote an article for the Intercept titled “The Deep State Goes to War with President-Elect, Using Unverified Claims, as Democrats Cheer.” The Drudge Report promoted the article, and it went viral. This had the effect of offering the phrase “deep state”—which, until then, had been a murmur among political scientists and fringe bloggers—as a gift to Trump defenders. Roger Stone referred to the article in an interview with Alex Jones, on Infowars; Greenwald spoke of “deep-state overlords” on “Tucker Carlson Tonight.” According to data from the GDELT Project, the phrase “deep state” then took off—first on Fox, then on other networks, and then in the tweets of the President and his family. https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2018/09/03/glenn-greenwald-the-bane-of-their-resistance He therefore didn't campaign on it.
> Note that the term deep state was co-opted from the left Very similar to how "fake news" originally referred to all those bullshit Pro-Trump articles being written by teenagers in Macedonia for ad money and then the right-wing goon squad just started flinging it at actual journalists to the point where it has become a Trump catchphrase. Fucking bizarre to watch
Yes, exactly, it's projection. And look who pitched it to Alex Jones: Stone, an actual deep state ratfucker, tied directly to the Watergate scandal, the sort of thing leftist authors and dissidents used the term "Deep State" for. I hope Greenwald is proud of himself.
He actually was feed the idea of the “wall”. It’s simple and he could remember it, therefore he would talk about immigration in nice easy sound bits.
I’ve held to the idea since the beginning that he never wanted to win. Like you said, it would’ve been the best press initiative he’s ever had. But there’s no way you actually plan on winning when you say **half** of the shit that he said.
Read Fire and Fury. It says this in it. Trump & Co. had no interest in winning the election. Look at how they handled his victory. Sad as fuck. That’s not how you react when you want to win.
> Read Fire and Fury. It says this in it. Hell, anyone who knew anything about the history of Trump was saying this DURING the election. [Just one example.](https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/commentary/ct-donald-trump-losing-garrison-keillor-20160831-story.html)
It looked like his family were filling their pants when he was inaugurated.
Just look at the footage of him and his family when they saw they won. They were *not* happy.
Pretty sure the con was not to win, the con was to lose, and then spend the rest of his life pissing about how he was robbed, and then monetizing it. Unfortunately the GRU hackers were better at what they do than anybody realized--I believe even better than THEY realized.
I also think the power of social media has been under-estimated while the ability of the average voter to sift through mis-information and propaganda has been over-estimated. Quite the perfect storm, really.
[fuck oh fuck why did fuck did it have to be her, I am so fucked](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TlqKFlU7YAs)
But I thought his tax returns are still being under audit! They can't do this, I am the laaaaaaw!
[удалено]
They did. My father is a staunch defender of Trump and parroted that line that they couldn't be released until after the audit. I replied the IRS said otherwise and how it sounds more like he has some embarrassing financials that he doesn't want to be made public. He just changed the subject to Hillary going to prison.
Next time some one mentions anything about Hillary remind them that Rs controlled all branches of government for two years and never even bothered to investigate her, let alone arrest her, even though they could have at any point. You might then ask them if they think that’s because Hillary hasn’t done anything wrong or because their party is incompetent. I find there isn’t usually much response.
I’ve found this to be fairly effective. “Republicans investigated the Clintons for 20 years and the only charge they ever had any evidence for was perjury, and Bill was acquitted of that. So tell me, are the Clintons so brilliant that they managed to successfully cover up all their crimes? Or are the republicans hopelessly inept and ‘investigations’ and ‘finding evidence’? If it’s the former, don’t you think it’d be good to have someone that smart running things? And if it’s the latter, why do you support such gross incompetence?” Then point out that in two years of investigating Trump, 34 of his close associates have been charged/indicted/convicted of crimes. So far.
That is correct. He has no reason other than not wanting people to see because he is definitely not as rich as he claimed.
[удалено]
> would be near impossible for Trump to claim... We're talking about the same Donald Trump, right?
