Donald Trump

Unnamed Sources: Trump Now Being Investigated for Obstruction

Let's not overreact in any particular direction.

|

Trump
Chine Nouvelle/SIPA/Newscom

President Donald Trump insisted he wasn't being personally investigated over his campaign staff's possible ties to Russia, and he was right. Fired FBI Director James Comey said as such in his testimony last week.

Sources today tell the Washington Post that Trump now actually is being investigated over allegations of obstruction of justice over the circumstances of Comey's firing. From the Post:

The move by Special Counsel Robert S. Mueller III to investigate Trump's own conduct marks a major turning point in the nearly year-old FBI investigation, which until recently focused on Russian meddling during the presidential campaign and on whether there was any coordination between the Trump campaign and the Kremlin. Investigators have also been looking for any evidence of possible financial crimes among Trump associates, officials said.

Trump had received private assurances from former FBI Director James B. Comey starting in January that he was not personally under investigation. Officials say that changed shortly after Comey's firing.

Five people briefed on the requests, who spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the matter publicly, said Daniel Coats, the current director of national intelligence, Adm. Mike Rogers, head of the National Security Agency, and Rogers' recently departed deputy, Richard Ledgett, agreed to be interviewed by Mueller's investigators as early as this week. The investigation has been cloaked in secrecy and it's unclear how many others have been questioned by the FBI.

Some very quick thoughts:

It's all from unnamed sources. Nobody is going on the record confirming the investigation. This is all from leaks. But it's from five separate sources, according to the Washington Post. Nevertheless, leaks can sometimes be wrong or lying or floating trial balloons. (Remember Trump's anti-LGBT executive order that didn't happen?)

Investigation doesn't equal guilt. It should go without saying, but it's worth pointing out that the story does not say the FBI or Mueller thinks Trump's guilty. He's being investigated.

Even if they believe Trump obstructed justice, that doesn't prove any sort of collusion with Russia to influence the election results. Jacob Sullum noted on Monday that Trump's big mouth may get him in trouble with the law if he lies to federal agents about the contents of his discussions with Comey, and it's a completely separate matter from whether any sort of collusion with Russia ever even happened. The same holds true for the obstruction investigation. It's not the crime—it's the cover up. Except we still have no evidence of the initial crime.

Read more here.

Advertisement

NEXT: Trump to Give Pentagon Power to Increase Troop Levels in Afghanistan

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Let’s overreact in every direction

    1. The smart move is to drop all Trump investigations and focus on putting the democrats in prison. We actually have real EVIDENCE against them. Plus they’re clearly plotting more treasonous attacks on republicans like the one today at the baseball field.

      1. You do realize that hysterical wackjobs such as yourself are the Team Red version of the violence inciting progressives that you so deride.

        just sayin

    2. This thread is a total cesspool. Just do yourself a favor, gentle reader, and don’t scroll down. You have been warned.

      1. Does anyone bother mentioning anywhere in the thread that the Washington Post has driven a dozen different stories based on anonymous stories that ended up being false?

        That nearly EVERY story the Washington Post has run in the last 6 months based on anonymous sources has ended up being false?

        The first two paragraphs of this article are batshit crazy. The first references a false narrative that the Washington Post pushed on the backs of anonymous sources that ended up being discredited, and in the very next paragraph, we’re told Trump IS under investigation for obstruction of justice, based on anonymous sources from the Washington Post. It’s like Rick James’ ‘cocaine is a hell of a drug’ moment.

  2. Not listed is the fact Trump has the legal authority/ability to fire the FBI the director.

    If doing so while an investigation was underway constituted obstruction of justice, I doubt that would be legal.
    Has there even been a time the FBI wasn’t investigating something or someone ?

    1. As has been stated explicitly by the Asst. FBI director, Comey’s firing had zero effect on any and all investigations currently underway.

      People seem to think Comey does actual work.

  3. So how far reaching is the investigation, exactly, when it’s mandate was to investigate a thing that for all intents and purposes appears to have never happened. It becomes a situation where they want to impeach Trump for ‘obstructing’ an investigation that was never going to find anything, which is pretty ludicrous. This assumes that obstruction happened, which is also not a given.

    I think we might be able to agree that one of those sources was probably Comey, at this point, as well.

    Regardless, Clinton was impeached for obstruction of justice and it would appear it’s not a big enough crime to actually remove someone from office.

    This entire ‘scandal’ makes me feel like I’m taking crazy pills.

    1. This is why the Dems and others wanted a fishing expedition — the “Russia meddling” narrative was only going to have spice for so long. Mueller could easily spend 18 months flipping through every possible offense that Trump could have committed, and that gets the Dems to the next election.

    2. “This entire ‘scandal’ makes me feel like I’m taking crazy pills.”

      It has the advantage of distracting almost all of DC from their supposed jobs.

    3. Obstruction’s only bad when the crime being investigated is proven?

      1. Its not obstruction and there is not underlying crime.

        Luckily, the American public sees this for what it is- a waste of time and money. The left will be punished at the polls in 2018.

      2. It is legally impossible for the president to obstruct an investigation by the FBI, since it is perfectly legal for him to order the FBI to stop any investigation, start any investigation, or not begin any investigation. The president can also offer a blanket pardon before any conviction, “Flynn is pardoned for any illegal acts he may have committed between x dates,” as was floated in regard to Hillary when being investigated for the server and email felonies that she committed.
        All executive authority resides in the president. Only a congressional investigation can be obstructed by the president.

        1. In fact, Trump has the power to pardon himself! Although Congress can still impeach him, he would be immune from criminal prosecution if, say, he actually committed treason and then pardoned himself.

          1. Theoretically, I guess so. A president would have to do it before being removed from office though.

    4. That’s because you read right-wing news. I hate to tell you that the way this thing is going to play out may come as quite a shock to you.

      The obstruction happened on live TV, btw.

      1. Tony|6.14.17 @ 8:20PM|#
        “…The obstruction happened on live TV, btw.”

        Tell us again about the !!!!!!!!!TREASON!!!!!!!!!!!; it’s more amusing.
        Oh, and the shiny side of the tin foil goes on the outside. A friend wanted me to pass that along to you.

        1. The investigation into the treason is what he obstructed on live TV.

          No doubt when he’s frogmarched out of the Capitol building, it will be George Soros’s fault or whatever the fuck, you cretin.

          1. OBSTRUCTION!!!! on live tv?

            Trump will never be impeached. But keep wasting you time on this. Meanwhile all the dismantling of the Nanny-State is underway.

