Another bad week for Trump

[2dimes]

We should probably launch a full investigation on Tomi.

[spurgistan]

Sounds like those people did something wrong. Not Trump. So please tell me what crimes Trump committed. Remember Manafort charges are from 12 years ago. you know that Meuller decided not to charge Manafort back then. So what changed?

Well, Cohen pled guilty to conspiring with, let's face it, Trump. You're not so naive as to think that Cohen wasn't talking about Trump, right?

Sounds like Cohen should get one heck of a plea deal for throwing the president under the bus. Oh wait. If I'm not correct I think he's facing 60 years. Sounds like a sweet plea deal. I'm pretty naive according to you so can you please enlighten me on the specific charges of conspiracy? Sounds like he was funneling money through a taxi company. If Trump has anything to do with it charges would be coming almost immediately or they would have been some leak by the government of Trump's involvement. You sound like such a conspiracy theorist is ridiculous.

Yes, because we all know charging a sitting president with a crime is super easy and carries no significant Constitutional issues. You might as well call him innocent because Republicans in Congress won't let him be investigated by Congress. You've got Rudy out there saying the President can't get indicted, and then you've got Sanders saying he's not been indicted so it's fine. Lol emoji.

The fact that the Mueller investigation is run by professionals who don't leak is being taken to mean that Trump is super innocent because no leaks? None of the indictments so far has been leaked before the fact. It's an actual tightly run, professional operation.

Is it really still a crazy conspiracy when almost everybody connected to the president does crime? His kids, his campaign manager, his lawyer, most of his cabinet? Hell, Mattis in defense was on the board of Theranos, that amazing bloodless blood test scam, but we're not supposed to talk about it when he's supposedly the one keeping us from invading all the countries. Even if somehow (somehow) this is just an example of a non-criminal hiring almost exclusively criminals (in the case of Manafort at least, well known criminals at that) that's still, you know, pretty crappy judgment. As well as being a mighty fishy coincidence.

[warmonger1981]

The last post makes me giggle. The clintons have committed plenty of crimes it's just that everybody love to Clinton so much that they're not willing to charge them with any crimes.


From the Investors Business Daily


Sign In
COMMENTARY
It's Time To Prosecute The Clinton Political Crime Syndicate
FacebookTwitterLinkedIn
SCOTT S. POWELL 12/19/2017
Few would deny that the ascendance of the United States from colonial poverty to the world's top economic and military superpower in just 200 years is largely attributable to principles and rule of law in our founding documents enshrined in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.

And so it should come as no surprise that America's decline in the last 25 years has coincided with the erosion of the U.S. Constitution and the corruption of the nation's law enforcement and judicial system.


What has most greased the skids of America's decline toward the ways of a banana republic is the emergence and acceptance of two-tiered justice and attendant cronyism and political corruption.


And nowhere is this more obvious than in the pass given to the Clintons, and particularly former First Lady and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

When the Clintons left the White House in 2001, taking with them over $190,000 worth of heirloom china, flatware, rugs, and furniture as they cleared out — much of which they later had to return — they claimed they were flat broke.

Their net worth today is now in excess of $150 million, accumulated not by traditional means of work and investment, but rather by pay-for-play influence peddling through speeches and Clinton Foundation fundraising — with the tacit understanding that the Clintons would be in a position to return favors to donors after Hillary won the 2016 presidential election.


It is a felony, punishable by fine and imprisonment up to 20 years, according to 18 U.S. Code 1519, to destroy, conceal, cover up or falsify any record or document whether on paper or on any digital device with the intent to impede or obstruct the investigation of any matter within the jurisdiction of any department or agency of the United States.

The pattern of deceit through controlling and destroying documents and records in order to facilitate and obfuscate self-dealing and political crime started early in Hillary's career.

While her husband faced impeachment, stiff monetary fines and a near million dollar settlement as well as disbarment for five years, Hillary Clinton skated with no accountability for anything in her incredibly checkered career.

There were the missing records documenting the statistically impossible profits from cattle futures trading, the disappearance of Hillary Clinton's billing records from the Rose Law Firm — under subpoena by Federal and Congressional investigators — where she previously worked on matters related to the Whitewater real estate sham, the removal and destruction of a hard drive from the computer of her former Rose Law Firm partner and then-White House Deputy Legal Counsel Vince Foster, whose death by gunshot wound was ruled a suicide in the midst of the Whitewater investigation.

