What happened to the democrat party? What made you turn on America?

Loading

 

democrats somehow have collectively suffered brain damage. I can’t think of another reason for their bizarre insane actions and blanket hypocrisy. Donald Trump needs not ridicule them. He only needs to emphasize what they are doing to themselves. To wit:

2013: Adam Schiff wants more transparency at the FISA court.

When intelligence agencies want a wiretap, they have to make a case to one of the 11 judges of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance – or FISA – court. Since September 11, 2001, that data includes phone records and websites surfed by both foreigners and Americans.

Burbank Democrat Adam Schiff has introduced a measure that would make the court more transparent by requiring it to declassify its interpretation of law. He says the court makes some very important decisions, “some of them deep constitutional issues, and I think it would help inform the public debate and I think we can do it in a way that doesn’t compromise national  security.”

The bill has bipartisan support. A similar bill — backed by a progressive and a Tea Party supporter — has been introduced in the  Senate.

2019- More transparency in the FISA court would be dangerous

May 2019- Nancy Pelosi claims she never said there was not a crisis on the border:

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) falsely claimed Wednesday that Democrats have “never” denied that there is a “crisis” on the U.S.-Mexico border — a statement directly contradicted by the words of multiple party leaders just months ago.

“Well, let me just say this. We have never not said that there was a crisis — there is a humanitarian crisis at the border, and some of it provoked by the actions taken by the administration,” Pelosi stated during her weekly press conference in the Capitol Visitor Center on Wednesday.

Pelosi- Three months ago:

“It’s important to note when the president declares this emergency, first of all, it’s not an emergency what’s happening at the border. It’s a humanitarian challenge to us. The president has tried to sell a bill of goods to the American people.”

2006; Joe Biden on the illegal alien invasion:

Folks, I voted for a fence, I voted, unlike most Democrats — and some of you won’t like it — I voted for 700 miles of fence. But, let me tell you, we can build a fence 40 stories high — unless you change the dynamic in Mexico and — and you will not like this, and punish American employers who knowingly violate the law when, in fact, they hire illegals. Unless you do those two things, all the rest is window dressing.

And

“And let me tell you something folks, people are driving across that border with tons, tons, hear me, tons of everything from byproducts for methamphetamine to cocaine to heroin and it’s all coming up through corrupt Mexico,” Biden said.

Biden 2007:

Former Vice President and 2020 Democrat presidential primary candidate Joe Biden (D-DE) previously vowed to ban sanctuary cities across the United States that shield illegal aliens from deportation.

During a September 2007 Democrat presidential primary debate in New Hampshire at Dartmouth College, Biden said he would not support allowing local jurisdictions and states to ignore federal immigration law to help protect illegal aliens from deportation through sanctuary city policies.

The former Delaware senator even went as far as to criticize President George W. Bush’s administration for allowing sanctuary cities to operate in the U.S.

Biden 2014:

You know, the 11 million people living in the shadows, I believe they’re already American citizens. Teddy Roosevelt said it better, he said Americanism is not a question of birthplace or creed or a line of dissent. It’s a question of principles, idealism, and character. [Emphasis added]

These people are just waiting, waiting for a chance to be able to contribute fully. And by that standard, 11 million undocumented aliens are already Americans.

Biden 2019:

“I think that anyone who is in a situation where they’re in need of health care, regardless of whether they are documented or undocumented, we have an obligation to see that they are cared for,” Biden said. “That’s why I think we need more clinics around the country.”

The former vice president added that we need to “tone down the rhetoric” against illegals and that worries over illegal immigration are meant to “create fear and concern” about “that other, the immigrant.”

Using YOUR money, of course.

Liberals: Donald Trump is a threat to the free press.

Macleans: Donald Trump is a threat to the press and to freedom of speech

When the president attacks credible news sources as “fake news” and calls them the “enemy of the American people,” he encourages his mob of mouth-frothing supplicants to insult, dismiss, and even threaten members of the press. When he attacks journalists who challenge him, he undermines trust in the fourth estate and threatens free speech—at least the speech of those who disagree with him (also known as a majority of Americans). The impulse to dismiss the press as biased and propagandistic is authoritarian at its core. The practice is chilling.