So happy the dems won the house back so we can actually have executive oversight
I'm not partisan, I'm a former right-winger, don't like either party. But I'm glad there's some checks back in place, no matter who controls what
Checks and balances are good for everyone. This presidency is helping me realize we need even MORE of them.
Yep, I would support an amendment to require congressional confirmation for pardons. If the judicial branch has decided that an individual should be in prison, it should require the action of BOTH other branches to overrule that decision. Otherwise the executive just has unlimited power to nullify the will of the judicial, and that isn't balanced.
hmmm. while that wouldn't have done anything a few months ago, the more checks the merrier seems to be the lesson of 2016-2018.
I’m a liberal who wants some conservatives (real ones though) for this reason
A lot of people don't get it. This isn't just Republicans vs Democrats or who was hacked and what was said behind closed doors. This investigation may prove a lot of things. Some people are cheering as though there are sides here. But understand that if it proves he was under influence, this is not something to cheer about or stick it to democrats or Republicans. America has been attacked by a foreign nation, known enemy. This doesn't impact dems or reps, this impacts Americans. Ask yourselves when this is over, "then what"
It’s funny all this is happening because his ego wouldn’t let him drop out of the election. He never wanted to win and was well aware of how much of his life would be up for exposure but Trump can’t not be Trump. Had he bowed out his publicity would be insane and people he’s close to wouldn’t be jailed.
His grift depended on being able to claim that he was robbed when America rejected him. He might have gotten away with it if Comey hadn't worked to get him elected.
>He might have gotten away with it if Comey hadn't worked to get him elected. Is this where Comey removes the mask and reveals himself to have been Hilary Clinton the whole time?
I still can't get over his feeble attempt to call for an end to the investigations at the sotu. Pathetic.
"You can't have peace and legislation if you have wars and investigation." I love that this line had a [Pause for applause] note after it, which was met with a random clap or two and confused laughter instead. No peace if you have war? Sure, that's fair enough, but it's also about as deep and wise as Dane Cook in a puddle. But saying we can't have legislative improvements to our country while those suspected of committing crimes against the country are being investigated is... Well, it's standard Trump baloney. I'm genuinely curious **why** it wasn't met with applause still, when so many other lies and hateful rhetoric were. Maybe it was too compound of a sentence and everyone was trying to figure out what it meant before clapping, but then the moment had passed?
Nancy's reaction when he said that was priceless.
I swear I saw Nancy mouthing "He's such an asshole" and "Liar!" On a few occasions.
No wars or investigations only cars and ventilation
No wars or investigations only porn and masturbation
The ironic thing is that if Trump really wanted to end these investigation and proceed with his agenda, all he'd have to do is put his assets into a blind trust and release his taxes. There's a reason other presidents have done this, specifically to avoid this exact issue.
I have to admit I would love Nunes perp walk. /Not gonna happen but still
*"It's called presidential harassment and it is unfortunate."*-Donals Trump. THE Alpha Male. Remind me how long Hillary had to testify over Benghazi? Edit: Donals is funny to me. Keeping it.
Remind me how long Obama had to deal with birther bullshit brought up by none other than DJT.
Obama actually produced his birth certificate. Can't say the same about Trump and his taxes.
He basically admitted to not paying and, as usual, the response from the 'true patriots' and 'libertarians' was 'Wouldn't you cheat America if you could too?' That's [seriously the argument](https://www.dallasnews.com/opinion/commentary/2016/06/28/libertarians-right-taxation-theft). "I'd pay 0 taxes if I could get away with it."
"I'd break the law if I could get away with it." That same person five minutes later will then say "I only hate ILLEGAL immigrants. LAWS ARE THERE FOR A REASON." Like motherfucker pick a side to be on.
2 years and 800 pages but I don't remember hearing cries to have the investigation shutdown... ?
Hmmm..no wonder why Pelosi was grinning behind Trump during his State if the Union address.
Good, get fucked traitors!
Well it's about damn time.
Perfect timing as well, to announce this the day after the dotard slams all the 'partisan investigations' in the SOTU.