          2. Where’d you get that from?

          3. You’re drifting all the way into complete crackpot nonsense, Tony. Take a deep. Now, let’s start at the beginning. What happened? Well, John Podesta’s email was hacked because his password was “password”. Now, either using info from John’s emails, or completely seperate, someone hacked the DNCs email, leaking the contents to wikileaks. Incidentally, wikileaks says the leaks were not from the Russians.
            The federal government had warned both campaigns that they suspected black hat operations were in play, and offered to audit both campaigns’ electronic security. There Republicans accepted, and were not hacked, the Democrats declined and were hacked.

            1. At this point (after the DNC’s emails were leaked), the Democrats had a private company do an audit. The government never investigated, because the Dems didn’t want them to. The private firm determined that the toolkit used to hack the DNC’s server was of Russian origin. Which means nothing. I can download that toolkit after a few minutes of searching for it, and maybe a few bucks.
              At this point, the narrative switches from “hacked using Russian origin toolkit” to “the Russian government hacked the election OMG!”
              It is nonsense on stilts, and you are better than that, Tony.

              1. It is nonsense on stilts, and you are better than that, Tony.

                No he isn’t.

                1. ^ Correct. Nonsense he has in abundance; stilts not so much.

                2. Tony isn’t one of the trolls, per se. He often has valuable criticism that Libertarians need to confront honestly. Also, over the years, i have seen Tony become more Libertarian. Yes, he argues, sometimes, in bad faith, but in general I think Tony is sincere, and I view him that way; giving him the benefit of the doubt. He actually makes a valid point on occasion, and I hesitate to classify him with the trolls.

                  1. DenverJ-
                    Yeah, right Tony is not a piece of shit that is stuck to the inside toilet bowl. Just unsightly and hard to get rid of.

                    Tony|6.15.17 @ 12:21AM|#
                    You don’t have the faintest clue how much of a fascist you’re being right now.
                    Some of the team donated to Clinton. They are presumably smart people, and she was the only choice for anyone who doesn’t fuck their sister.

              2. Tony is better than something?

              3. I can download that toolkit after a few minutes of searching for it, and maybe a few bucks.

                I’m sure there a variety of ways to get it free too. Oh, you meant in the not-getting-infected by it way. Carry on.

                1. I have every bit of software that i desire to have, and haven’t paid Jack for any of it. Information wants to be free, baby.

          4. Tony|6.14.17 @ 9:10PM|#
            “The investigation into the treason is what he obstructed on live TV.
            No doubt when he’s frogmarched out of the Capitol building, it will be George Soros’s fault or whatever the fuck, you cretin.”

            Yeah, shitbag, keep right on spitting all over your keyboard.
            Hint: you LOST, loser. LOST. LOST. LOST!
            Your candidate was so bad, the voters shoes Trump instead, loser!
            Hahahahahahahahahah….

      2. Seek help

      3. Tony after today, you might want to GTFO of America. Now that your traitor pal shot at a bunch of republican lawmakers, shit is going to be on. Before long, subversives like you will be dealt with by the FBI. Just like the good old days.

        1. I’m waiting for a couple well equipped softball teams to show up at an “antifa” protest.

          Those “pussy masks” they wear will allow them to find whats left of their teeth.

    5. Regardless, Clinton was impeached for obstruction of justice and it would appear it’s not a big enough crime to actually remove someone from office.

      Huh? The Senate vote meant that he was considered not guilty of the alleged OOJ (actually witness tampering), not that it was not a big enough crime.

      1. Yeah,the Clinton impeachment was screwy. He was impeached for something he shouldn’t have been impeached for, and then found not guilty of something he was clearly guilty of.

        The system worked!

        1. He was impeached for something he shouldn’t have been impeached for

          Lying under oath in a civil tort case where he settled for a 6 figure payout and was disbarred?

      2. The senate vote meant that the majority of the senate didn’t think he should be removed from office.

  4. I love how everything is an unnamed source. Twitter and all the other lefty deranged freaks can go crazy, just like they do with the hate crime hoaxes.

    Then when it’s proven to be wrong… crickets. And a retraction… on page 29.

    https://www.thecollegefix.com/post/32560/

    1. Can you link to a leak that was proven wrong?

      1. The one that said Comey would deny that he told Trump he wasn’t under investigation.

        1. That’s not a link, jerk.

          Apparently that was a thing for a day. I completely missed that one.

          1. You’re not my boss, jerk, so you have to take whatever reminders of the truth that I feel like offering. You’re welcome.

      2. Looks like the blog post itself links to one.

        1. Indeed. I thought it was linking to a trial balloon, though it’d be silly to float a trial balloon about an EO that was previously rejected.

      3. Comey said that numerous newspaper leas were absolutely false.

        Can you link to leaks that were correct?

        1. This one. Bonus for the outlet that got the leak.

          1. “The New York Times is the source of this latest potential bombshell, but to be very clear, the newspaper doesn’t have a copy of this memo. One of Comey’s former associates apparently read the contents of the memo to a New York Times reporter. ”
            No supporting evidence. Sorry. Try again?

            Unless you want to admit that reading the contents of a “memo” constitutes evidence of something.
            If so, let me know. I have a shit load of “memos” that implicate Hillary, Obama and Jimmy Carter. I would be glad to read the contents of those “memos” to the NYT to print and Reason to regurgitate.

  5. Bernie Sanders supporters are being shot in the street by the state, and we’re talking about Trump?

  6. I don’t know why the tone of this article is “Don’t worry, our guy might make it through this!”

    1. The Democrats are the ones who want him to make it through this — gives them something to run against despite the intellectual and moral bankruptcy of their ideology and their party.

      On the other hand, Congressional Republicans would rejoice if Trump resigned tomorrow.

      1. Oh, no doubt.

        1. Did you just admit that the Dems and leftist ideology are intellectually and morally bankrupt? I mean more than you do implicitly every time you post.

          1. Not that part. The part where Trump dragging down the GOP is bad for the GOP and good for the Dems.

            Speaking of timing, notice how this news was a birthday present from DOJ?

            1. Trump is doing a bad job of dragging down Republicans when the GOP is at their highest point in 80 years. Try again

              1. Not popularity-wise, which means it’s a good thing they’ve wrecked democracy in order to win.

                1. “…they’ve wrecked democracy…”

                  It’s TRUE! Why, I saw the demo permit posted on the front door of Congress. By next Wednesday, all of democracy will be demolished and hauled off to the land-fill!

                2. Republicans have not been this popular in decades.

                  Wait until 2018. There will be too many lefties committing suicide after that election stomping of Democrats.