And then there were the missing documents from the White House Travelgate scandal — documents that would surface two years later — showing Hillary's duplicity and contradiction of prior statements.

As egregious, scandalous and unlawful as much of this was, it was small time and just a warm-up to what was to come after Hillary became Secretary of State, at which time she insisted on using a private computer server and email address — about which she was warned would be vulnerable to hacking and security breaches — for the purpose of avoiding public scrutiny and accountability while indirectly helping the Clinton Foundation raise enormous sums from governments and parties with whom she was also interfacing as secretary of state.

It is now clear that this was all done to evade Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests and federal government record-keeping laws and obfuscate conflicts of interest while serving as secretary of state.

But it all began to unravel after Hillary left office and was required to testify before a House committee on Benghazi in October 2015 and answer questions about the terrorist attacks on the U.S. Consulate on September 11, 2012.

It was those hearings that brought to light the existence of Hillary Clinton's secret, unsecured, do-it-yourself server.

And then it was learned that she not only stored classified and top secret information in an unsecured location, but that she had also authorized the destruction of subpoenaed evidence — some 33,000 emails — after she was put on notice of the existence of the subpoena.

These violations are felonies with stiff penalties and there were at least six other laws that appear violated for which Hillary could be indicted.

What is now waking up Americans about the seriousness of Clinton family self-dealing and the need for prosecution is the realization that the Clintons were at the center of what appears to be the biggest political corruption scandal in U.S. history.

The fact that the Clinton Foundation's single largest aggregate donation of some $145 million came from various parties linked to the Uranium One sale to the Russian government nuclear agency Rosatom makes this the mega-case of Russian influence and corruption.


You're starting to sound like symmetries twin.


This is from WJLA Washington DC
25 leaked

Among the developments that have been leaked:

