trump has now reached the point where the future of rosenstein is being publicly alluded to........they will now take it up step by step.......they intend to fire rosenstein.

Posted by dino27 on 3/18/2018 10:50:00 AM (view original):
the bengazi situation was blown way out of proportion.

I disagree. when you're caught lying about why a US ambassador was killed, that's a big deal.

abortion is so personal.......im not a bible believer as you all know but the bible actually provides for money for the death of a fetus...considering it a part of the woman and not an equal human being............for a long time ive been thinking that the age of viability should be earlier then the law has set it.......an embryo or a very young fetus is not a human being imo but if it was my fetus i would feel differently....that i know.

So Trump's pitching a fit (love that idiom) about Mueller's team of "hardened Democrats" investigating him, saying "the Mueller probe should never have been started in that there was no collusion and there was no crime."

Together, the comments raised the question once again about whether the president might be seeking to lay the groundwork to try to fire Mr. Mueller, a scenario that would almost surely set off a bipartisan storm of protest. Some Republicans expressed alarm on Sunday at the possibility that Mr. Trump would try to fire the special counsel.

Representative Trey Gowdy, Republican of South Carolina, said if the president was innocent, he should “act like it” and leave Mr. Mueller alone. Mr. Gowdy warned of dire repercussions if the president tried to fire the special counsel, which might require him to first fire his attorney general or deputy attorney general.“If he tried to do that, that would be the beginning of the end of his presidency, because we’re a rule-of-law nation,” Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, who has been an ally of the president, said on “State of the Union” on CNN. “When it comes to Mr. Mueller, he is following the evidence where it takes him, and I think it’s very important he be allowed to do his job without interference, and there are many Republicans who share my view.”

“The president’s going to have a really difficult time nominating and having approved another attorney general,” Mr. Gowdy said on “Fox News Sunday.” “I would just counsel the president — it’s going to be a very, very long, bad 2018, and it’s going to be distracting from other things that he wants to do and he was elected do. Let it play out its course. If you’ve done nothing wrong, you should want the investigation to be as fulsome and thorough as possible.”

The shift in tone comes just days after The New York Times reported that Mr. Mueller has subpoenaed records from the Trump Organization. Mr. Trump’s lawyers met with Mr. Mueller’s team last week and received more details about how the special counsel is approaching the investigation, including the scope of his interest in the Trump Organization specifically.

A president cannot directly fire a special counsel but instead can order his attorney general to do so, and even then has to give a cause like conflict of interest. Since Attorney General Jeff Sessions, a former campaign adviser, has recused himself from the Russia investigation, to Mr. Trump’s continuing aggravation, the job would then fall to the deputy attorney general, Rod J. Rosenstein.

But Mr. Rosenstein has said as recently as last week that he sees no justification for firing Mr. Mueller, meaning that he would either have to change his mind or be removed himself. The third-ranking official at the Justice Department, Rachel Brand, decided last month to step down. The next official in line would be the solicitor general, Noel Francisco, a former White House and Justice Department lawyer under Mr. Bush.

Love the Trey Gowdy comments especially. Even that goof gets it!

I've got to hand it to Trump, his presidency certainly does have yuge ratings, as promised. I tune in nearly every day! With other presidents I'd go weeks, sometimes months, without paying attention to what they were doing, because it was boring government stuff -- no porn stars, Twitter beefs, treason, etc. This is like a modern day Joseph Heller novel.

Posted by strikeout26 on 3/18/2018 12:21:00 AM (view original):
Admittedly, I read about half and then skimmed the rest, but it proves my point. I will probably read it more in-depth tomorrow. But Even the articles you post are heavily slanted to the left. I'm not knocking you for this. I think differing viewpoints are good for the country. It's keeps America from becoming to extreme in one direction or the other. I'm just saying that you have blind spots because of your politics.

I do too. I grew up in a very pro-republican household. I live in state that is almost completely republican. I coach a sport that is predominately republican. Those influences definitely affect my beliefs. As I've gotten older, I've come to realize that republicans are full of crap, but I think it's pretty obvious that I'm heavily conservative. I will never vote for a candidate that's pro-abortion and every time I see a sonogram of my 2nd child who is still in the womb, that conviction grows deeper, but I do at least attempt to take a step back and think through politics rationally.