                3. Obama already did that you fucking traitor.

              2. GOP wins are solely attributable to the Dems being in complete and utter chaos. Trump is ballast on their balloon.

                1. So let’s leverage that and destroy the dems once and for all.

                  1. I agree. Trump is going to be an obstacle to that, however.

                    1. Republicans in Congress are going to be the biggest obstacle.

                      If they would just get rid of ObamaCare, domestic spying, student loans, and other Nanny-State legislation there would be mass Hari-Kari by lefties.

    2. Must be the glasses you’re wearing.

      1. highball on the left side, snifter on the right.

    3. “I don’t know why the tone of this article is “Don’t worry, our guy might make it through this!””

      No, Tony, the tone is:
      “Why are lefty imbeciles wasting time on this?”

      1. Every single principal player in this investigation is a Republican, appointed by Republicans.

        1. Except for the investigation team comprised entirely of Clinton donors, faggot.

          1. You don’t have the faintest clue how much of a fascist you’re being right now.

            Some of the team donated to Clinton. They are presumably smart people, and she was the only choice for anyone who doesn’t fuck their sister. Nevertheless my statement is also true. Are they incapable of being good at their jobs because they’re the set of Republicans who hate other Republicans a lot?

            The defenses are so pathetic one wonders why you bother. Move on to the next Republican asshole. However this ends, it’s not going to end well for Trump. Let’s just hope the rest of us emerge fairly unscathed.

            1. Submit a picture of yourself faggot. Then we will know what a fascist piece of shit looks like.

              Also, fuck you Tony.

            2. “You don’t have the faintest clue how much of a fascist you’re being right now.”

              I don’t see him advocating for universal healthcare or corporatism or gun control, so he’s being a pretty poor fascist.

              I’m curious, do you have an electronic version that just spits out these random political epithets or is it something you cut from the back of box of your organic, free range, fair trade, trans-democracy flakes?

              1. I was referring to his (very libertarian no doubt) call to purge law enforcement agencies of people who don’t share his political views. Call it what you will.

                1. Which just further demonstrates that you don’t understand the meaning of the words you use.

                  Definition of fascism
                  1 often capitalized : a political philosophy, movement, or regime (such as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition

                  You were the one claiming that every member of the team is a republican. He showed that to be untrue. You inferred (not implied–you do need help with words after all) that meant that they must be removed. Even if that were the case it would not be fascism.

                  1. I said principals, and he brought in underlings. The point you fucking morons are missing is that they are professionals with no intent to introduce partisan-based corruption into this process, until you pathetic Trump weasels prove otherwise.

            3. Tony|6.15.17 @ 12:21AM|#
              “…Some of the team donated to Clinton. They are presumably smart people,…”

              Yeah, backing a fucking loser like you do sure is “smart”.
              You LOST, loser. LOST, LOST, LOST, LOST!
              Hahahahahahahahah, loser!
              Oh and fuck off, loser.

        2. Tony|6.14.17 @ 9:11PM|#
          “Every single principal player in this investigation is a Republican, appointed by Republicans.”

          And lefty imbeciles like you are wasting time on it.
          I doubt you’ll ever learn what is relevant from what is not; two-digit IQs NEVER learn.

    4. I don’t know why the tone of this article is “Democrats at it again with unsubstantiated nonsense that Reason parrots”

    5. Seek help

  7. It’s not the crime?it’s the cover up.

    It’s not the lack of crime, it’s how much we can screw you with process.

    Hence the idiocy of the administration playing nice with fake charges in the first place.

    The Left is all about judicial authoritarianism. That was the wedge to overthrowing the constitution in the first place. Most of the Obama Administration should be in prison. But nothing. “Not even a smidgen” of corruption.

    Fire Mueller yesterday. Remove the federal judges making shit up about “Muslim bans”.

    Enough with enabling the Leftist judicial authoritarianism. Fight back.

    1. Most of the Obama Insert President Name Here Administration should be in prison.

    2. Yeah the left are into judicial tyranny. The only reason most Republicans stomach having that vulgar toad in office is because they masturbate to the idea that the Supreme Court will overturn Roe.

      1. The GOP has been filled with liberty-hating Aborto-Freaks since Reagan. It is the one thing that holds the party together.

        1. Palin’s Buttplug|6.14.17 @ 9:33PM|#
          “The GOP has been filled with liberty-hating Aborto-Freaks since Reagan. It is the one thing that holds the party together.”

          And the D’s have been filled with commie-apologists like you since 1945.
          Fuck off, turd.

        2. Sevo is right PB. That’s why a subversive like you belongs in Gitmo. Fucking traitor.

      2. Which wouldn’t be judicial tyranny anymore than the original decision was…

        1. It’s okay to sin to correct a prior sin! *Checks my Bible*

          1. Ends justify the means! *Checks my Rules for Radicals*

            1. If they don’t get right with lefty gods, why shoot ’em! Lefties are perfectly alright with that.

            2. A sentiment expressed only by that horrible hello. and not by me.

              1. You do it constantly, Tony. It’s the foundation of your infantile philosophy. My 3 year old would understand your motivations perfectly.

                1. You think that because you comprehend things at roughly his level.

                  1. No, Tony, I just said that he would understand you. Do we have to re-learn the pronouns again? This IS disheartening.

      3. Seek help

      4. Roe?

        Roe? Really?

        No one gives a shit about Roe.

        People want a majority on the court that will prevent Democrats from fulfilling their oft stated goals of gutting the First and Second Amendments–and trashing the entire BoR, as they repeatedly try and talk about doing.

    3. The lesson here is that Trump is going to be a vindictive son of a bitch in his second term as opposed to being a graceful winner.

      1. This, please.

  8. Trump is covering up a long trail of collusion with Russian mobsters beginning when he laundered money for them at his Trump Taj Mahal.

    As a fucking three time Chapter 11 deadbeat US banks would not loan to him.

    1. I know you have a citation for that crazy talk.

      You lefties are really going off the deep end.

        1. Oh, FFS!
          We have CNN as a source:
          “Congressional investigators say they are interested in the global network of Trump’s finances to determine if FinCEN’s data shows connections between Trump associates and Russia.”
          Hint, hint, nudge, nudge. Slimbags like turd are impressed!

          “The 1998 settlement agreement itself, at just two-pages, is short on details. It only shows that the Taj Mahal “failed to file” currency transaction reports “within the time period required.” It states that Trump’s casino, which opened in April 1990, made the violations sometime before December 1991.”
          Grab them straws turd; it’s all losers like you have.
          You lost, loser. LOST, LOST, LOST!
          Hahahahahahahaha!

