Anonymous wrote:Not one person on the witness stand in these hearings has indicated that there is evidence of collusion. Not one.

If there were evidence, we would have heard long ago.

No Democrat has indicated that he/she has seen evidence of collusion. (They just desperately want to see it.)

This investigation has been going on for quite some time. There are people who have been unmasked--and still no evidence.

Get over it. Only person in trouble is Flynn--and we still are not sure what he did for the campaign that was illegal. His troubles are outside the campaign. (He did lie to Pence--but that is not a federal offense. It does make him subject to blackmail--which is the only thing )

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Threatened to dismantle the Ninth Circuit
Called a federal judge a "so-called judge"

Tweets like this:

Just cannot believe a judge would put our country in such peril. If something happens blame him and court system. People pouring in. Bad!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) February 5, 2017

Splitting the Ninth Circuit has been discussed many times well before Trump because it is unwieldy among other reasons.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/19/politics/lawmakers-trying-again-to-divide-ninth-circuit.html?_r=0

With regard to the "so-called judge" remark it was totally inappropriate but it did not change a thing really.

Yes, he makes comments disparaging decisions he does not like - and a president should not do so especially in the language he uses - but from a practical standpoint has it changed the outcome one iota?

The problem is that too many Americans believe our democracy is only enshrined in our laws and founding documents and not also in our political norms. Washington warned that this was not the case, but even now we refuse to believe him.

It's a good thing, in general, for a claimant to have to show standing in a court-of-law. But now we have almost universal agreement that Trump is flagrantly violating the Emoluments Clause, but no one can show standing to challenge this in court. Our best hope for holding him accountable is for the Congress to act as a check on his corruption, but they seem unwilling to do so...and decades of gerry-mandering is going to be difficult to vote them out.

Trump is violating every political norm Americans have ever held dear, and he's using our Constitution and judicial precedent to protect himself while he openly fleeces the American public. I'm less disgusted that he's doing it, because lots of people are selfish a$$hol3s, than that people are defending it by citing our democratic ideals.

There is a process for dealing with a president who breaks the law: he can be impeached and removed from office or he can be voted out of office at the next election.
Alternatively the elected representatives who are not performing their duty should be voted out of office.

If the duly elected representatives don't want to impeach him or the voters decide at the next election to reelect him, perhaps it is because the perceived illegal actions - which may bother some - is still not sufficiently egregious to others.

But that is how a democracy works ........ we have to trust the voters even though it sometimes results in an outcome we may not agree with.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Threatened to dismantle the Ninth Circuit
Called a federal judge a "so-called judge"

Tweets like this:

Just cannot believe a judge would put our country in such peril. If something happens blame him and court system. People pouring in. Bad!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) February 5, 2017

Splitting the Ninth Circuit has been discussed many times well before Trump because it is unwieldy among other reasons.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/19/politics/lawmakers-trying-again-to-divide-ninth-circuit.html?_r=0

With regard to the "so-called judge" remark it was totally inappropriate but it did not change a thing really.

Yes, he makes comments disparaging decisions he does not like - and a president should not do so especially in the language he uses - but from a practical standpoint has it changed the outcome one iota?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Ha! Love it, about time.

I can't stand Hillary but that entire thing was handled poorly.

I read the termination letter and all true imo. This has been a long time coming, it took someone with guts to follow through on the right decision.

The guts not to be able to fire someone in person? So that they learn about it from a CNN news crawl? Right.

Really? If it were you, you would prefer getting fired by him in person with his tiny child hand pointing at you?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Ha! Love it, about time.

I can't stand Hillary but that entire thing was handled poorly.

I read the termination letter and all true imo. This has been a long time coming, it took someone with guts to follow through on the right decision.

The guts not to be able to fire someone in person? So that they learn about it from a CNN news crawl? Right.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm assuming it has to do with this article which just hit the news wires 30 minutes ago. He misstated the number of emails that Abedin forwarded to Weiner, the FBI issued a correction to his testimony. Seems like the WH has been waiting for any excuse to can him.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/comey-misstated-key-clinton-email-evidence-at-hearing-say-people-close-to-investigation/2017/05/09/074c1c7e-34bd-11e7-b373-418f6849a004_story.html

I would have fired him after negotiating with Hillary over taking the email server with classified material on it. You don't negotiate, you confiscate it immediately, no questions asked.

Exactly, that's what was suppose to be done. Did they negotiate with Martha when she erased that message on the answering machine? She got 6 mo in club Fed.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This claptrap about our democracy being threatened is just ludicrous. We have been hearing this since Trump's nomination and even more so after Trump was elected.

He has been in office for well over 4 months and what has he done so far that represents a real threat to our democracy? We still have a free press, our elected representatives still openly express their opposition to Trump, late night comics still make fun of Trump, the courts still function and issue injunctions on EOs that they deem constitutionally questionable, people are still posting on this and other forums expressing their strong opposition to Trump both personally and in terms of policy and sometimes in quite offensive language.

I have lived for brief periods in countries where freedoms are proscribed to some degree or the other and the US is not even remotely akin to these countries and it would take a serious erosion of our democratic institutions for us to get anywhere close to those countries.

This hysteria about what Trump can do or is about to do is sheer nonsense. We have multiple safeguards to prevent autocracy in this country.

Did you ever consider that one of those safeguards is the actual act of people here and elsewhere, standing up and saying what he wants to do/is doing isn't right based on our democracy and constitution and history and precedent, i.e. what you refer to as hysteria?

Anonymous wrote:You people are acting like Comey was personally conducting every investigation being done by the FBI.
You are acting like the work of the Bureau will cease in his absence.

In a nutshell, you are totally overreacting. Get a grip.

Anonymous wrote:You people are acting like Comey was personally conducting every investigation being done by the FBI.
You are acting like the work of the Bureau will cease in his absence.

In a nutshell, you are totally overreacting. Get a grip.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

There is a process for dealing with a president who breaks the law: he can be impeached and removed from office or he can be voted out of office at the next election.
Alternatively the elected representatives who are not performing their duty should be voted out of office.

If the duly elected representatives don't want to impeach him or the voters decide at the next election to reelect him, perhaps it is because the perceived illegal actions - which may bother some - is still not sufficiently egregious to others.

But that is how a democracy works ........ we have to trust the voters even though it sometimes results in an outcome we may not agree with.

This makes an assumption of fair and free elections. News yesterday that over 200,000 registered voters in Wisconsin were turned away last November and examples of other issues in North Carolina, Florida and other states suggests otherwise.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Ha! Love it, about time.

I can't stand Hillary but that entire thing was handled poorly.

I read the termination letter and all true imo. This has been a long time coming, it took someone with guts to follow through on the right decision.