I kinda figure every time Coach and I can come to an agreement on something it's like a giant example of hope for our Country as a whole, so............

Here's the deal Coach. You have every right to feel the way you do about abortion as exampled here : "I will never vote for a candidate that's pro-abortion and every time I see a sonogram of my 2nd child who is still in the womb, that conviction grows deeper"

BUT, it is completely wrong for you to be able to use politics to override the freedom(s) of some other American (young woman, usually) to choose what to do with their OWN lives and bodies. IF we allow you to do that, than society must allow ME to instill my values on YOU should I get the political power, albeit even IF it's only temporary. (I DOUBT many would want me deciding such things for THEM!)......... That's precisely WHY we have the specific clauses (freedoms) specified within the words of OUR Country's Constitution. The purpose is to protect MINORITY beliefs/ideas from the majority viewpoint............EVEN IF the majority viewpoint seems moral, or biblical, or purer somehow than the minority views.

Should a Rastafarian gain control of our government, that Rastafarian could NOT pass a requirement that everybody smoke weed! Might be a good idea to some, but none the less, the minority viewpoint (in that example) of abstinence from "God's Gift" to mankind (for reducing stress) is protected. NO one could MAKE you use Marijuana.. I kinda doubt you'd (somehow) want it any other way, Coach.

Preach Bob!

Exactamundo correct sir.

Posted by The Taint on 3/18/2018 12:04:00 AM (view original):

Posted by strikeout26 on 3/17/2018 11:57:00 PM (view original):

Posted by The Taint on 3/17/2018 11:32:00 PM (view original):

Posted by strikeout26 on 3/17/2018 10:56:00 PM (view original):
Obama may or may not have been able to prevent the deaths in Benghazi, but the fact that his appointees lied about what led to the attack for political gain is serious.

What has been debunked in fast and furious? It sounds like your liberal sources have been lying to you. They purposely allowed the guns in the hands of criminals. Almost 70 Americans died by someone using these guns including a border agent. It sounds like you're the one who is not thinking for yourself.

Dont forget, I don't support the Republican Party. I am not defending them or Trump. I understand Bush was a bad president and got us in a war that we had no business in. It still doesn't make what Obama did right.

You throw accusations out that that I don't think for myself, but your thoughts are in partisan lockstep.

As I disclaimer, I think you are smart, but you're blinded by politics. My mom is a retired geneticist at Emory University. She is very intelligent, but I see the same in her at times. She gets caught up in what Fox News or other republican sources say and forgets to use common sense.

I'll get to some of this in a bit, but for now: I've voted for a Republican governor in the state I live in 2 out of 3 times. In the presidential elections, I've voted for:

Bush I
Bush I
Dole
Bush II
Kerry
Obama
Obama
Clinton



Does that say blinded by partisan politics to you? I've gotten smarter as I've gotten older is all.

Voting for one crooked person that only looks out for her self interest over another does not make you smarter. I'm sure you have gained insight through age, but voting for Hillary over Trump is not a good example of this.

I have no evidence that you voted the way that you say you did. I believe you because you haven't given me any reason to not trust you yet. Saying that, your rhetoric on here points to someone who works along party lines.

If you think Hillary would be worse for America than what is happening now with Trump, you should never be allowed to vote again. The entire truth is coming and you will all be ashamed.

This is such a compelling statement for me. Because the deal is this (for ME) I HOPE to hell Taint (and me) are wrong about our views/fears/observations of character regarding Mr. Trump and his abilities/intelligence and stewardship of our Country. But I'm not hopeful about being wrong, and my past experience with observing these types of matters (Nixon, for just one!) makes me VERY concerned that the majority of OUR voting electorate was seduced/sedated/fooled/dumbed into voting for a neer-do-well BIGLY Crook, (and maybe traitor!) who will (soon?) bring about the greatest Constitutional crisis this Country has ever known. He's already destroyed a large portion of belief in one of the more important CHECKS on Gov't....... a Free Press...... by his constant ridicule, Fake News LIES, etc. Folks, it AIN'T Fake News just because Trump doesn't like the reporting!!!