        2. Haha
          “The casino repeatedly failed to properly report gamblers who cashed out $10,000 or more in a single day, the government said.
          Trump’s casino ended up paying the Treasury Department a $477,000 fine in 1998 without admitting any liability under the Bank Secrecy Act. ”
          This is the evidence of money laundering?

          Don’t you think that the federal government would seek harsher penalties for money laundering or conspiracy if your claims could be proven more than just not reporting problems to the IRS?

        3. This is the third of fourth CNN citation you have provided.

          You DO get your narrative from CommieNewsNetwork.

          It puts a lot of your nonsense into perspective based on where you shop for news.

      1. I’m not a “lefty”, you asswipe. I know some idiots like yourself think that independents who don’t vote GOP are all “lefties”.

        1. Palin’s Buttplug|6.14.17 @ 9:53PM|#
          “I’m not a “lefty”, you asswipe.”

          “Lefty” is a compliment to statists like you.
          Tell us again how government price-fixing means an “open” web, turd; that’s always good for a laugh.

        2. PB, you have no value. Best you go drink some Drano. Note: an offbrand drain cleaner is also acceptable.As long as you drink it.

      2. Trump as deadbeat:

        Mr. Trump’s complicated history with Wall Street goes back to the early 1990s, when three of his casinos ran into financial trouble; the Trump Taj Mahal filed for bankruptcy. Creditors often ended up with pennies on the dollar, and the failures soured Mr. Trump’s relationship with a number of banks.

        At one point, Mr. Trump was responsible for about $900 million personally before his businesses were restructured. Several bankers on Wall Street say they are simply not willing to take on what they almost uniformly referred to as “Donald risk.”

        NYT May 23, 2016

        1. I don’t understand what your post is supposed to prove. Business is hardz? Investments sometimes failz?

          1. shriek defended the bank bailout and welshes on his bets, so you can’t really take anything he says about “Wall Street corruption” seriously.

        2. It’s hard to beat Hillary’s cattle futures prowess. I’m sure the drop off in Clinton Foundation donations this year is only temporary. I do hope that Podesta lands on his feet. Maybe he can help that lobbyist brother of his. Remind me who he represents? I think it starts with an ‘R’ but I can’t quite place it.

        3. “Mr. Trump’s complicated history with Wall Street goes back to the early 1990s, when three of his casinos ran into financial trouble; the Trump Taj Mahal filed for bankruptcy. Creditors often ended up with pennies on the dollar, and the failures soured Mr. Trump’s relationship with a number of banks.
          At one point, Mr. Trump was responsible for about $900 million personally before his businesses were restructured. Several bankers on Wall Street say they are simply not willing to take on what they almost uniformly referred to as “Donald risk.””

          Oh, my! Look at THAT! the commie NYT points out that Trump’s businesses were not always successful! I guess that means………………….
          turd is a shtbag cherry picker.
          BTW, turd, tell us about your oh, so, successful bet! I love to laugh at you.

        4. Not really any verified information in that quote. Seriously, a quote from ‘”several bankers on Wall Street”? Is that like the turds in your pocket when you say ‘we’?

          Nice try faggot. As if the NYT has the slightest bit of credibility anyway. Just a propaganda rag for faggot scum like you.

      3. If he kills a couple of staffers that are about to testify on him, he’ll be about 1/4 the way to the Clinton (domestic) body count.

    2. Our guy will make it through this. By our guy, I mean Bernie Sanders.

  9. *OT*

    The Weekly Standard has found a new potential home for Libertarians. We simply have to wait for a few more of the natives to leave & then move in.

    http://www.weeklystandard.com/…..le/2008454

    1. Well I must say, Pacific island paradise sounds a lot better than Danube swamp land.

  10. Five people briefed on the requests, speaking on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the matter publicly, said that ….

    So, how’s that kind of behavior turning out for Reality Winner?

    1. I’m trying to think of anyone with a name that matches less, but I’m coming up blank.

      1. For Dick Trickle’s sake, I hope you’re wrong.

    2. The fact that they were able to get 5 different sources, all at essentially the same time makes me question what is going on with the independent counsel.

      As was pointed out with the original FBI investigation, everything about the investigation was leaked. Except the status of Trump as a non-target. This was kept as a closely guarded secret.

      Now we have an ostensibly new status… we are looking into possible obstruction of justice. And within just a couple of days, Trump’s name as a target is confirmed by 5 different sources who are “not authorized to discuss the matter publicly”. 5 separate government officials who independently feel OK with discussing something with a reporter that they are not authorized to discuss publicly.

      No. Just no. Didn’t happen like that. There is no way in hell that 5 people were told not to discuss something by the brand new, just appointed independent counsel and ran out and immediately discussed it with a reporter. This had to be an “official leak”. Someone on high told them to go out and leak it under “not authorized to discuss it” conditions in order to get Trump’s name on the “being investigated” list. If that someone is either the independent counsel or one of the top people on his staff, the whole group should be canned forthwith. If not, he should quickly find this leak and plug it – because they are sabotaging any credibility he’s going to have.

  11. Good Lord. Far too many people rushing to come to Trump’s defense.

    Even if he did or didn’t obstruct justice – and I tend to think that he didn’t – why the need to white-knight for him? Seriously. He doesn’t need your help.

    1. Donald J. Trump is the model of leader that appeals most to libertarians.

      If any libertarians wish to dispute this, by all means take it up with his many defenders here.

      1. I guess Donald Trump’s style might appeal to some libertarians. But his ideology is about as libertarian as Nancy Pelosi’s.

        Honestly, I just think that there are too many people who hate the left more than they like libertarianism.

        1. Those are some mighty shiny pearls you got.

          1. What, am I wrong?

            1. No, no, it’s completely in keeping with libertarian tenets to not worry about due process. I mean the only explanation for someone critical of an investigation which has produced no evidence of collusion after ten months is that they hate the left more than they value any libertarian principle.

              But, gosh, those republicans just won’t let that Benghazi thing go, will they? Poor Hillary. What IS a libertarian to do?

              1. Due process? Due process is being followed here. How have Trump’s rights been violated? He’s being investigated according to the normal channels.

                I have no problem being critical of the investigation. I too believe that it is not on a solid foundation. I don’t see the need to defend Trump though in criticizing the investigation.

                Even you have to admit that there’s a lot of anti-leftist bile being spewed around here.

                1. “Normal channels.” There hasn’t been a criminal charge leveled yet and that is what the Special Counsel law requires. This is a fishing expedition ginned up by former administration (potentially illegal) unmasking and leaking. And yet you see no problem with a government investigation that appears to be completely open ended and has resulted in no evidence after nearly a year. Even you have to admit that that has implications for libertarians. “Show me the man and I’ll show you the crime,” or something like that.