June 3, 2017: The Associated Press revealed Mueller’s team had taken over a criminal probe of former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort.
July 22, 2017: Two sources claiming direct knowledge told Reuters Mueller’s investigators were hoping to use evidence of money laundering or other financial crimes to pressure Manafort to cooperate in the collusion probe.
August 3, 2017: Citing "people familiar with the matter," the Wall Street Journal reported a grand jury had been impaneled by Mueller. White House attorney Ty Cobb said at the time he was unaware of the grand jury’s existence.
August 9, 2017: The Washington Post reported FBI agents conducted a predawn raid of Manafort’s Virginia home on July 26 to seize documents and other materials related to Mueller’s investigation. According to the Post, people familiar with the search said a warrant sought financial records and the evidence collected included binders Manafort had prepared for his congressional testimony.
August 24, 2017: "A source close to the investigation" provided Fox News with new details of the raid of Manafort’s house and claimed it was “heavy-handed, designed to intimidate.”
August 25, 2017: "People familiar with the matter" informed the Wall Street Journal that Mueller was investigating Flynn’s involvement in a private effort to obtain Hillary Clinton’s email from Russian hackers.
August 28, 2017: According to NBC News, three sources said Mueller’s investigators were focused on Trump’s role in writing a response to media reports about a meeting between campaign officials and Russians at Trump Tower in June 2016.
September 1, 2017: The Washington Post reported Mueller’s investigators had a copy of a draft letter prepared by Trump aide Stephen Miller to justify the firing of Comey in May 2017.
September 20, 2017: Emails reportedly turned over to Mueller’s team and Senate investigators leaked to the Washington Post revealed that Manafort offered to provide private briefings to a Russian billionaire with ties to the Kremlin during the 2016 campaign.
October 4, 2017: Reuters cited three "sources familiar with the investigation" saying that Mueller’s team had taken over the FBI’s inquiries into a dossier of allegations regarding Trump’s Russia ties compiled by former British spy Christopher Steele. Two officials also reportedly told Reuters Mueller was looking into whether Manafort or others helped the Kremlin target hacking efforts and social media posts to influence the election.
October 27, 2017: "Sources briefed on the matter" told CNN that the first charges in Mueller’s investigation had been filed under seal. The following Monday, charges were unsealed Manafort and campaign aide Robert Gates, as well as a guilty plea by former adviser George Papadopoulos.
November 5, 2017: NBC News reported multiple sources said Mueller had enough evidence to bring charges against Flynn and his son. According to NBC, the FBI was also investigating a possible effort by Flynn to extradite a Muslim cleric in the U.S. whom Turkish President Recep Erdogan blamed for a coup attempt.
November 16, 2017: The Wall Street Journal cited a "person familiar with the matter" reporting that Mueller's team had subpoenaed Russia-related documents from Trump's campaign, including documents and emails written by several campaign officials.
December 2, 2017: Multiple "people familiar with the matter" told the Washington Post that former top counterintelligence official Peter Strzok was removed from Mueller’s team because of anti-Trump texts between him and an FBI attorney with whom he was having an affair. Details of many of those texts, which were under investigation by the Department of Justice Inspector General’s Office, have since been leaked to various media outlets.
January 2, 2018: A source detailed the physical characteristics, clothing, race, and gender of grand jury members to the New York Post and alleged that the grand jury room “looks like a Bernie Sanders rally.”
February 17, 2018: CNN cited anonymous sources stating that Gates was close to negotiating a plea deal with Mueller and that new charges against Manafort were being prepared. Less than a week later, Gates entered a guilty plea to conspiracy and lying to the FBI, and a superseding indictment was filed against Manafort.
February 27, 2018: CNN reported that three "people familiar with the matter" said Mueller had recently questioned witnesses about Trump’s business activities in Russia and negotiations surrounding a potential Trump Tower in Moscow.
February 28, 2018: An unnamed former Trump campaign aide told CNN Mueller’s team asked about comments former White House Communications Director Hope Hicks made during her interview with investigators about possible contacts between the campaign and Russian operatives.
March 2, 2018: Witnesses and others familiar with the investigation reportedly told NBC News Mueller’s team was asking questions about Trump son-in-law Jared Kushner’s business ties. The following week, NBC cited sources familiar with the matter saying Qatari officials withheld damaging information about the United Arab Emirates’ influence on Kushner from Mueller.
March 3, 2018: According to the New York Times, Mueller was looking into attempts by the United Arab Emirates to buy political influence on Trump and the role of Lebanese-American businessman George Nader.
March 4, 2018: Axios obtained a copy of a subpoena sent to a former Trump campaign official by Mueller’s team. Sam Nunberg later confirmed he was the source and spoke extensively to the media about the investigation.
March 7, 2018: "People familiar with the matter" told the Washington Post Mueller had evidence from a cooperating witness that a secret meeting in Seychelles between a Trump ally and a Russian official prior to inauguration was an attempt to establish a back channel between the administration and the Kremlin.
March 15, 2018: The New York Times reported that Mueller had subpoenaed documents from the Trump Organization.
April 9, 2018: The New York Times learned federal investigators had raided Trump attorney Michael Cohen’s office and hotel room. Hours later, sources told the Washington Post Cohen was under investigation for possible bank fraud and campaign finance violations.
April 30, 2018: The New York Times obtained a list of questions Mueller wanted to ask Trump. According to the Times, the list was prepared by Trump’s attorneys after speaking to investigators but it was not given to reporters by Trump's legal team.

Quit being so blind and bias.

[Symmetry]

Baffling stuff, warmy. Gotta love people who are still confused over how Hilary Clinton isn't in prison, or indeed charged with anything.

Anyway, Trump's run of bad luck continues

1) Another of his lawyers has been fully cooperating with Mueller- Don McGahn.
2) The CFO of his business has been granted immunity to cooperate.
3) The chief of the newspaper that buried his dirt has also been granted immunity.

It's difficult to see how any of that looks good for Trump.

[warmonger1981]

Baffling stuff, warmy. Gotta love people who are still confused over how Hilary Clinton isn't in prison, or indeed charged with anything.

Anyway, Trump's run of bad luck continues

1) Another of his lawyers has been fully cooperating with Mueller- Don McGahn.
2) The CFO of his business has been granted immunity to cooperate.
3) The chief of the newspaper that buried his dirt has also been granted immunity.

It's difficult to see how any of that looks good for Trump.

Just proving my points to be correct very specifically with facts not conspiracy.

[Symmetry]

Baffling stuff, warmy. Gotta love people who are still confused over how Hilary Clinton isn't in prison, or indeed charged with anything.

Anyway, Trump's run of bad luck continues

1) Another of his lawyers has been fully cooperating with Mueller- Don McGahn.
2) The CFO of his business has been granted immunity to cooperate.
3) The chief of the newspaper that buried his dirt has also been granted immunity.

It's difficult to see how any of that looks good for Trump.

Just proving my points to be correct very specifically with facts not conspiracy.

Nobody read your post, warmy, you just plagiarised some stuff and pasted it in to CC.