My fear is that people seem so unwilling to accept the gravity of the error in their judgment and continue to support this "freak of virtual populism" even as he starts leading us OFF THE Cliff into Facism (and worse!) by his actions, actions like instilling the death penalty on "drug dealers", ordering (limited) Nuclear strikes on NK, etc. I believe the man is a seriously deranged moron/traitor/wannabe Hitler (just like his Daddy?).....but I pray I'm wrong.

You're not wrong.

If you can't see it, you don't want to see it and are complicit in what is happening.

Posted by crazystengel on 3/18/2018 1:01:00 PM (view original):
So Trump's pitching a fit (love that idiom) about Mueller's team of "hardened Democrats" investigating him, saying "the Mueller probe should never have been started in that there was no collusion and there was no crime."

Together, the comments raised the question once again about whether the president might be seeking to lay the groundwork to try to fire Mr. Mueller, a scenario that would almost surely set off a bipartisan storm of protest. Some Republicans expressed alarm on Sunday at the possibility that Mr. Trump would try to fire the special counsel.

Representative Trey Gowdy, Republican of South Carolina, said if the president was innocent, he should “act like it” and leave Mr. Mueller alone. Mr. Gowdy warned of dire repercussions if the president tried to fire the special counsel, which might require him to first fire his attorney general or deputy attorney general.“If he tried to do that, that would be the beginning of the end of his presidency, because we’re a rule-of-law nation,” Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, who has been an ally of the president, said on “State of the Union” on CNN. “When it comes to Mr. Mueller, he is following the evidence where it takes him, and I think it’s very important he be allowed to do his job without interference, and there are many Republicans who share my view.”

“The president’s going to have a really difficult time nominating and having approved another attorney general,” Mr. Gowdy said on “Fox News Sunday.” “I would just counsel the president — it’s going to be a very, very long, bad 2018, and it’s going to be distracting from other things that he wants to do and he was elected do. Let it play out its course. If you’ve done nothing wrong, you should want the investigation to be as fulsome and thorough as possible.”

The shift in tone comes just days after The New York Times reported that Mr. Mueller has subpoenaed records from the Trump Organization. Mr. Trump’s lawyers met with Mr. Mueller’s team last week and received more details about how the special counsel is approaching the investigation, including the scope of his interest in the Trump Organization specifically.

A president cannot directly fire a special counsel but instead can order his attorney general to do so, and even then has to give a cause like conflict of interest. Since Attorney General Jeff Sessions, a former campaign adviser, has recused himself from the Russia investigation, to Mr. Trump’s continuing aggravation, the job would then fall to the deputy attorney general, Rod J. Rosenstein.

But Mr. Rosenstein has said as recently as last week that he sees no justification for firing Mr. Mueller, meaning that he would either have to change his mind or be removed himself. The third-ranking official at the Justice Department, Rachel Brand, decided last month to step down. The next official in line would be the solicitor general, Noel Francisco, a former White House and Justice Department lawyer under Mr. Bush.

Love the Trey Gowdy comments especially. Even that goof gets it!

I've got to hand it to Trump, his presidency certainly does have yuge ratings, as promised. I tune in nearly every day! With other presidents I'd go weeks, sometimes months, without paying attention to what they were doing, because it was boring government stuff -- no porn stars, Twitter beefs, treason, etc. This is like a modern day Joseph Heller novel.

EVEN THAT GOOF GETS IT - love it.

Posted by laramiebob on 3/18/2018 1:11:00 PM (view original):

Posted by strikeout26 on 3/18/2018 12:21:00 AM (view original):
Admittedly, I read about half and then skimmed the rest, but it proves my point. I will probably read it more in-depth tomorrow. But Even the articles you post are heavily slanted to the left. I'm not knocking you for this. I think differing viewpoints are good for the country. It's keeps America from becoming to extreme in one direction or the other. I'm just saying that you have blind spots because of your politics.

