No Solution

[kaz]

The butt hurt just drives you idiots to live in continual self delusion

An attack on our democracy and republican traitors blame everyone else but Putin their leaders friend

Look shit for brains.

When Mueller indicts a Russian, you crow it's indicting Trump. And you fight to block any investigation of Russians that doesn't involve Trump. You made up this stupid game, not me. Fuck you and grow up, stupid pussy

Got nothing to do with indicting trump you stupid MFer Get your head out of trumps ass

You're the one who voted for Trump, not me. Pull your head out of his ass.

As long as you conflate investigating Russians with Trump being guilty, stop whining, little girl. You don't care about the Russians

Voted for Trump?? I live in NY and know trump as the scumbag he always was and still is Never ..Worst I did was vote for GWB in 2000

I didn't vote for him either, dumb ass. That's how lame your crap is. You voted for Trump! As if I'm supposed to think anything other than wow, you're stupid.

What you are doing is obvious. Here's how it goes.

1) We aren't investigating Trump, we're investigating the Russians

2) Anything the Russians did is Trump's fault

3) So for non-Democrats and non-Trump supporters, you have to support us since we're investigating the Russians not Trump, and when we get the Russians you have to support us in bringing down Trump because we got the Russians and that's the same as getting Trump.

No, it's not. You're playing petty, childish, partisan hack games.

If you want to genuinely investigate the Russians wherever it leads across both parties, I'm in. But that isn't what you are doing. What you are doing is just a shallowly obvious get Trump scheme driven by your massive butt hurt

 

[OODA_Loop]

there are already indictments and guilty pleas to prove collusion between Trump's inner circle, i.e. family, has been proved.

Link ?

After 14 months of investigation (and for the second time in a formal indictment), the Justice Department has stated that it is not alleging any knowing collusion between Trump campaign officials or associates and the Russians. - Jonathon Turley

 

[EvilCat Breath]

Now trump is visiting our greatest adversary, knowing 12 russian spies have been indicted for hacking into our election ... He should tell putin give them up to us for trial or I'm going back home There are many on both sides that say he shouldn't go at all

The whole point of the ghost indictments was to derail the tslks.

 

[kaz]

IF investigating Russian involvement led to Trump colluding with the Russians all well and good His treatment of Putin leaves much to be desired

Anyone can make up scenarios. If Hillary was colluding with the Russians, she should be held accountable. Why are Democrats blocking investigating that?

Russians wanted chaos, not a particular winner. That you're making this a partisan witch hunt prevents them from being held accountable for that.

And Trump hasn't colluded with the Russians, he's been a lot harder on them than the suck up Obama who drew red lines and declared Russia an invader of the Crimea and didn't do shit about any of it

What should Obama have done? A holes like you criticized everything he did, imagine a war of choice with Russia; we're lucky Cheney and the Neo Cons were long gone by the time Russia began to play not nice.

POSTSCRIPT: Trump did collude with Russia, and the proof of that will be provided by the Mueller Investigation when their final report is released or when Trump begins to decompensate and fires everyone in the DOJ until he finds a Bork.

Saturday Night Massacre - Wikipedia

You hope. Bad for the country, good for Democrats. You don't bat an eyelash, you take that deal in a heartbeat.

I like how when it's pointed out there's still no evidence Trump did anything, you idiots say the report isn't out yet. Then you declare the report proves Trump is guilty even though it's not out yet.

You need to get David Duchovney's "I want to believe" poster

You're inability to be honest is a major character flaw. You're not stupid (not that I find you bright) and thus you want others to believe there is no evidence of Collusion, when there are already indictments and guilty pleas to prove collusion between Trump's inner circle, i.e. family, has been proved.

Maybe you are in denial, or stupid, or simply what I know you to be, dishonest.

Strawman. If I'm dishonest, then put down the butt hurt and be intellectually consistent.

1) There is no crime called collusion

2) You view collusion as binary. OK, DonJr met with the Russians. You're calling that collusion. Hillary on the other hand sold the Russians 20% of our uranium reserves and paid for a dossier of fabricated evidence from the Russians and you don't give a shit. You're conflating if anyone associated with the Russians ever met with them with that Trump worked with the Russians to overturn a US election. It's some lame ass shit you're peddling.