                  1. Oh come now. Trump is not just some average guy being hassled on the street by dirty cops. He is a man with a considerable amount of power. I am fine with people in positions of power being more heavily scrutinized than the rest of the general public, so long as their rights aren’t violated. And as far as I can tell, his rights haven’t been. Don’t you? Wouldn’t you like to know more about what politicians are up to, than about what some random guy down the street is up to?

                    I am fine with letting the process play out for now. After all there is some basis, Flynn’s dealings with the Russians, which don’t seem to be on the level, and that should be looked into. Wouldn’t you agree? Whether Trump really is being investigated for “obstructing justice”, I don’t place a lot of faith in that claim, and if that does turn out to be true, I hope that the investigators have a much more solid basis than just “what Trump said on TV” or some such.

                    This link suggests that there does not have to be criminal charges filed first before a special counsel is appointed.

                    So I agree with your general concern that it should not be the case to have open-ended investigations on everyone for any reason. There is good reason to fear that. But there is *some* merit to the current investigation – Flynn’s activities – and whether that spills into larger questions of “Russian hacking!!”, well let’s just wait to see what develops.

                    1. “Flynn’s dealings with the Russians, which don’t seem to be on the level, and that should be looked into. Wouldn’t you agree?”

                      Oh come now. As compared to the unmasking requests during the end of the Obama administration? Lois Lerner and the IRS? Loretta Lynch? Hillary Clinton? In at least 2 of those four cases we have probable cause of a crime being committed. In the latter case mens rea doesn’t even apply by statute.

                      “I am fine with people in positions of power being more heavily scrutinized than the rest of the general public, so long as their rights aren’t violated.”

                      She was asking for it wearing that dress.

                      And what does your Cornell link say?

                      The Attorney General, or in cases in which the Attorney General is recused, the Acting Attorney General, will appoint a Special Counsel when he or she determines that criminal investigation of a person or matter is warranted and…

                      So what is the crime? Russian “collusion” would be counterintelligence which is not a criminal investigation.

                      “So I agree with your general concern that it should not be the case to have open-ended investigations on everyone for any reason.”

                      No, you really don’t. You detest trump and smell some blood in the water and you don’t think the collateral damage will be all that bad. I see an investigation that directly abuses the system and is basically creating an unelected runaround. Tony shrieks about breaking democracy. This is how you break democracy.

                    2. “Oh come now. As compared to the unmasking requests during the end of the Obama administration? Lois Lerner and the IRS? Loretta Lynch? Hillary Clinton? In at least 2 of those four cases we have probable cause of a crime being committed. In the latter case mens rea doesn’t even apply by statute.”

                      This is just more whataboutism. Just because those things weren’t investigated as fully as they ought to have been (and they should have been looked at more seriously, I agree), doesn’t justify taking a lax attitude in the present case.

                      “So what is the crime? Russian “collusion” would be counterintelligence which is not a criminal investigation.”

                      Allegedly Flynn broke the law when he failed to disclose his Russian payments and his Russian contacts, and when he discussed matters of state when he was not an official representative of the government. But we will see.

                      “No, you really don’t. You detest trump and smell some blood in the water and you don’t think the collateral damage will be all that bad. I see an investigation that directly abuses the system and is basically creating an unelected runaround. Tony shrieks about breaking democracy. This is how you break democracy.”

                      I do detest Trump, that is true. But I am not hyperventilating about this investigation because it is honestly no worse than any of the other investigations that other presidents have endured. I’m not upset about it because I’m basically resigned to the fact that this is how things are.

                    3. I am fine with people in positions of power being more heavily scrutinized than the rest of the general public, so long as their rights aren’t violated.

                      Not sure I agree with that, but if it were done on an evenhanded basis regardless of which party were in control, it wouldn’t be the worst thing in the world. What’s happening here is the Democrats and the MSM (I repeat myself) trying to stall the Trump and GOP agenda by bogging them down with fishing expeditions, and you’re either blind or retarded if you can’t see that.

                    4. “Not sure I agree with that”

                      Why wouldn’t you agree with that? Sincerely curious. People who wield enormous power over you, don’t you think you ought to know a little bit more about them than the average guy down the block who has no bearing on your life whatsoever?

        2. Hate the left is a good substitute for actual ideas when you’re on a mission to loot the country and rely on morons to get elected.

          1. Not taking is giving. Not giving is taking. Thus endeth the lesson in New Speak.

            1. The smaller the sentence, the truer it is.

              –What libertarian yoda reveals at the end of your training

              1. #Resist

                1. Oh look it’s one of those rare verbs that can be deemed true or false.

                  1. Sorry, was that meant to actually mean something?

          2. It is funny and sad to see how reactionary the right has become. I wonder if they realize that if they now view the right as solely about “opposing the left”, then that means that they are necessarily putting the left in the driver’s seat to set the agenda. Because the right is defining itself not in terms of its own ideas, but in terms of the ideas of someone else (those that they oppose). Would the reactionary right even exist if it wasn’t for a left wing to push ideas for them to oppose?

            1. #Resist

              1. Are you suggesting that I’m a part of the #RESISTANCE? No, that is silly. I don’t oppose every single thing Trump does. For instance I was pleasantly surprised with his pick for SCOTUS, it could have been a lot worse even coming from him. We will see how his choice turns out. But on the whole I am more of a skeptic than a fanboy. What are your criteria for declaring someone to be a part of THE #RESISTANCE?

                1. I can see I need to use simpler words amd concepts tonight. Your claim is that the right is purely reactionary and the left is boldly setting an agenda. Remind me who came up with #Resist again? Please specify the broadness of that agenda.

                  “But on the whole I am more of a skeptic than a fanboy.”
                  Gosh, really?

                  1. Yes, when it comes to Trump the man, they seem to be taking a #RESIST pose.

                    But in the broader context, it certainly does seem like the modern right is simply existing to oppose what the left puts forth. On which major issue does the right has a forward-looking agenda, and the left is the one opposing it? There are a few – school vouchers come to mind – but they are precious few. On most issues, it’s the left that has proposed some idea – generally a terrible one – and the right just says “no” without offering their own idea.

                    1. In their defense they really thought they’d go directly from President McBlackerson to President Canklecunt, necessitating no actual ideas.

                    2. “On most issues, it’s the left that has proposed some idea – generally a terrible one – and the right just says “no” without offering their own idea.”

                      Really? So we’re applying Suderman logic here, i.e. the only reason we have Obamacare is because the GOP didn’t come up with a universal health care plan of their own! If you propose to do something stupid, the smart response doesn’t require me to JUST DO SOMETHING! Don’t be stupid is a perfectly acceptable response, but maybe you think Net Neutrality is a great idea.