I do too. I grew up in a very pro-republican household. I live in state that is almost completely republican. I coach a sport that is predominately republican. Those influences definitely affect my beliefs. As I've gotten older, I've come to realize that republicans are full of crap, but I think it's pretty obvious that I'm heavily conservative. I will never vote for a candidate that's pro-abortion and every time I see a sonogram of my 2nd child who is still in the womb, that conviction grows deeper, but I do at least attempt to take a step back and think through politics rationally.

I kinda figure every time Coach and I can come to an agreement on something it's like a giant example of hope for our Country as a whole, so............

Here's the deal Coach. You have every right to feel the way you do about abortion as exampled here : "I will never vote for a candidate that's pro-abortion and every time I see a sonogram of my 2nd child who is still in the womb, that conviction grows deeper"

BUT, it is completely wrong for you to be able to use politics to override the freedom(s) of some other American (young woman, usually) to choose what to do with their OWN lives and bodies. IF we allow you to do that, than society must allow ME to instill my values on YOU should I get the political power, albeit even IF it's only temporary. (I DOUBT many would want me deciding such things for THEM!)......... That's precisely WHY we have the specific clauses (freedoms) specified within the words of OUR Country's Constitution. The purpose is to protect MINORITY beliefs/ideas from the majority viewpoint............EVEN IF the majority viewpoint seems moral, or biblical, or purer somehow than the minority views.

Should a Rastafarian gain control of our government, that Rastafarian could NOT pass a requirement that everybody smoke weed! Might be a good idea to some, but none the less, the minority viewpoint (in that example) of abstinence from "God's Gift" to mankind (for reducing stress) is protected. NO one could MAKE you use Marijuana.. I kinda doubt you'd (somehow) want it any other way, Coach.

i am the walrus - everybody smoke pot - the beatles.

i dont think anyone is pro- abortion.....pro-choice is different.

in his wildest dreams putin could never imagine that the unites states would become so weak...walking in ****......the shame and danger of the free world...to put it mildly......we went from real life to a comic book.

Posted by laramiebob on 3/18/2018 1:11:00 PM (view original):

Posted by strikeout26 on 3/18/2018 12:21:00 AM (view original):
Admittedly, I read about half and then skimmed the rest, but it proves my point. I will probably read it more in-depth tomorrow. But Even the articles you post are heavily slanted to the left. I'm not knocking you for this. I think differing viewpoints are good for the country. It's keeps America from becoming to extreme in one direction or the other. I'm just saying that you have blind spots because of your politics.

I do too. I grew up in a very pro-republican household. I live in state that is almost completely republican. I coach a sport that is predominately republican. Those influences definitely affect my beliefs. As I've gotten older, I've come to realize that republicans are full of crap, but I think it's pretty obvious that I'm heavily conservative. I will never vote for a candidate that's pro-abortion and every time I see a sonogram of my 2nd child who is still in the womb, that conviction grows deeper, but I do at least attempt to take a step back and think through politics rationally.

I kinda figure every time Coach and I can come to an agreement on something it's like a giant example of hope for our Country as a whole, so............

Here's the deal Coach. You have every right to feel the way you do about abortion as exampled here : "I will never vote for a candidate that's pro-abortion and every time I see a sonogram of my 2nd child who is still in the womb, that conviction grows deeper"

BUT, it is completely wrong for you to be able to use politics to override the freedom(s) of some other American (young woman, usually) to choose what to do with their OWN lives and bodies. IF we allow you to do that, than society must allow ME to instill my values on YOU should I get the political power, albeit even IF it's only temporary. (I DOUBT many would want me deciding such things for THEM!)......... That's precisely WHY we have the specific clauses (freedoms) specified within the words of OUR Country's Constitution. The purpose is to protect MINORITY beliefs/ideas from the majority viewpoint............EVEN IF the majority viewpoint seems moral, or biblical, or purer somehow than the minority views.

Should a Rastafarian gain control of our government, that Rastafarian could NOT pass a requirement that everybody smoke weed! Might be a good idea to some, but none the less, the minority viewpoint (in that example) of abstinence from "God's Gift" to mankind (for reducing stress) is protected. NO one could MAKE you use Marijuana.. I kinda doubt you'd (somehow) want it any other way, Coach.

GREAT point Bob. I applaud your infinite wisdom.