3) I pointed out your hypocrisy. When the subject is evidence and you don't have any, we need to wait for the Mueller report. When the subject is guilt, you declare Trump guilty and don't need any stinking evidence. You're a hypocrite.

The intellectual dishonesty is all you, pal.

So while you spin wild hypocrisies and allusions you call that my saying that Don Junior once met with the Russians is denying that there is evidence, I'll correct my statement.

Old kaz statement: There is no evidence of collusion

New kaz statement: There is no meaninful evidence of collusion.

Now I fixed mine. You fix yours in the list of three above

 

[Wry Catcher]

there are already indictments and guilty pleas to prove collusion between Trump's inner circle, i.e. family, has been proved.

Link ?

My post was edited in this way: ..." when there are already indictments and guilty pleas to prove collusion between Trump's inner circle, i.e. family & those defendants who have plead guilty has proved."

My initial wording (I've been educated to read over my writings and to edit for clarity / make corrections. Sometimes in my haste I make statement which need clarification).

To be even more clear, "Flynn, Manafort, Gates, Papadopolous, have been indicted and plead guilty; and, Trump Jr., Jared Kushner and Manafort met with Russian Agents in Trump's tower. These are the facts.

 

[OODA_Loop]

To be even more clear, "Flynn, Manafort, Gates, Papadopolous, have been indicted and plead guilty; and, Trump Jr., Jared Kushner and Manafort met with Russian Agents in Trump's tower. These are the facts.

Sounds good as a headline but.....

Indited for actions prior to and not involving the Trump administration.

They also met with others from other nations.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Anyone can make up scenarios. If Hillary was colluding with the Russians, she should be held accountable. Why are Democrats blocking investigating that?

Russians wanted chaos, not a particular winner. That you're making this a partisan witch hunt prevents them from being held accountable for that.

And Trump hasn't colluded with the Russians, he's been a lot harder on them than the suck up Obama who drew red lines and declared Russia an invader of the Crimea and didn't do shit about any of it

What should Obama have done? A holes like you criticized everything he did, imagine a war of choice with Russia; we're lucky Cheney and the Neo Cons were long gone by the time Russia began to play not nice.

POSTSCRIPT: Trump did collude with Russia, and the proof of that will be provided by the Mueller Investigation when their final report is released or when Trump begins to decompensate and fires everyone in the DOJ until he finds a Bork.

Saturday Night Massacre - Wikipedia

You hope. Bad for the country, good for Democrats. You don't bat an eyelash, you take that deal in a heartbeat.

I like how when it's pointed out there's still no evidence Trump did anything, you idiots say the report isn't out yet. Then you declare the report proves Trump is guilty even though it's not out yet.

You need to get David Duchovney's "I want to believe" poster

You're inability to be honest is a major character flaw. You're not stupid (not that I find you bright) and thus you want others to believe there is no evidence of Collusion, when there are already indictments and guilty pleas to prove collusion between Trump's inner circle, i.e. family, has been proved.

Maybe you are in denial, or stupid, or simply what I know you to be, dishonest.

Strawman. If I'm dishonest, then put down the butt hurt and be intellectually consistent.

1) There is no crime called collusion

2) You view collusion as binary. OK, DonJr met with the Russians. You're calling that collusion. Hillary on the other hand sold the Russians 20% of our uranium reserves and paid for a dossier of fabricated evidence from the Russians and you don't give a shit. You're conflating if anyone associated with the Russians ever met with them with that Trump worked with the Russians to overturn a US election. It's some lame ass shit you're peddling.

3) I pointed out your hypocrisy. When the subject is evidence and you don't have any, we need to wait for the Mueller report. When the subject is guilt, you declare Trump guilty and don't need any stinking evidence. You're a hypocrite.

The intellectual dishonesty is all you, pal.

So while you spin wild hypocrisies and allusions you call that my saying that Don Junior once met with the Russians is denying that there is evidence, I'll correct my statement.

Old kaz statement: There is no evidence of collusion

New kaz statement: There is no meaninful evidence of collusion.

