Experts Say Mueller Will Soon Issue More Indictments

Trump is screwed...deal with it. He would happily have ripped you and granny off of your life savings at his bogus university so why do you care about this low-life enough to defend him? Seriously weird!

 

I would never of paid for Trump University. Many that were interested in real estate did, and many were very happy with it. http://fortune.com/2016/06/02/ex-students-defend-trump-university/

 

Shake your head all you want but the fact is all I did was ask a question to see if you know what YOU are talking about. Now, as far as an argument, yeah, he did lie but the lie was about what his job is. The torture part, while not the best PR look, in my opinion, was just doing what needed to be done. The "spying" on the computers is......well, not good but the reason is plausible.
What I find particularly amusing is the only link worthwhile you have is CNN, which you no doubt consider "fake news".....unless of course, it suits your purpose. In this case I'll say it's "fake news".......because it fits mine.
Kind of a strange game, don't you think?

 

Mueller crimes fit into 3 categories: process crimes that occurred after he was appointed; financial crimes unrelated to Russia investigation; crimes by non Americans. - Alan Dershowitz

... and he's right of course.

 

From the article you referred us to.

 

What's your point? Of course they do, they were clients of Trump University.

 

Its spelled out for you and you still don't get it? My god.

 

and why wouldn't he do business with former clients?

 

One of his bigies was testifying to the Senate that the CIA had never hacked into and spied on the Senate members computers. The CIA Inspector Generals report proved him wrong and he has since apologized. The Banana republic of Obama.

 

I have no idea why you think she isn't capable of the position.

She has been a US Senator, Secretary of State, and a much better and far more engaged First Lady than Melania (I have nothing against Melania).

She's actually one of the most experienced Presidential candidate ever to be nominated.

I have my issues with her, mainly regarding her management style. But I never doubted her competence. Just as I had little doubt that Trump lacked any.

 

In the words of James Carville to the Bush campaign.........."it's the economy stupid!"

 

There in lies the Democrat problem. When they give away massive amounts of free stuff, they can only do it in small areas, thereby limiting the much needed electoral votes.



In those enclaves, voter fraud can be controlled, buried or rolled out to make sure Democrats win in those areas.

 

Well, let's be fair and take the legislative out of the record(including the fatal support for the Iraq War which to be fair, she since had renounced.) Her tenure as Secretary of State(and as you said, management style) is everything that shows she wouldn't be too much better than Trump. Just, she's been cleared of any criminal wrongdoing and I acknowledge that. Doesn't change incompetence though.

And I don't mean Libya(except in the larger context of the Arab Spring.) As an advocate of foreign policy, in her OWN book she highlighted that we can't bring 'democracy' to the ME. So, what do they do? Arm a bunch of extremists, and try just that.

Haven't read too much news about Libya lately(not sure if that's a good thing or a bad thing) but the chaos that enveloped that particular situation showed it didn't succeed. ISIS arose out of our "arming" the rebels(and our pathetic attempt at hiding it.). Then of course, our failed attempt at regime change in Moscow brought about the 2016 elections.

So yeah, her record as SOS is anywhere from abysmal to a failure. Then John Kerry was even more ineffective.

That said, I largely recognize that the Presidency is a puppet position. So can she micromanage people, at least even a little better than actually making decisions herself? I think she'd leave the SCOTUS alone, for the most part. Upheaval in the courts would just be another divisive factor in America. Now that it's increasingly unlikely that the Courts can save Trump a political defeat, the only consequence is that it's a conservative SCOTUS.

And is that, a bad thing? I mean, we keep saying democracy and in a democracy we don't always get what we want. Isn't a conservative victory on some planks healthy to keep democracy health.

So yeah, I think(and this might set me back), she's a better puppet than Trump(And at least equal on the executive front.) and so even though I didn't want her in 2016, I think she's far better than Warren, Harris or any of these other disasters.

Also, Hillary has more respect for the first amendment of the Constitution(though that event barring newspeople was a bit jarring) than the other candidates combined.

We're poised to elect someone worse than Trump(I know, it's hard for you to fathom that.) But their economic policies and lack of commitment to the constitution is disastrous. I'm afraid of what they will do, 2020 and beyond.

 

Yes, he lied. Yes, he apologized but they also agreed that his reasons were valid.

 

When did John Brennan become a legal expert? Did he even go to law school??

 

Honestly, if Nixon had had the 'integrity' that some people think he had, he'd have stood his ground and demanded that the proof and evidence be brought forth against him with formal charges. Instead, he slipped away, stupidly waving "V's" at everybody. I completely despised him, even though I was already a Conservative Republican when all that Watergate crap went down.

On top of everything else, we can blame Richard Nixon for the fact that a blithering, incompetent idiot like Jimmuh Cawduh was ever elected to the presidency....

 

republicans have a weird sense of 'integrity'... he knew what he did was wrong, he knew they knew what he did was wrong, so he resigned - Nixon was a crook, but he was loyal to the party, which is why he resigned - that and of course it was the only way to get a Pardon from his VP

now we have Dirty Donald as President.. history repeats

 

No connection whatever. What are you even talking about...? Yes, "Nixon was crook", and he should have had to stand trial after being served with formal accusations and charges. But what's that got to do, forty-five years later, with Donald Trump? What's Donald Trump been charged with...?! Nothing?

Clearly, you have greatly overreached. Does that mean that Democrats have "a weird sense of integrity"...?!

 

"if Nixon had had the 'integrity' that some people think he had, he'd have stood his ground and demanded that the proof and evidence be brought forth against him with formal charges. Instead, he slipped away, stupidly waving "V's" at everybody. I completely despised him"

i say if your guilty and your caught, just give up, there is no "integrity" in continuing to lie and deny it - same goes for Dirty Donald...

your basically saying, yes Nixon was a crook, but your upset he was not President longer - you know as well as I do neither Nixon or Trump will do a day in jail for any crimes they may of committed as they are the president - the people are not supposed to know the President is above the law, thus why Nixon resigned, Trump could care less - Trump only cares about Trump - Nixon cared about his party

 

It gets worse.

DEEP STATE UPDATE:

A senior Treasury Department official pleaded not guilty in Manhattan federal court to charges that she disclosed sensitive financial transaction reports pertaining to multiple entities tied to President Donald Trump and Russia.

 

Uhh... Dirty Bob has submitted and there are no more indictments, so, you sure missed this one!

 

bwahahaha

 

So many witches. Sad!