                      So what does the right advocate:

                      Tax Reform
                      Regulatory reform
                      Internet deregulation
                      FDA reform
                      School Choice
                      Healthcare reform
                      Ending “green” energy subsidies and opening up federal lands
                      Entitlement reform (you did say the right and not trump)

                      It’s pretty myopic to claim make the claim that the modern right has no forward-looking agenda.

                      Tell me the broad, forward-looking agenda of the left.
                      Marijuana legalization? Living wage? Increased SS bennies? Hate speech laws?

                      I forgot, the one and only defining libertarian principle: open borders. This is an arguable point as I fall into the let’s-not-commit-suicide camp, but at least it can be argued from libertarian principles.

                    3. Okay, let’s look at your list.

                      I will give the right credit for *some* tax reform ideas (mostly it seems ,however, that they just tweak around the edges), school choice, and opposing gun control laws (you left that out, but it’s important).

                      Regulatory reform, FDA reform – yes and no. They have repealed a few regulations yes. But mostly they seem to be intent on keeping the basis for the regulations intact. They are, say, repealing a few Department of Labor rules, but they still seem to think that there ought to be a Department of Labor regulating… labor, I guess. The basis of the argument has been ceded to the left, and now all that’s left is the details. That’s not terribly satisfying. Nor is it much of an agenda. “We hate regulations, so we want to just nibble away at a few of them!” That isn’t terribly convincing.

                      Healthcare reform – that’s a big fat no. As we know, their idea of healthcare reform is just Obamacare Lite. Score that one as a win for Team Blue.

                      Internet deregulation – oh no, they may not want Net Neutrality (which is a reactionary position, even if it is a correct one) but they have their own ideas on how to spy on the Internet to keep us ‘safe’ from the Mooslims.

                    4. And the whole opposition to “green energy” subsidies is completely reactionary. YES I agree that green energy should not be subsidized. HOWEVER the ostensible purpose of those subsidies is to combat climate change, which the right generally denies is a problem at all. I am sorry, but human beings do affect the climate. The degree of the problem can be debated but to claim it’s a hoax is just irresponsible in my view, and this is one prime area where the right has totally ceded the argument to the left. Their opposition just looks small-minded and ignorant, quite frankly, even if I agree with the actions that they have taken.

            2. It’s comments like this that make it laughable for you to claim to be a Republican, even of the NeverTrump variety. (Hint: I was a NeverTrump Republican myself, but the willingness of the left, the Democrats, and the MSM [but I repeat myself] to rip the fabric of our republic to shreds to oppose him has forced me to align with his supporters)

              To claim that the right is the end of the spectrum with no ideas other than opposing the other side is ludicrous, and exactly what a leftist troll like your new BFF Tony would say.

              1. I’m not a Republican, at least not anymore.

                “but the willingness of the left, the Democrats, and the MSM [but I repeat myself] to rip the fabric of our republic to shreds to oppose him has forced me to align with his supporters”

                That is just not true. No one forced you to align with his supporters. You chose to do that all by yourself, out of your own free will. Own up to your own free choices. And it is largely because, as I suspected above, that you hate “the Democrats and the MSM” more than you are willing to stand in favor of principles. You CHOOSE to stand with Trumpists and defend Trump.

                “To rip the fabric of our republic to shreds”? You really believe that nonsense?

                “To claim that the right is the end of the spectrum with no ideas other than opposing the other side is ludicrous”

                Fine. Do tell me the list of issues where the right is leading with some big visionary agenda and it’s the left which is acting all reactionary. I admit above that there are a few. But only a few.

                And I don’t agree with a lot of what Tony writes, but I’m willing to acknowledge when he has a point.

                1. I only defend Trump when the left is making ridiculous accusations against him. Which is pretty much all the time now.

                  “To rip the fabric of our republic to shreds”? You really believe that nonsense?

                  What else do you call undermining a duly elected president with targeted intel leaks, frivolous lawsuits, and fake news as far as the eye can see? What do you call masked thugs attacking political rallies with physical violence, and Democrat city govts ordering the popos to sit back and watch? Trump would be nowhere near my first, or even my 100th choice for president, but he was legally elected. We sucked up and dealt when Obama was elected, and opposed him via the legitimate political process, so the Dems can do the same now that their candidate lost.

                  1. “What else do you call undermining a duly elected president with targeted intel leaks, frivolous lawsuits, and fake news as far as the eye can see? ”

                    I call it “business as usual”. Do you think Trump is the first president to suffer such things? And has the Republic endured despite it all? It’s not great that these things are happening. But are they Republic-ending events? No.

                    “What do you call masked thugs attacking political rallies with physical violence, and Democrat city govts ordering the popos to sit back and watch?”

                    Anarchists actually assassinated presidents in the past. Our Republic survived (kinda) a Civil War. Yes I think thugs play-acting street fighter is a little bit lower on the list of threats when it comes to the SURVIVAL OF THE REPUBLIC.

                2. Fine. Do tell me the list of issues where the right is leading with some big visionary agenda and it’s the left which is acting all reactionary. I admit above that there are a few. But only a few.

                  I know how this game is going to go. I’ll post a list, and unless it’s like 100 items long, you’ll say “well that’s just a few”. But if you want to play the game, why don’t you list where the Dems are leading with vision and the GOP is mindlessly opposing them, and we’ll see whose list is longer, more significant, and more in alignment with liberty.

                  1. School choice
                  2. Gun rights
                  3. Deregulation
                  4. Border security
                  5. Tax simplification
                  6. Market based health reform

                  1. The right gets credit for school choice and gun rights, sure. It is a mixed bag with deregulation. They nibble around the edges but they don’t actually get around to much substantive deregulating. Same with “tax simplification”. It is just pushing numbers around, not substantive change to the tax code. At least Ted Cruz wanted to substantively change the tax system, but that didn’t seem to fly among Republicans. And we now know that the right’s idea of “market based health reform” is just ObamaCare Lite, so that’s a big no. And yes, the right’s current ideas about border security – build Fortress America, complete with the xenophobia – are completely backwards-looking and not realistic in a global economy.

                    I would say that the left gets credit with bringing up issues of economic security, which covers things like welfare and entitlements and minimum wages and associated issues. Their ideas are terrible, but what is the right’s ideas about economic security? “There shouldn’t be any economic security”? No, that is the libertarian position, and I”m pretty sure most on the right aren’t in favor of scrapping Social Security. So what is the right’s response?