Now I fixed mine. You fix yours in the list of three above

Statement: " There is no crime called collusion"

Response: There is a high crime called Malfeasance

 

[Wry Catcher]

To be even more clear, "Flynn, Manafort, Gates, Papadopolous, have been indicted and plead guilty; and, Trump Jr., Jared Kushner and Manafort met with Russian Agents in Trump's tower. These are the facts.

Sounds good as a headline but.....

Indited for actions prior to and not involving the Trump administration.

They also met with others from other nations.

Nice fantasy, what other nation fucked with our elections? We will see what Flynn, et al know and if it impacts Trump when Mueller&Team finish the investigation into Russia's attack on our democracy.

 

[Wry Catcher]

there are already indictments and guilty pleas to prove collusion between Trump's inner circle, i.e. family, has been proved.

Link ?

After 14 months of investigation (and for the second time in a formal indictment), the Justice Department has stated that it is not alleging any knowing collusion between Trump campaign officials or associates and the Russians. - Jonathon Turley

Appeal to authority, who BTW has no more insight into the investigation then do you or me.

 

[kaz]

What should Obama have done? A holes like you criticized everything he did, imagine a war of choice with Russia; we're lucky Cheney and the Neo Cons were long gone by the time Russia began to play not nice.

POSTSCRIPT: Trump did collude with Russia, and the proof of that will be provided by the Mueller Investigation when their final report is released or when Trump begins to decompensate and fires everyone in the DOJ until he finds a Bork.

Saturday Night Massacre - Wikipedia

You hope. Bad for the country, good for Democrats. You don't bat an eyelash, you take that deal in a heartbeat.

I like how when it's pointed out there's still no evidence Trump did anything, you idiots say the report isn't out yet. Then you declare the report proves Trump is guilty even though it's not out yet.

You need to get David Duchovney's "I want to believe" poster

You're inability to be honest is a major character flaw. You're not stupid (not that I find you bright) and thus you want others to believe there is no evidence of Collusion, when there are already indictments and guilty pleas to prove collusion between Trump's inner circle, i.e. family, has been proved.

Maybe you are in denial, or stupid, or simply what I know you to be, dishonest.

Strawman. If I'm dishonest, then put down the butt hurt and be intellectually consistent.

1) There is no crime called collusion

2) You view collusion as binary. OK, DonJr met with the Russians. You're calling that collusion. Hillary on the other hand sold the Russians 20% of our uranium reserves and paid for a dossier of fabricated evidence from the Russians and you don't give a shit. You're conflating if anyone associated with the Russians ever met with them with that Trump worked with the Russians to overturn a US election. It's some lame ass shit you're peddling.

3) I pointed out your hypocrisy. When the subject is evidence and you don't have any, we need to wait for the Mueller report. When the subject is guilt, you declare Trump guilty and don't need any stinking evidence. You're a hypocrite.

The intellectual dishonesty is all you, pal.

So while you spin wild hypocrisies and allusions you call that my saying that Don Junior once met with the Russians is denying that there is evidence, I'll correct my statement.

Old kaz statement: There is no evidence of collusion

New kaz statement: There is no meaninful evidence of collusion.

Now I fixed mine. You fix yours in the list of three above

Statement: " There is no crime called collusion"

Response: There is a high crime called Malfeasance

Don Jr was a public official? I call bull shit to that. Link?

Link was a joke, BTW, you don't provide them. It interferes with making up your shit as you go

 

[Wry Catcher]

POSTSCRIPT: Trump did collude with Russia, and the proof of that will be provided by the Mueller Investigation when their final report is released or when Trump begins to decompensate and fires everyone in the DOJ until he finds a Bork.

Saturday Night Massacre - Wikipedia

You hope. Bad for the country, good for Democrats. You don't bat an eyelash, you take that deal in a heartbeat.

I like how when it's pointed out there's still no evidence Trump did anything, you idiots say the report isn't out yet. Then you declare the report proves Trump is guilty even though it's not out yet.

You need to get David Duchovney's "I want to believe" poster

You're inability to be honest is a major character flaw. You're not stupid (not that I find you bright) and thus you want others to believe there is no evidence of Collusion, when there are already indictments and guilty pleas to prove collusion between Trump's inner circle, i.e. family, has been proved.