[warmonger1981]

Baffling stuff, warmy. Gotta love people who are still confused over how Hilary Clinton isn't in prison, or indeed charged with anything.

Anyway, Trump's run of bad luck continues

1) Another of his lawyers has been fully cooperating with Mueller- Don McGahn.
2) The CFO of his business has been granted immunity to cooperate.
3) The chief of the newspaper that buried his dirt has also been granted immunity.

It's difficult to see how any of that looks good for Trump.

Just proving my points to be correct very specifically with facts not conspiracy.

Nobody read your post, warmy, you just plagiarised some stuff and pasted it in to CC.

It's not my problem if nobody reads facts. Just as it's no problem if I don't read the news in Siberia. I didn't plagiarize anything. I never claimed it as my own works you ignorant fool. I just stated facts. Please show me on flaw in that post. Just one. I beg you.

[Symmetry]

Baffling stuff, warmy. Gotta love people who are still confused over how Hilary Clinton isn't in prison, or indeed charged with anything.

Anyway, Trump's run of bad luck continues

1) Another of his lawyers has been fully cooperating with Mueller- Don McGahn.
2) The CFO of his business has been granted immunity to cooperate.
3) The chief of the newspaper that buried his dirt has also been granted immunity.

It's difficult to see how any of that looks good for Trump.

Just proving my points to be correct very specifically with facts not conspiracy.

Nobody read your post, warmy, you just plagiarised some stuff and pasted it in to CC.

It's not my problem if nobody reads facts. Just as it's no problem if I don't read the news in Siberia. I didn't plagiarize anything. I never claimed it as my own works you ignorant fool. I just stated facts. Please show me on flaw in that post. Just one. I beg you.

Oh warmy... whatever shall we do with you?

[warmonger1981]

Baffling stuff, warmy. Gotta love people who are still confused over how Hilary Clinton isn't in prison, or indeed charged with anything.

Anyway, Trump's run of bad luck continues

1) Another of his lawyers has been fully cooperating with Mueller- Don McGahn.
2) The CFO of his business has been granted immunity to cooperate.
3) The chief of the newspaper that buried his dirt has also been granted immunity.

It's difficult to see how any of that looks good for Trump.

Just proving my points to be correct very specifically with facts not conspiracy.

Nobody read your post, warmy, you just plagiarised some stuff and pasted it in to CC.

It's not my problem if nobody reads facts. Just as it's no problem if I don't read the news in Siberia. I didn't plagiarize anything. I never claimed it as my own works you ignorant fool. I just stated facts. Please show me on flaw in that post. Just one. I beg you.

Oh warmy... whatever shall we do with you?

put you on my foe list. this is turning into a circle jerk. unfortunately for you these conversations stop now. your lack of understanding promotes your low IQ level. I'm pretty sure you're legally retarded.

[Symmetry]

Baffling stuff, warmy. Gotta love people who are still confused over how Hilary Clinton isn't in prison, or indeed charged with anything.

Anyway, Trump's run of bad luck continues

1) Another of his lawyers has been fully cooperating with Mueller- Don McGahn.
2) The CFO of his business has been granted immunity to cooperate.
3) The chief of the newspaper that buried his dirt has also been granted immunity.

It's difficult to see how any of that looks good for Trump.

Just proving my points to be correct very specifically with facts not conspiracy.

Nobody read your post, warmy, you just plagiarised some stuff and pasted it in to CC.

It's not my problem if nobody reads facts. Just as it's no problem if I don't read the news in Siberia. I didn't plagiarize anything. I never claimed it as my own works you ignorant fool. I just stated facts. Please show me on flaw in that post. Just one. I beg you.

Oh warmy... whatever shall we do with you?

put you on my foe list. this is turning into a circle jerk. unfortunately for you these conversations stop now. your lack of understanding promotes your low IQ level. I'm pretty sure you're legally retarded.

Oh no!

How unfortunate for me! I have been foe'd! How will my low IQ ever be promoted beyond retarded now? Guess I'm back to working out sudoku puzzles.

Pro Tip- don't overthink, just put 1 in every blank square and they're done.

[riskllama]

well...you kinda had it coming, sym...

[Symmetry]

well...you kinda had it coming, sym...

I am truly suffering under the weight of my sins.

[spurgistan]

The last post makes me giggle. The clintons have committed plenty of crimes it's just that everybody love to Clinton so much that they're not willing to charge them with any crimes.