It matters very little whether Trump is attacking the press as part of a deliberate strategy to extend his authority, to distract from his failures, or because he’s a narcissistic ass who can’t help himself—or some combination of the three. The effect of his attacks are serious and dangerous. There are malign influences surrounding the president who are prepared to seize their moment regardless of his intent. There are disaffected and angry mobs who support the man and are prepared to harass his “enemies” and their own no matter what Trump intends. And even if the current occupant of the Oval Office turns out to be a minor infection of the body politic, he might clear the way for a much more dangerous pathogen to follow him.

Newsweek: DONALD TRUMP’S THREAT TO PRESS FREEDOM: WHY IT MATTERS

Less than a month before the U.S. presidential election, the Committee to Protect Journalists issued an unprecedented statement denouncing the then-Republican nominee. “[Donald] Trump has insulted and vilified the press and has made his opposition to the media a centerpiece of his campaign,” said the committee, a New York-based organization that promotes press freedom. “A Trump presidency would represent a threat to press freedom in the United States.”

With little more than two months before Trump takes the oath of office, the threat to the media—and the public’s right to know—is reality. However, President-elect Trump may find a thicket of laws and Supreme Court precedents limit his maneuvering—slight comfort for those working to protect a free press.

The Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ)

Donald Trump, through his words and actions as a candidate for president of the United States, has consistently betrayed First Amendment values. On October 6, CPJ’s board of directors passed a resolution declaring Trump an unprecedented threat to the rights of journalists and to CPJ’s ability to advocate for press freedom around the world.

Since the beginning of his candidacy, Trump has insulted and vilified the press and has made his opposition to the media a centerpiece of his campaign. Trump has routinely labeled the press as “dishonest” and “scum” and singled out individual news organizations and journalists.

What has Trump done, other than hurt their feelings?

Nothing. In contrast, when it came to actually taking action against the press, obama makes Trump look like a rookie:

In 2009, for example, the Obama White House intentionally excluded Fox News’ Chris Wallace from participating in a round of interviews pertaining to the president’s push for healthcare reform. Later that same year, the administration officials tried to block Fox reporters from interviewing “pay czar” Kenneth Feinberg. The White House initially lied about this, and many in the press went along with it. It wasn’t until 2011 that the public learned the truth of the Feinberg episode. An internal email dated Oct. 22, 2009, showed the White House director of broadcast media told Treasury officials specifically, “We’d prefer if you skip Fox please.”

The bigger point is that Feinberg was not the only administration official to have his network appearances limited by the White House.

The Obama White House communications director, Anita Dunn, said at the time, “We’re going to treat them the way we would treat an opponent. As they are undertaking a war against Barack Obama and the White House, we don’t need to pretend that this is the way that legitimate news organizations behave.”

That language about “legitimate news organizations” and “opponents” is only different from the things Trump says by degree, not by kind.

In 2010, the Obama administration renewed the bogus Bush-era subpoena against the New York Times’ James Risen in a prolonged attempt to determine whether the reporter was the recipient of leaked CIA information. In February 2011, federal investigators were revealed to have spied on Risen. Federal investigators pored over Risen’s credit reports and his personal bank records. The feds even tracked his phone logs and movements.

Later, in 2012, Fox was mysteriously excluded from a White House conference call pertaining to the terrorist attacks on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya. Fox was also excluded from an all-network CIA briefing regarding the attacks.

In 2013, the Obama Justice Department labeled then-Fox News reporter James Rosen a “criminal co-conspirator” under the Espionage Act of 1917. And all because the reporter used a State Department contractor as a source for a story. Rosen was also labeled a “flight risk.”

The Justice Department seized the records of at least five phone lines connected to Fox News. The federal law enforcement agency even seized the phone records of Rosen’s parents. The FBI also got a warrant to search Rosen’s emails from 2010.

In May 2013, the Associated Press revealed that the Justice Department had secretly collected two months’ worth of personal and work-related phone calls made by AP reporters and editors.

Federal officials secretly obtained records on incoming and outgoing calls made by specific AP journalists, as well as general news staff, the news group reported, potentially compromising many sources totally unrelated to the investigation. Federal investigators even collected data on calls made by AP reporters in the House of Representatives press gallery.

In 2014, the Obama administration set the record for denying the most Freedom of Information Act requests of any administration. It topped this feat in 2015.