Maybe you are in denial, or stupid, or simply what I know you to be, dishonest.

Strawman. If I'm dishonest, then put down the butt hurt and be intellectually consistent.

1) There is no crime called collusion

2) You view collusion as binary. OK, DonJr met with the Russians. You're calling that collusion. Hillary on the other hand sold the Russians 20% of our uranium reserves and paid for a dossier of fabricated evidence from the Russians and you don't give a shit. You're conflating if anyone associated with the Russians ever met with them with that Trump worked with the Russians to overturn a US election. It's some lame ass shit you're peddling.

3) I pointed out your hypocrisy. When the subject is evidence and you don't have any, we need to wait for the Mueller report. When the subject is guilt, you declare Trump guilty and don't need any stinking evidence. You're a hypocrite.

The intellectual dishonesty is all you, pal.

So while you spin wild hypocrisies and allusions you call that my saying that Don Junior once met with the Russians is denying that there is evidence, I'll correct my statement.

Old kaz statement: There is no evidence of collusion

New kaz statement: There is no meaninful evidence of collusion.

Now I fixed mine. You fix yours in the list of three above

Statement: " There is no crime called collusion"

Response: There is a high crime called Malfeasance

Don Jr was a public official? I call bull shit to that. Link?

Link was a joke, BTW, you don't provide them. It interferes with making up your shit as you go

If you were denied the ability to lie, you would be struck even dumber.

Trump is the target for malfeasance, for I believe the meeting at Trump Tower with Russian's by his family members and Manafort was not hidden from Trump, and we know the meeting was not about adoptions.

 

[kaz]

You hope. Bad for the country, good for Democrats. You don't bat an eyelash, you take that deal in a heartbeat.

I like how when it's pointed out there's still no evidence Trump did anything, you idiots say the report isn't out yet. Then you declare the report proves Trump is guilty even though it's not out yet.

You need to get David Duchovney's "I want to believe" poster

You're inability to be honest is a major character flaw. You're not stupid (not that I find you bright) and thus you want others to believe there is no evidence of Collusion, when there are already indictments and guilty pleas to prove collusion between Trump's inner circle, i.e. family, has been proved.

Maybe you are in denial, or stupid, or simply what I know you to be, dishonest.

Strawman. If I'm dishonest, then put down the butt hurt and be intellectually consistent.

1) There is no crime called collusion

2) You view collusion as binary. OK, DonJr met with the Russians. You're calling that collusion. Hillary on the other hand sold the Russians 20% of our uranium reserves and paid for a dossier of fabricated evidence from the Russians and you don't give a shit. You're conflating if anyone associated with the Russians ever met with them with that Trump worked with the Russians to overturn a US election. It's some lame ass shit you're peddling.

3) I pointed out your hypocrisy. When the subject is evidence and you don't have any, we need to wait for the Mueller report. When the subject is guilt, you declare Trump guilty and don't need any stinking evidence. You're a hypocrite.

The intellectual dishonesty is all you, pal.

So while you spin wild hypocrisies and allusions you call that my saying that Don Junior once met with the Russians is denying that there is evidence, I'll correct my statement.

Old kaz statement: There is no evidence of collusion

New kaz statement: There is no meaninful evidence of collusion.

Now I fixed mine. You fix yours in the list of three above

Statement: " There is no crime called collusion"

Response: There is a high crime called Malfeasance

Don Jr was a public official? I call bull shit to that. Link?

Link was a joke, BTW, you don't provide them. It interferes with making up your shit as you go

If you were denied the ability to lie, you would be struck even dumber.

Trump is the target for malfeasance, for I believe the meeting at Trump Tower with Russian's by his family members and Manafort was not hidden from Trump, and we know the meeting was not about adoptions.

Link?

 

[Wry Catcher]

You're inability to be honest is a major character flaw. You're not stupid (not that I find you bright) and thus you want others to believe there is no evidence of Collusion, when there are already indictments and guilty pleas to prove collusion between Trump's inner circle, i.e. family, has been proved.

Maybe you are in denial, or stupid, or simply what I know you to be, dishonest.

Strawman. If I'm dishonest, then put down the butt hurt and be intellectually consistent.