So, everybody likes the Clintons except for Congress which investigated them for the entirety of Bill's presidency? And the media loves them so much they covered a non-story about poor email security for nine months, and breathlessly reported about a wildly unconventional and norm-breaking report of the reopening of an investigation days before the election? Who is this everybody, besides most voters in the United States?

[warmonger1981]

The last post makes me giggle. The clintons have committed plenty of crimes it's just that everybody love to Clinton so much that they're not willing to charge them with any crimes.

So, everybody likes the Clintons except for Congress which investigated them for the entirety of Bill's presidency? And the media loves them so much they covered a non-story about poor email security for nine months, and breathlessly reported about a wildly unconventional and norm-breaking report of the reopening of an investigation days before the election? Who is this everybody, besides most voters in the United States?

This is a sincere question. Can the media be biased? Can somebody who has been in a certain type of profession make many friends? Can people who hold High positions of power yield that power to their own benefits? If you can't answer these questions you will also be on the list next to symmetry. If you're willing to go down a rabbit hole I can dig as deep as you want. Just don't paint your questions with a broad brush. Be specific with the questions as I will be specific with the answers.

I have a question for you. Is there anything from the Wikipedia or from that station in DC that you can refute specifically. If not then I assume that you agree.

[spurgistan]

The last post makes me giggle. The clintons have committed plenty of crimes it's just that everybody love to Clinton so much that they're not willing to charge them with any crimes.

So, everybody likes the Clintons except for Congress which investigated them for the entirety of Bill's presidency? And the media loves them so much they covered a non-story about poor email security for nine months, and breathlessly reported about a wildly unconventional and norm-breaking report of the reopening of an investigation days before the election? Who is this everybody, besides most voters in the United States?

This is a sincere question. Can the media be biased? Can somebody who has been in a certain type of profession make many friends? Can people who hold High positions of power yield that power to their own benefits? If you can't answer these questions you will also be on the list next to symmetry. If you're willing to go down a rabbit hole I can dig as deep as you want. Just don't paint your questions with a broad brush. Be specific with the questions as I will be specific with the answers.

I have a question for you. Is there anything from the Wikipedia or from that station in DC that you can refute specifically. If not then I assume that you agree.

Can the media be biased?
yes but it is not really on the left/right divide, at least the DC media is biased towards protecting sources and maintaining access. As a leftist who mostly reads leftish news sources, the Times and Post seems mainly concerned with covering their ass against accusations of anti-conservative bias when the news simply lends itself to anti-conservative bias (to quote stephen colbert "the facts have a notorious left-wing bias")
Can somebody who has been in a certain type of profession make many friends?
yes? confusing question. I'd love to find somebody who'd answer "no" to this question.
Can people who hold High positions of power yield that power to their own benefits?
Ethically, should they? no. Do they? Often yes, and the point of good government is keeping powerful people and institutions accountable. I would argue that the sheer length and intensity of the Whitewater investigation, and the investigation into the Clinton Foundation, represents a good government ideal that was ruined by politicization. The worst thing that came out of the emails hack by the Russians was that a Nobel laureate asked for a special passport for actual diplomatic work and didn't get one.

If you want me to read that word salad of TEH CLINTON CRIMES and TEH MUELLER LEAKS WHICH DON'T COME FROM THE INVESTIGATION then sorry I got work honey.

[thegreekdog]

Baffling stuff, warmy. Gotta love people who are still confused over how Hilary Clinton isn't in prison, or indeed charged with anything.

Anyway, Trump's run of bad luck continues

1) Another of his lawyers has been fully cooperating with Mueller- Don McGahn.
2) The CFO of his business has been granted immunity to cooperate.
3) The chief of the newspaper that buried his dirt has also been granted immunity.

It's difficult to see how any of that looks good for Trump.

4) Being a complete asshole about the death of John McCain.

the Times and Post seems mainly concerned with covering their ass against accusations of anti-conservative bias when the news simply lends itself to anti-conservative bias

C'mon now... at least let's all operate from the real world. All media outlets have some sort of bias and most of them, at least in the US, lean left. All one needs to do is go read headlines for various events. Just look at how different media outlets headlined the killing of Mollie Tibbets and any mass shooting event. Liberal leaning outlets will focus not on Mollie Tibbets's killer being allegedly an illegal immigrant, but on how conservatives are using that to crack down on immigration (and perhaps mention something about racism). Conservative leaning outlets will focus on Mollie TIbbets's killer being an alleged illegal immigrant but run thead headline instead of anything about the problems Trump is having. On the flip side, any mass shooting will be treated as liberal leaning outlets as an opportunity to stoke gun control narratives; whereas conservative outlets will immediately start with the gun rights messaging.

to quote stephen colbert "the facts have a notorious left-wing bias"

Sorry, is this the guy who had AOC on his show to do that hard-hitting interview where he totally made fun of her lack of basic understanding of facts?