But somehow, actually throttling, spying and jailing the free press was just fine when it was obama. And that new Mayor of San Francisco is no slouch when it comes to suppression of the press:

Oddly enough, many of the same journalists who have spent the last three years resisting the White House’s supposed war on the newsroom (which, incidentally, has landed them plush media profiles and lucrative book deals and speaking gigs) have not had a lot to say this week about San Francisco Mayor London Breed’s endorsement of her police department’s flagrant violations of freelancer Bryan Carmody’s First Amendment rights.

The New York Times reports this week:

When two San Francisco police officers knocked on Bryan Carmody’s door in April they politely requested that Mr. Carmody, a freelance videographer, reveal who had leaked a police report to him about themysterious death of the city’s public defender

“They were nice about it,” Mr. Carmody said. “Of course I said, ‘No, I’m not going to tell you guys.’” 

But when a dozen officers returned to his home on Friday, this time their guns were drawn and they came equipped with a search warrant, a sledgehammer and a battering ram.

Carmody claims he was restrained in handcuffs for nearly six hours as the authorities ransacked his home, seizing “laptops, phones and hard drives — including all the images and documents he had archived from his 29-year career as a reporter and cameraman,” the report adds.

And just when you think free speech is a good idea:

Trump’s Plan to Protect Free Speech on Campus Is a Bad Idea

Make up your minds, you idiot liberals.

Here’s Hollywood drama queen Jeff Daniels who’s overdosed on self-righteous pills since he’s now played Atticus Finch:

“I know these people; they’re good people,” Daniels continued. “And I think there are people in the Midwest, between the coasts, who don’t know anything about— who don’t care about this, who don’t have time for this, who have to make a decision now. You have to decide whether, like Atticus, you believe that there is still compassion, decency, civility, respect for others.”

“Your kids are looking up at you going, ‘But he lies,’” Daniels said, noting that people, particularly in the Midwest, might have had enough of Trump and are ready to move on.

“If the big gamble is to go all the way to November 2020, which I agree, and lose — it’s the end of democracy,” Daniels added.

Psst, hey Jeff. You’re not Atticus Finch. You’re an actor making believe. FYI.

Now they want open borders and want to drop the financial burden for millions of illegals on American citizens and their children.

Now they want murderers to vote.

Now they want to kill babies even after birth.

And late at night, Adam Schiff still dreams of getting his hands on those nude pictures of Donald Trump.

What happened to the democrat party? What caused them to take this wretched sharp left turn off the cliff? Why have they turned on America?

What caused them to lose their minds?

 

 

 

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
177 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

@another vet: We ALL know Trump attempted many times to obstruct justice—in some cases his people had the good sense to stop him–for which they earned his wrath—
If he was not POTUS??—-but of course he is—for now.

@another vet:

Because we determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgement, we did not draw ultimate conclusions about the President’s conduct.

Mueller determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgement because he was not allowed to charge a sitting president, per DoJ guidelines.

The evidence we obtained about the President’s actions and intent presents difficult issues that would need to be resolved if we were making a traditional prosecutorial judgement.

The difficult issues that would need to be resolved arose because he was not allowed to directly charge a sitting president with a crime, as per DoJ guidelines.

At the same time, if we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the President clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state. Based on the facts and applicable legal standards, we are unable to reach that judgement.

Based on the facts — specifically, that Mueller found ten instances of obstruction — and applicable legal standards — specifically, that he was not allowed to directly charge a sitting president with a crime, as per DoJ guidelines — he is unable to formally say that Trump committed a crime.

It would be unfair for Mueller to say that Trump committed a crime, since Trump would be unable to address the accusation in a court of law, because directly charging a sitting president with a crime and bringing him to trial is not allowed under DoJ guidelines.

Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.

He can’t formally conclude that the president committed a crime because he’s not allowed to (since he can’t legally charge a sitting president with a crime); he doesn’t exonerate Trump because there are ten instances of obstruction detailed in Volume II of the report.

Your original statement was a L I E.

The fact that you don’t understand the situation (or pretend not to) =/= Rich Wheeler lying.

@Michael: Exactly

Was Trump lying when he claimed he was “totally exonerated.”
The sad part—He lies so much, for many it’s become–that’s just Trump being Trump.
Should this be accepted from The President Of The United States?

@Richard Wheeler:

We ALL know Trump attempted many times to obstruct justice

No, actually we know no such thing. Some merely cling to that accusation 8nstead of accepting the facts.

@Deplorable Me:

8nstead of accepting the facts.