                    I think they also ought to get credit for some measure of criminal justice reform. And honestly I am not on the left so I don’t know what a true liberal would say about what they would truly want. So maybe the imbalance isn’t as great as I imagined it.

                3. “I admit above that there are a few. But only a few.”

                  What an incredibly stupid statement. Tax reform and entitlement reform alone would be enough as the latter is leading us to insolvency.

                  “”To rip the fabric of our republic to shreds”? You really believe that nonsense?”

                  So you’re not concerned by the unmasking going on and the change to widespread distribution at the end of Barry’s term? Really? Are you the least bit concerned by the former UN ambassador requesting unmasking? No biggie, right? They’re a key part of US intelligence, right?

                  “And I don’t agree with a lot of what Tony writes, but I’m willing to acknowledge when he has a point.”

                  You mean the part where he keeps screaming TREASON!!!!!!!! That point?

                  “No one forced you to align with his supportersdetractors. You chose to do that all by yourself, out of your own free will. Own up to your own free choices. And it is largely because, as I suspected above, that you hate “the Democrats and the MSM right” more than you are willing to stand in favor of principles. You CHOOSE to stand with Trumpists the left and defend attack Trump.”

                  FTFY

                  1. But I’m not “aligning with his detractors”. Never have I said “I stand with the #RESISTANCE” or anything of the sort, UNLIKE people like LE here who explicitly SAYS that he aligns with Trump’s defenders against those on the left who oppose him. I don’t stand with the left and I don’t stand with the right either. I don’t buy into the false dichotomy. People like LE willingly embrace the dichotomy because they CHOOSE to. That is the difference.

                  2. “So you’re not concerned by the unmasking going on and the change to widespread distribution at the end of Barry’s term? Really? Are you the least bit concerned by the former UN ambassador requesting unmasking? No biggie, right? They’re a key part of US intelligence, right?”

                    Honestly? I am fairly cynical about the whole thing. I had already pretty much assumed that anyone in the government could snoop on my personal information whenever they liked. Obama just explicitly said what I already believed to be true anyway. And to the extent that the government spies on citizens, such activities have bipartisan support, so it’s a bit of a stretch to say that it’s the left who singularly wants to “rip the fabric of our republic to shreds” based on this example. Government spying on citizens is absolutely a threat to the republic, but I don’t think Obama’s or Rice’s actions in January ramped up that threat to eleventy – it was already there.

          3. Tony, the left has no ideas. Other than treason and violence, and theft. The idea you should all have is suicide. That would be productive for all of you.

          4. There must be some reason to hate the left.

            Hmm….. I wonder what those many many reasons are?

    2. Because right now, the alternative to Trump are the Clinton supporters, Bernistas, and faggot hippie snowflake progtards.

      Plus Trump is doing an ok job right now. With Hillary, or anyone else you trash support, it will be the end of the republic.

      1. “the alternative to Trump are the Clinton supporters”

        Have you forgotten what website you are on?

        “With Hillary, or anyone else you trash support, it will be the end of the republic.”

        Oh good grief. You can’t possibly believe that, can you? So libertarians will bring about the end of the republic?

        1. “the alternative to Trump are the Clinton supporters”

          Have you forgotten what website you are on?

          Except he had a list of multiple alternatives, which you sliced off at the first comma to give the impression he only named one.

          Quoting out of context usually works better when the comment you’re misleadingly quoting from isn’t right above yours. Not only are you dishonest, you’re incompetent at it. Not sure if that makes it worse or better.

          1. Well pardon me for forgetting the ellipsis. All of his other categories of people are just other variants of “people on the left”. Which doesn’t really address the main complaint – that there’s more than just two groups of people on the planet.

            But you didn’t come here to argue the merits of that position, you came here to continue your silly little vendetta against me. So kindly fuck off.

            1. The merits of the position happen to align with my vendetta.

            2. Jeff, your little edit above highlights what a bunch of disingenuous shitbags you progtards are. The only reason most of you aren’t pulling this kind of crap all the time is not because you’re decent people. Rather, it is largely due to the fact that you’re all weak cowards. The way this unfolded today highlights that.

          2. Thank you Lib. I don’t mean to be hyperbolic, but in large numbers, people like ole’ Jeff here would gladly oppress the rest of us in some kind of marxist regime. This bag that shot up the republicans today is much closer to the progressive mainstream then anyone wants to admit.

            1. I would oppress you, for sure, because I wouldn’t let you build a wall to keep those brown people out.

              1. Be honest, you would:
                – take guns or regulate them into obsolescence
                – raise taxes and raise taxes to pay for ____
                – set prices
                – set wages
                – set health standards
                – set individual health requirements
                – create many more Nanny State rules
                – create many more Police State laws
                – and on and on

                1. Let’s see:

                  “- take guns or regulate them into obsolescence ” — no
                  “- raise taxes and raise taxes to pay for ____ ” — no, in fact, I would abolish income taxes and replace it all with a flat consumption-based tax
                  “- set prices” – no
                  ” – set wages” – no
                  ” – set health standards” – no
                  ” – set individual health requirements” – no
                  ” – create many more Nanny State rules” – no
                  ” – create many more Police State laws” – no

                  That was easy
                  – and on and on

        2. Oh never mind, I read some of your other comments. Yeah, go back to Breitbart.

          1. No. M’kay bitch?

            1. Do you get paid based on how outrageous you are?

              I was listening to a podcast recently, and the host commented on how the Alt Right has basically become the exact opposite of the SJW Left, right down to the speech they use online. The SJW’s would be sensitive to the language that they use so that they don’t insult anyone (almost to the point of absurdity), while the Alt Right has responded by being as obnoxious and insulting as they possibly can, to the point of incredulity. Does it give you pleasure to be obnoxious and rude to everyone you meet?

            2. Actually, the more of your lunacy that I read, the sadder it gets. I saw another poster at another forum try to emulate one of the Alt Right internet warriors by attempting to be rude and insulting to everyone regardless of the topic. But I could tell that his heart really wasn’t in it, his insults weren’t all that clever or over-the-top like you might expect, and I started to kinda feel sorry for him. I think he was just trying to ‘fit in’ with whom he perceived to be the cool kids by desperately aping them in a plausible way. He was trying to fake being someone who he really wasn’t, and it showed. I’m starting to get the same impression from Mr. “Shitlord” here.

              1. Chem,
                You lefties are all about the oppression.

                You can try and call people names but more and more people are not falling for lefty shit and you socialists cannot stand it.

      2. Trump is the Michael Phelps of presidential corruption. Setting new speed records every day.

        Doing an OK job. I must visit this Candyland you frolic in. It must be trippy.