[spurgistan]

I don't understand what's wrong withThe media's coverage of the murder of Mollie Tibbets. Seems like they're pretty much following the requests of the victim's family. I've read nothing to believe that a man killed Mollie Tibbets because he was an (allegedly) illegal immigrant. Whereas a man killing a woman due to sexual frustration and misogyny is, well, tragically common.

[thegreekdog]

I don't understand what's wrong withThe media's coverage of the murder of Mollie Tibbets. Seems like they're pretty much following the requests of the victim's family. I've read nothing to believe that a man killed Mollie Tibbets because he was an (allegedly) illegal immigrant. Whereas a man killing a woman due to sexual frustration and misogyny is, well, tragically common.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/tru ... 834c0f1f75

Headline - Republicans seize on the death of Mollie Tibbetts to focus on illegal immigration

I then did a search for "Democrats seize on Jacksonville shooting to focus on gun control" - I did not find anything.

The tenor of the reporting, the headlines, and the general commentary from most media outlets on Mollie Tibbets's death has been to downplay that the murderer may be an illegal immigrant. And that's fine by me. I agree with you and with the media outlets. On the other hand, the general commentary almost immediately after a shooting is not to downplay gun control. And yeah, maybe you're okay with that. But it's the same basic premise - If our immigration system worked, Mollie Tibbetts would still be alive. If we had more gun control, the Jacksonville shooting would not have happened.

[warmonger1981]

The last post makes me giggle. The clintons have committed plenty of crimes it's just that everybody love to Clinton so much that they're not willing to charge them with any crimes.

So, everybody likes the Clintons except for Congress which investigated them for the entirety of Bill's presidency? And the media loves them so much they covered a non-story about poor email security for nine months, and breathlessly reported about a wildly unconventional and norm-breaking report of the reopening of an investigation days before the election? Who is this everybody, besides most voters in the United States?

This is a sincere question. Can the media be biased? Can somebody who has been in a certain type of profession make many friends? Can people who hold High positions of power yield that power to their own benefits? If you can't answer these questions you will also be on the list next to symmetry. If you're willing to go down a rabbit hole I can dig as deep as you want. Just don't paint your questions with a broad brush. Be specific with the questions as I will be specific with the answers.

I have a question for you. Is there anything from the Wikipedia or from that station in DC that you can refute specifically. If not then I assume that you agree.

Can the media be biased?
yes but it is not really on the left/right divide, at least the DC media is biased towards protecting sources and maintaining access. As a leftist who mostly reads leftish news sources, the Times and Post seems mainly concerned with covering their ass against accusations of anti-conservative bias when the news simply lends itself to anti-conservative bias (to quote stephen colbert "the facts have a notorious left-wing bias")
Can somebody who has been in a certain type of profession make many friends?
yes? confusing question. I'd love to find somebody who'd answer "no" to this question.
Can people who hold High positions of power yield that power to their own benefits?
Ethically, should they? no. Do they? Often yes, and the point of good government is keeping powerful people and institutions accountable. I would argue that the sheer length and intensity of the Whitewater investigation, and the investigation into the Clinton Foundation, represents a good government ideal that was ruined by politicization. The worst thing that came out of the emails hack by the Russians was that a Nobel laureate asked for a special passport for actual diplomatic work and didn't get one.

If you want me to read that word salad of TEH CLINTON CRIMES and TEH MUELLER LEAKS WHICH DON'T COME FROM THE INVESTIGATION then sorry I got work honey.

XXXXXXXXXXXXXX

Unfortunately I think the media is fairly biased.
From the Washington Times itself
Unprecedented hostility: Broadcast coverage of President Trump still 90% negative, says study
By Jennifer Harper - The Washington Times - Tuesday, March 6, 2018
It has been a pattern since President Trump was inaugurated well over a year ago. Coverage of the White House on the “Big Three” broadcast networks — ABC, CBS and NBC — remains 91 percent negative, according to a new study by the Media Research Center, which has been tracking the phenomenon since Mr. Trump hit the campaign trail in 2016.