Two basic facts that you have been unwilling to accept are that a) Mueller was not allowed to charge Trump with a crime because of a DoJ rule, and b) that he would abide by that rule. You’ve consistently asserted that if he had found that Trump had broken the law, Mueller would have violated the DoJ rule. There’s no reason to assume that would be the case, except, maybe, for projection on your part.

@Michael: The primary overriding fact is that IF Mueller had the evidence to claim Trump committed obstruction, he WOULD have. He didn’t, so he couldn’t.

@Deplorable Me: Just like all the VN vets despise Trump. Zero proof. Only opinion stated as fact. The behavior of the Obamamites will only get more desperate and unhinged as the facts come out as to how this all got started. It’s already looking like the political spying started around 2012 well before Trump. If PT was smart, he’d declassify all of that as well just to show that he was but one of many who was spied on for political reasons by a weaponized government.

@Deplorable Me:

Michael and our resident Manchurian candidate Marine are trying to compare apples to oranges.

1) If Mueller had made the decision that the President DID obstruct his investigation, he could have stated that quite clearly. Precedent has already been set by the USSC on what constitutes “obstruction” in a very famous case that saw Andrew Weissman, Mueller’s hit man, send four innocent men to prison. Mueller would knows the guidelines set out by the USSC.

2) The rule that a president cannot be indicted has never been challenged. Mueller could have recommended indictment and allowed it to be dragged out in the USSC. He did not.

3) Mueller took the coward’s way out, did not make a binary decision (which he was required to do) and left it up to Barr and Rosenstein to deal with. i.e. Mueller abdicated his job.

4) Part 2 of the Mueller report violates National Bar Association rules, as I have provided previously. IMHO, Mueller should be disbarred for dereliction of judicial standards. Nor did he follow DOJ protocol when forming his report. Another violation I’m sure Mueller (who doesn’t seem to want to testify to the Congress) would be asked about by a number of the very good lawyers who sit on that Congressional committee.

@Deplorable Me:

The primary overriding fact is that IF Mueller had the evidence to claim Trump committed obstruction, he WOULD have.

No, he wouldn’t. Why do you not believe that he would follow the guidelines of the organization he works for?

@Michael:

Why do you not believe that he would follow the guidelines of the organization he works for?

BECAUSE THAT WAS THE WHOLE PURPOSE OF THE TWO YEAR, $34 MILLION INVESTIGATION. Without the investigation, we already knew maybe he obstructed or maybe he didn’t; we didn’t need a team of liberals sycophants to tell us that. What they were SUPPOSED to do was determine if any crime had been committed.

Specifically, to serve the liberal agenda, the purpose was to FIND a crime had been committed, so it would not serve that agenda to find, based on all the evidence, that Trump committed no crimes (which, if you pay close attention to the details, is EXACTLY what was discovered and reported). So, their bottom line “conclusion” was “Well, WE couldn’t find any collusion or obstruction… and neither could the FBI… and neither could the Senate, but that doesn’t mean it’s not there. Pull everyone in and ask them the questions again, because doing the same thing over again makes PERFECT sense.”

No collusion. No obstruction. Just Democrat sedition.

@retire05: What the meandering declaration of the Mueller report actually means is that they WANTED to declare they found obstruction… REAL BAD… but they would be laughed out of any court basing such a finding on the evidence they had, particularly when it is surrounded by the blatantly false attempt to smear Trump with collusion. So, they did the next best thing, from the liberal perspective; they said, “Well… maybe.”

3) Mueller took the coward’s way out, did not make a binary decision (which he was required to do) and left it up to Barr and Rosenstein to deal with. i.e. Mueller abdicated his job.

In the same way Comey took the coward’s way out with the Hillary investigation; they are so afraid of bringing the wrath of hateful, spiteful, spoiled Democrats down upon themselves that they trample all over the law and justice to avoid it. Utter cowards.

@Deplorable Me:

their bottom line “conclusion” was “Well, WE couldn’t find any collusion or obstruction… and neither could the FBI… and neither could the Senate, but that doesn’t mean it’s not there. Pull everyone in and ask them the questions again, because doing the same thing over again makes PERFECT sense.”

That’s not the conclusion of the report at all, in any way. The two sides of the issue are looking at the same words and developing diametrically-opposed interpretations about it.