        1. Tony you treasonous collection of rotting pus, he is doing an ok job. Which I’m sure I define differently than you do. Since you’re a marxist retard that cheered on Obama every time he hurt the country. Which was constantly.

          1. To lefties like Tony, Trump doing okay and dismantling the Nanny-State is treasonous.

            His ideal Candyland is Oppresionland. All colors get re-education camp cards.

    3. Even if he did or didn’t obstruct justice – and I tend to think that he didn’t – why the need to white-knight for him? Seriously. He doesn’t need your help.

      And the Dems don’t need your help to bash him. Remove the log from thine own eye.

      1. The Dems have their own reasons to oppose him. I have my own reasons, different from theirs, to oppose him.

        Also: fuck off.

        1. Oh dear.

        2. And maybe we have our own reasons for defending him that are different from his.

          Right back atcha with the fuck off. You’re the one who attacked us first, not the other way around.

          1. “us”? For whom else do you claim to speak?

            This is all just so juvenile. Why don’t you just get on with it and call me a Democrat or something and then claim victory.

            1. You come here and attack people, and tell them to fuck off when they point out your dishonesty, and you complain about others being “juvenile”.

              1. Who have I attacked? I wrote “I just think that there are too many people who hate the left more than they like libertarianism.” You take this to be an attack? I take it to be an observation. Your pedantic bullshit was for the sole purpose of attacking me. And now you are claiming victim here? How rich. Go take a long walk off a short pier.

                1. You accused us of “white knighting” and said we have no ideas other than to oppose things.

                  Both were initial comments and not in response to anybody else’s.

                  You take this to be an attack? I take it to be an observation.

                  Wow, you’re an arrogant piece of shit. When you say something negative about someone without basis, that’s an attack.

                  1. Only if you identify as being on the right, as opposed to being a libertarian, and only if you think “white knighting” is an insult, I suppose.

                    “and said we have no ideas other than to oppose things”

                    Dennis Prager himself recently said as much. He believes the primary role of a conservative should be to “vanquish leftism”. And I think Prager is a conservative in good standing last I checked. Not to advance some idea or principle or ideal, but to oppose whatever the left puts forth. So it isn’t just my idea that conservatives have become too reactionary of late.

  12. The saddest reality of all that is made completely evident by this thread and this community’s Trump love in general is that you’d all be exactly as enthusiastic for President Ted Cruz.

    There used to be talk of principles here. Now it’s all Hannity farts and tumbleweeds.

    1. You mean like voting for a candidate who took money from Russia and Saudi Arabia while she was in government? You know, the one married to the President who took money from China in the 90’s.

      Those kinda principles?

      1. Don’t forget the pizza basement child sex ring, you fucking moron.

        Not googling the veracity of conspiracy theories is a choice you make, and it is equivalent to making a choice of sucking on Trump’s shriveled member.

        1. C’mon, Tony. Hillary really did take money from foreign powers via her foundation while she was SOS. It was one of many reasons even many on the left thought she could not be trusted.

          1. Yeah foreign countries donated to one of the world’s preeminent charities, not a dime of which ends up in the Clintons’ pockets, which is the precise opposite of what is going on in Trump world.

            The beauty of the Clinton “scandals” is that even the made-up ones are so quaint in comparison to the current president’s.

            1. It seems nary a dime ends up in any needy person’s pocket either.

              1. I shouldn’t have to exert the energy debunking you people’s constant stream of lies. Google. Snopes. Do your own homework before posting nonsense.

            2. Oh come on Tony. If the Russian government had donated money to Trump’s foundation, you would never excuse it away as “but it didn’t go directly to Trump’s pockets so it’s totally legit”. Hold Clinton to the same standard to which you hold Trump.

        2. You make this so easy Chemjeff can do the job for me.

          1. CJ is just trying to cover his tracks now. He got too chummy with Tony on this thread.

            1. That’s right, nothing I do has a sincere motive, it’s all just a sinister plot to conceal my obvious bromance with Tony’s unhinged leftism!

              And yet you claim *you’re* the victim.

  13. I found a great site that focuses on stay at home mom’s complete guide to gaining a serious amount of money in very little time. While being able to earn an passive income staying home with your kids. If you are someone who needs more money and has some spare time, this site is perfect for you. Take a look at…

    follow this link?..????????????

    Trump”s New Opprunuties See Here

  14. DJT: “I’ve been totally exonerated and vindicated! Russia story is FAKE NEWS! Donald Trump was not being investigated! Just my family, advisors, cabinet members, attorney general, and campaign staffers. But not DJT! So drop the investigation since there’s clearly nothing to see!”

    1. So, the swamp doesn’t want to be drained and is dragging in everyone from Trump’s side that they can in the misguided hope that something sticks. That proves absolutely nothing about anything illegal going on, except that Trump’s opponents really, REALLY want to beat him before he fulfills his campaign promise to dismantle their operations.

      It’s more telling that absolutely no charges have been made and no collusion/obstruction/Tchaikovsky tickets have been found despite the fact that they are scraping so far down the barrel that the next person they bring in for “investigation” will probably be Barron Trump. (His dad said he’s very good with cyber, maybe he hacked the DNC with help from the Russians??)

      1. That is the crux of this whole thing. There are no crimes perpetrated by Trump and these bureaucrats are still too scared to actually lie about crimes taking place. There are penalties for making false crime reports. There are really no penalties for making allegations in the media.

        The plan is to delay dismantling of the Nanny-State as much as possible and its a desperation move.

  15. Except we still have no evidence of the initial crime

    You’re not exactly right. We have seen evidence of collusion but it isn’t conclusive evidence of collusion.

    1. You have evidence of that collusion, right? Or a crime that Trump has committed?

      No? Go back to leftyland before you get schooled here some more.

  16. How is there obstruction of justice caused by firing a guy who said that Trump didn’t do anything wrong?

  17. Trump did nothing wrong.

    1. He donated to many Democratic politicians over the years, including the Clintons. So that means he must be corrupt, if we go by some of the logic presented here.

  18. leaks can sometimes be wrong or lying or floating trial balloons

    Sometimes?

    I’m not sure when they’ve been right since Trump was elected.

    (I suspect some have been, but I’ve seen such a torrent of wishful-thinking ones that I almost suspect he’s orchestrating them to gull the media and make them look bad.

    Then I remember he’s not that competent or subtle, and that they do that fine all by themselves.)

    I’m not remotely a Trump fan, but I haven’t seen anything close to a solid argument for “obstruction of justice”, which is an actual legal charge with very specific requirements, not nebulous “not being nice to the FBI”.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.