It was over 90 percent hostile then — and remains so now. The trend is unprecedented, according to the analysis.

The conservative press watchdog monitored nightly evening networks newscasts throughout January and February to find that anchors and correspondents uttered 10 times more negative comments about the president than positive statements. Analysts examined over 500 stories.


Out of a total of 712 evaluative comments made on the air, only 65 were positive, or 9 percent. The rest — 647 comments — were negative, amounting to 91 percent. The ongoing Russia collusion investigation was the leading topic of choice, followed by immigration issues, the recent government shutdown, and the White House response to the Parkland student shooting.

Throughout January and February, the analysts found that 63 percent of news coverage was devoted to scandals — and just 37 percent to real policy issues.


“The results are essentially unchanged from the 90 percent negative coverage we documented for all of 2017, and matches the 91 percent negative coverage we tallied during the 2016 general election campaign,” said Rich Noyes, senior editor for Newsbusters.org, the analytical arm of the Media Research Center.

‌
“Without question, no president has ever been on the receiving end of such hostile coverage, for such a sustained period of time, as has Trump — and the midterm elections are still eight months away,” he said.


In January and February, the organization found nearly 63 percent of news coverage was devoted to scandals — only 37 percent of newscasts were devoted to serious policy issues.

Copyright © 2018 The Washington Times, LLC.




Some people who hold High positions in the government will then get out of the government and sit on the Boards of multiple corporations. Or vice versa. Some of these people will also be able to meet with other Heads of States. Or maybe some of these people are part of certain groups or organizations that are not public. Or have to be invited into these groups by other members.

It's very easy to have long investigations into people. It's the people that control these investigations are what matters and their previous relationships between each other. That should be called in a question. Justice is blind only a set of scales for a reason. This is a country of laws not of men. Unfortunately the tides have turned.

It's the hegelian dialectic being played out in front of everybody and they don't even know it. Well there is by human force or by natural law it doesn't matter either.

[betiko]

tl; dr

menwhile, trump is still eating cheeseburgers in his bed watching fox and friends

[Symmetry]

I don't understand what's wrong withThe media's coverage of the murder of Mollie Tibbets. Seems like they're pretty much following the requests of the victim's family. I've read nothing to believe that a man killed Mollie Tibbets because he was an (allegedly) illegal immigrant. Whereas a man killing a woman due to sexual frustration and misogyny is, well, tragically common.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/tru ... 834c0f1f75

Headline - Republicans seize on the death of Mollie Tibbetts to focus on illegal immigration

I then did a search for "Democrats seize on Jacksonville shooting to focus on gun control" - I did not find anything.

The tenor of the reporting, the headlines, and the general commentary from most media outlets on Mollie Tibbets's death has been to downplay that the murderer may be an illegal immigrant. And that's fine by me. I agree with you and with the media outlets. On the other hand, the general commentary almost immediately after a shooting is not to downplay gun control. And yeah, maybe you're okay with that. But it's the same basic premise - If our immigration system worked, Mollie Tibbetts would still be alive. If we had more gun control, the Jacksonville shooting would not have happened.

Both systems are flawed, imho. There's little to no political will in the US to solve America's gun problem, however, and a lot of political will to punish immigrants.

I'm not sure the two problems are comparable, TGD.

To be honest, it looks like a way for Trump supporters to try to deflect from the issues he's facing by playing one of his oldest race cards- a white female victim, and minority bad guys.

[thegreekdog]

I don't understand what's wrong withThe media's coverage of the murder of Mollie Tibbets. Seems like they're pretty much following the requests of the victim's family. I've read nothing to believe that a man killed Mollie Tibbets because he was an (allegedly) illegal immigrant. Whereas a man killing a woman due to sexual frustration and misogyny is, well, tragically common.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/tru ... 834c0f1f75

Headline - Republicans seize on the death of Mollie Tibbetts to focus on illegal immigration

I then did a search for "Democrats seize on Jacksonville shooting to focus on gun control" - I did not find anything.

The tenor of the reporting, the headlines, and the general commentary from most media outlets on Mollie Tibbets's death has been to downplay that the murderer may be an illegal immigrant. And that's fine by me. I agree with you and with the media outlets. On the other hand, the general commentary almost immediately after a shooting is not to downplay gun control. And yeah, maybe you're okay with that. But it's the same basic premise - If our immigration system worked, Mollie Tibbetts would still be alive. If we had more gun control, the Jacksonville shooting would not have happened.