Mueller’s upcoming testimony has the potential for clarifying the misconceptions that one side or the other has in this matter. If Mueller testifies and says, “I thought I’d made myself clear in the report: there was no obstruction that can reasonably be addressed in any way, either by the DoJ or Congress,” I’ll drop my assertions about the report. If, on the other hand, Mueller testifies and says something on the order of, “I found obstruction, and I detailed instances in my report, but I couldn’t legally charge the president, so I left it up to Congress to impeach him,” will you accept that and change your tune?

@retire05:

2) The rule that a president cannot be indicted has never been challenged. Mueller could have recommended indictment and allowed it to be dragged out in the USSC. He did not.

He could have, but first of all, not everyone wants to challenge every rule. Second of all, Mueller believed that an avenue for addressing Trump’s obstruction still existed, and that the appropriate body to do so was Congress. If a method for getting the job done was already written into the Constitution, why mount some kind of quixotic legal challenge to the DoJ rules?

@Deplorable Me:

“We determined not to apply an approach that could potentially result in a judgment that the President committed crimes. Fairness concerns counseled against potentially reaching that judgment when no charges can be brought. The ordinary means for an individual to respond to an accusations is through a speedy and public trial, with all the procedural protections that surround a criminal case. An individual who believes he was wrongfully accused can use that process to seek to clear his name. In contrast, a prosecutor’s judgment that crimes were committed, but that no charges will be brought, affords no such adversarial opportunity for public name-clearing before an impartial adjudicator. The concerns about the fairness of such a determination would be heightened in the case of a sitting President, where a federal prosecutor’s accusations of a crime, even in an internal report, could carry consequence that extend beyond the realm of criminal justice.”

Mueller used Part 2 of his tome to slander the President knowing that the President would have no opportunity to clear his name even through a trial in the Senate after the Congress impeached. Mueller knows the Senate will never convict the President of “high crimes and misdemeanors.”

What Mueller did was give the Democrat held Congress fodder for more and more investigations that will never result in removal of the President.

Mueller is a [swamp] player (always has been) and while the left on this board will remind us all that he is supposed to be a “Republican,” Mueller knows that as long as Trump is president, his federal career is now over. Rumors have it that Mueller longs to be head of the FBI again, a possibility that does not exist under Trump.

@retire05: On the other hand, a whitewash–er exoneration of his fellow Republican, would very possibly get this decorated combat Marine that very appointment, in a second term he’d helped to facilitate.

@Richard Wheeler:

Dream on, Wheeler. Mueller is about as slimy as they come. He, and Andrew Weismann, who should be been drummed out of the federal government a long time ago.

Here is a fact for you: the President has the right, got that, the right to fire a special prosecutor. Trump may have ranted to his White House counsel to fire Mueller, but he could have done it himself, and he would have been advised of that authority. At that point, the AG would appoint a replacement. Mueller was not fired and Barr presented the Mueller report just as Mueller wrote it.

Mueller knew he didn’t want to recommend prosecution, so he wrote Part 2 to smear the President, knowing Trump could not formally defend himself. He also knows that Trump would not be removed by a trial in the Senate, so he did what he did, smear the president and give fodder to the Democrats.

Now, tell me this; when is Adam Shiff-for-brains going to reveal the evidence he claimed to have that proved Trump “colluded” with the Russians that he never bothered to provide to Robert Mueller?

@retire05: Precisely as you have done here in the past, you have provided a quote from the Mueller report that supports my case instead of your own.

The parts you highlighted in boldface type go directly to the point I made about why Mueller didn’t come out and say that Trump committed a crime: since DoJ rules forbid indicting him, it would be unfair of Mueller to publicly accuse him of breaking the law, since Trump would have no legal venue to fight the charge.

Thanks, I guess, for making my point for me.

So it begs the question—was Trump too cowardly, too smart, or just plain lucky to have not fired Mueller himself?

@retire05:

Mueller knew he didn’t want to recommend prosecution, so he wrote Part 2 to smear the President, knowing Trump could not formally defend himself.

Hold it. I thought that your reading of Volume 2 is that it specifically shows that crimes were not committed. How can that be a smear? You can’t have it both ways.

He also knows that Trump would not be removed by a trial in the Senate, so he did what he did, smear the president and give fodder to the Democrats.

Are you under the impression that Mueller was told something like, “Only submit a report if you’re sure the president will be removed from office”? Because that’s what you’re saying adds up to.

@Michael:

That’s not the conclusion of the report at all, in any way. The two sides of the issue are looking at the same words and developing diametrically-opposed interpretations about it.

Yes, it actually is. It’s simply that die-hard sore losers as yourself can’t accept the facts.

If Mueller testifies and says, “I thought I’d made myself clear in the report: there was no obstruction that can reasonably be addressed in any way, either by the DoJ or Congress,”

But that’s not his political job. His political job was to FIND a crime. He didn’t; he couldn’t. There was none… well, other than the crimes committed by the Democrats. But, since he was SUPPOSED to incriminate Trump, he had to say, “we almost found it; he almost did it. But he didn’t, so we couldn’t. But, I bet he had very evil thoughts. Persecute THAT.”

If there had been obstruction, he would have SAID there was obstruction. There wasn’t, so he didn’t.

“I found obstruction, and I detailed instances in my report, but I couldn’t legally charge the president, so I left it up to Congress to impeach him,” will you accept that and change your tune?

No, because if he HAD found obstruction, he would have clearly said so and we could not possibly be arguing the fact. It would be inarguable. He didn’t, so he couldn’t. And you can’t accept the facts.

@retire05:

What Mueller did was give the Democrat held Congress fodder for more and more investigations that will never result in removal of the President.

And without true, actual commissions of impeachable acts, that is all they have. Their only hope is to maintain an aura of guilt through endless false accusations and investigations. Then maybe… JUST MAYBE… Trump may actually do something in the process that is actually impeachable.

@Richard Wheeler:

So it begs the question—was Trump too cowardly, too smart, or just plain lucky to have not fired Mueller himself?

He was too smart. The Democrats knew they had no evidence, no crimes, no collusion, no obstruction, so the best they can do is to try and provoke Trump into actually doing something wrong. He has totally outsmarted and outmaneuvered them; but, they ARE idiots, so it’s not that great an accomplishment.

Where do YOU think all the mountains of readily available evidence that was right at the Democrat’s fingertips went? How could all that evidence have just disappeared at the exact moment Mueller’s report was released? Any ideas?

@Deplorable Me: You are in the tank Dep—-He told McGahn to fire Mueller–his lawyer, obviously smarter than Con Don, said NO—Then Trump berates and fires him

Correct answers were A–too cowardly AND
C–just plain lucky

@Richard Wheeler:

He told McGahn to fire Mueller–his lawyer, obviously smarter than Con Don, said NO—

Have you ever said anything you didn’t mean? Oh, that’s right, I forgot that you are of the opinion you are perfect.

Trump knew he was innocent of the “collusion” claims. McGahn didn’t have to fire Mueller. Trump could have if he really wanted to.

@Deplorable Me:

You are wasting your time with Michael and the Manchurian candidate Marine. Their minds are like steel traps; locked solidly shut to any rational thought about Trump.

@retire05: That is the weakest defense of Trump you’ve ever given 05
He told McGahn to fire Mueller but he didn’t mean it? How many other things has DT said that he doesn’t mean?
McGahn saved Trump’s ass and in true bully/ cowardly fashion—Trump fired him.

The Manchurian Candidate 1962 with Sinatra and Harvey a truly great movie.
2004 remake–not so good

@Richard Wheeler:

That is the weakest defense of Trump you’ve ever given 05

Excuse me if I don’t consider you the expert on my statements.

He told McGahn to fire Mueller but he didn’t mean it? How many other things has DT said that he doesn’t mean?

I already accounted for the fact that you seem to think you are perfect. I’m sure you never lost your temper (especially when being wrongly accused of something you did not do) and say something you really didn’t mean in the heat of the moment.

McGahn saved Trump’s ass and in true bully/ cowardly fashion—Trump fired him.

McGahn served at the pleasure of the President. So what if he fired McGahn? In your mind, not firing Mueller is the only reason possible.

You know, RW, I was not a happy camper when Obama was elected. I believe he is a Socialist (I do know he belonged to the Green Party at one time) but when he was elected I had hoped that he could do at least one thing; bring about racial calm. After all, Obama is bi-racial. But racial tensions got worse under Obama (following Saul Alinsky’s plan). He couldn’t even do that. After 8 years, the economy was not much better, with less than 2% GDP being the new normal, Obamacare was a proven disaster, Gitmo still up and running, the list goes on. Yet, you cannot find ONE time where I slandered Obama like you have slandered Trump. And frankly, I am sick of it.