Both systems are flawed, imho. There's little to no political will in the US to solve America's gun problem, however, and a lot of political will to punish immigrants.

I'm not sure the two problems are comparable, TGD.

To be honest, it looks like a way for Trump supporters to try to deflect from the issues he's facing by playing one of his oldest race cards- a white female victim, and minority bad guys.

I think the political will in each of those instances are similar. In fact, I would argue that opponents of gun control want things to stay the way they are while opponents of immigration law want to abolish ICE. But that's probably just semantics. And we're not getting a border wall.

[Symmetry]

I don't understand what's wrong withThe media's coverage of the murder of Mollie Tibbets. Seems like they're pretty much following the requests of the victim's family. I've read nothing to believe that a man killed Mollie Tibbets because he was an (allegedly) illegal immigrant. Whereas a man killing a woman due to sexual frustration and misogyny is, well, tragically common.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/tru ... 834c0f1f75

Headline - Republicans seize on the death of Mollie Tibbetts to focus on illegal immigration

I then did a search for "Democrats seize on Jacksonville shooting to focus on gun control" - I did not find anything.

The tenor of the reporting, the headlines, and the general commentary from most media outlets on Mollie Tibbets's death has been to downplay that the murderer may be an illegal immigrant. And that's fine by me. I agree with you and with the media outlets. On the other hand, the general commentary almost immediately after a shooting is not to downplay gun control. And yeah, maybe you're okay with that. But it's the same basic premise - If our immigration system worked, Mollie Tibbetts would still be alive. If we had more gun control, the Jacksonville shooting would not have happened.

Both systems are flawed, imho. There's little to no political will in the US to solve America's gun problem, however, and a lot of political will to punish immigrants.

I'm not sure the two problems are comparable, TGD.

To be honest, it looks like a way for Trump supporters to try to deflect from the issues he's facing by playing one of his oldest race cards- a white female victim, and minority bad guys.

I think the political will in each of those instances are similar. In fact, I would argue that opponents of gun control want things to stay the way they are while opponents of immigration law want to abolish ICE. But that's probably just semantics. And we're not getting a border wall.

Seems likes an apples to oranges comparison. People who want to abolish ICE don't want unlimited immigration, but people who campaign against gun control seem to want no gun control at all.

Personally, I'd like to see more realistic solutions to both problems, but let's face it, attacking immigrants is a vote-winner for the GOP. They've been playing identity politics for a long time, and they're so specialised in it that it's tough for them to win without it.

[thegreekdog]

Personally, I'd like to see more realistic solutions to both problems, but let's face it, attacking immigrants is a vote-winner for the GOP. They've been playing identity politics for a long time, and they're so specialised in it that it's tough for them to win without it.

Immigration status (legal/illegal) is not identity politics. Otherwise, I agree.

Seems likes an apples to oranges comparison. People who want to abolish ICE don't want unlimited immigration, but people who campaign against gun control seem to want no gun control at all.

I don't think people campaigning against gun control want no gun control at all; they just don't want more gun control (or, alternatively, like me, they ask questions like "what exactly do you want to do). Abolishing ICE is to immigration what abolishing the ATF or the FBI is to gun control.

[Symmetry]

Personally, I'd like to see more realistic solutions to both problems, but let's face it, attacking immigrants is a vote-winner for the GOP. They've been playing identity politics for a long time, and they're so specialised in it that it's tough for them to win without it.

Immigration status (legal/illegal) is not identity politics. Otherwise, I agree.

Lol- sure it isn't... Sorry mate, but you'll need to do a lot of hard work if you want to convince anyone on that line. Arresting people for looking like they might be immigrants? Purging voter roles of Hispanic sounding names? You're making it difficult to take you seriously.

Seems likes an apples to oranges comparison. People who want to abolish ICE don't want unlimited immigration, but people who campaign against gun control seem to want no gun control at all.

I don't think people campaigning against gun control want no gun control at all; they just don't want more gun control (or, alternatively, like me, they ask questions like "what exactly do you want to do). Abolishing ICE is to immigration what abolishing the ATF or the FBI is to gun control.

Not really, the people who want to abolish ICE want to see the people reassigned to other immigration forces. Ones that aren't about locking up kids, for example. That doesn't seem like the same thing as abolishing the ATF. Did anyone even ask for the ATF to be abolished?