Let’s see Nancy Pelosi’s taxes. Or Mad Max[ine] Water’s taxes since she was once listed as the most crooked politician in D.C. Or how about an investigation into Hunter Biden’s Chinese deals? Hello? Elijah Cummings? Maybe an investigation into why Dianne Feinstein is meeting with the Iranians, her and John Kerry (proven traitor) both, without State Department approval?

You never address what your Party is doing. All you can do, in your Loonafornia damaged brain, is slander Trump. Hell, you can’t even give him credit for helping vets with the VA mess. I do believe you suffer from a mental disorder, TDS. But hey, get back to me when you start demanding answers of your side. Since you voted for Bernie Sanders, I guess we all know where you stand politically.

@retire05: TDS was preceded by ODS and before that BDS and CDS.
The good thing about these maladies is they last for 4 -8 years and then generally disappear—the nature of the American political system.
I believe Trump will be defeated in 2 years and TDS will dissipate —There ars still those right here with ODS blaming

Obama for a myriad of ills ,some real mostly imagined.
Barr wil open a new investigation of the investigators—he’ll be the republicans Mueller—we’ll see

I give the Trump admin credit —with kudos to Mattis and Kelly–for keeping us out of major conflicts and casualties and beating down ISIS–I have been treated well by the VA so won’t comment on possible improvement.

Cal Dem primary gave me choice of Sanders or Clinton. I voted against Clinton there and again in G.E—As mentioned I’ve watched DT many years running as a Dem , Indie and Reform–I’ve never voted for him and quite sure I never will. The stuff he says on a daily basis-Isimply find laughable-not worthy of slander

Re Slander you’re no stranger–you’ve slandered Mueller, Obama, Clinton, FDR the Kennedy’s’, Sanders and more-

Hope all had a great Memorial weekend
Semper Fi

@Richard Wheeler:

Cal Dem primary gave me choice of Sanders or Clinton. I voted against Clinton there and again in G.E

Well, Wheeler, just how did you vote against Clinton in the G.E. since there was only two names on that ballot, Clinton and Trump?

I’ve watched DT many years running as a Dem , Indie and Reform

Really? Run for what? Trump never ran for ANY office before 2016. And remember, while you pump up Biden, Biden was once a moderate Democrat who supported border protection but now he’s running as just another radical run of the mill Socialist. Trump went to the right, Biden’s hooked a hard left.

Re Slander you’re no stranger–you’ve slandered Mueller, Obama, Clinton, FDR the Kennedy’s’, Sanders and more-

Again really? Show us all where I “slandered” Obama or Clinton. Which Clinton? If it is Bill, I have said before I think I would enjoy having a beer with him (for me it would be a Coke). And I think I would. Would I let him get close to my daughter? Hell, no, not him or Biden. Mueller is part of the swamp, always has been; FDR was a Socialist; the Kennedys were as immoral as you can get with their personal lives in a day when morality was expected (what other Senator ever killed a woman and got by with it?) all the while the American press knew but hid what JFK did (can you imagine the American press hiding it if Trump was having trysts with hookers in Vegas) and Sanders? He’s just another run of the mill Communist. Fine bunch you support, Wheeler.

And don’t give me that “Semper Fi” crap when your side of the aisle would take us down the road to Communism if they could. Is that what you fought for? If you want to see where that will take us, look no further than your own state.

@Richard Wheeler:

@Deplorable Me: You are in the tank Dep—-He told McGahn to fire Mueller–his lawyer, obviously smarter than Con Don, said NO—Then Trump berates and fires him

Well, more specifically, truthfully and accurately, he asked McGahn to ask Rosenstein if they could find a way to fire Mueller. In other words, could it be done legally? So, now that you have been informed properly, I imagine your opinion has changed drastically.

Mueller SHOULD have been fired. He was abusing powers, especially in persecuting General Flynn just for some headlines and to try and get hims to lie against Trump. The only weasel he actually GOT to lie was Cohen and he has, since he went to jail anyway, moderated those lies… that maybe when Trump told him to “cooperate” with the investigation, he didn’t secretly mean “to lie”.

Where did that mountain of readily available evidence of collusion with Russia go, Rich? It was laying around all OVER the place! Every Democrat had access to it and touted it on the liberal media daily, calling Trump a traitor based on it. Where’d it go? How could so much “evidence” vanish all at once overnight? Don’t you wonder about that?

Maybe… just maybe… you are being LIED to, Rich.