1) There is no crime called collusion

2) You view collusion as binary. OK, DonJr met with the Russians. You're calling that collusion. Hillary on the other hand sold the Russians 20% of our uranium reserves and paid for a dossier of fabricated evidence from the Russians and you don't give a shit. You're conflating if anyone associated with the Russians ever met with them with that Trump worked with the Russians to overturn a US election. It's some lame ass shit you're peddling.

3) I pointed out your hypocrisy. When the subject is evidence and you don't have any, we need to wait for the Mueller report. When the subject is guilt, you declare Trump guilty and don't need any stinking evidence. You're a hypocrite.

The intellectual dishonesty is all you, pal.

So while you spin wild hypocrisies and allusions you call that my saying that Don Junior once met with the Russians is denying that there is evidence, I'll correct my statement.

Old kaz statement: There is no evidence of collusion

New kaz statement: There is no meaninful evidence of collusion.

Now I fixed mine. You fix yours in the list of three above

Statement: " There is no crime called collusion"

Response: There is a high crime called Malfeasance

Don Jr was a public official? I call bull shit to that. Link?

Link was a joke, BTW, you don't provide them. It interferes with making up your shit as you go

If you were denied the ability to lie, you would be struck even dumber.

Trump is the target for malfeasance, for I believe the meeting at Trump Tower with Russian's by his family members and Manafort was not hidden from Trump, and we know the meeting was not about adoptions.

Link?

Sure, there are two: THE MSM, AND THE DENIAL BY TRUMP & TRUMPANZEES.

 

[kaz]

Strawman. If I'm dishonest, then put down the butt hurt and be intellectually consistent.

1) There is no crime called collusion

2) You view collusion as binary. OK, DonJr met with the Russians. You're calling that collusion. Hillary on the other hand sold the Russians 20% of our uranium reserves and paid for a dossier of fabricated evidence from the Russians and you don't give a shit. You're conflating if anyone associated with the Russians ever met with them with that Trump worked with the Russians to overturn a US election. It's some lame ass shit you're peddling.

3) I pointed out your hypocrisy. When the subject is evidence and you don't have any, we need to wait for the Mueller report. When the subject is guilt, you declare Trump guilty and don't need any stinking evidence. You're a hypocrite.

The intellectual dishonesty is all you, pal.

So while you spin wild hypocrisies and allusions you call that my saying that Don Junior once met with the Russians is denying that there is evidence, I'll correct my statement.

Old kaz statement: There is no evidence of collusion

New kaz statement: There is no meaninful evidence of collusion.

Now I fixed mine. You fix yours in the list of three above

Statement: " There is no crime called collusion"

Response: There is a high crime called Malfeasance

Don Jr was a public official? I call bull shit to that. Link?

Link was a joke, BTW, you don't provide them. It interferes with making up your shit as you go

If you were denied the ability to lie, you would be struck even dumber.

Trump is the target for malfeasance, for I believe the meeting at Trump Tower with Russian's by his family members and Manafort was not hidden from Trump, and we know the meeting was not about adoptions.

Link?

Sure, there are two: THE MSM, AND THE DENIAL BY TRUMP & TRUMPANZEES.

Making up your shit as you go! See, I was right. you don't even know what a link is, LOL.

Just remember next time you whine for a link that you don't provide them, that's why I decided to enforce my rule that you don't provide them, you don't get them

 

[edward37]

Maybe this will help kaz
Eighth person in Trump Tower meeting is identified









What you need to know about Donald Trump Jr.'s ties to Russia.(Thomas Johnson/The Washington Post)

By Rosalind S. Helderman and Tom HamburgerJuly 18, 2017Email the author
A U.S.-based employee of a Russian real estate company took part in a June 2016 Trump Tower meeting between a Russian lawyer and Donald Trump Jr., bringing to eight the number of known participants at the session that has emerged as a key focus of the investigation of the Trump campaign’s interactions with Russians.

Ike Kaveladze attended the meeting as a representative of Aras and Emin Agalarov, the father-and-son Russian developers who hosted the Trump-owned Miss Universe pageant in Moscow in 2013, according to Scott Balber, an attorney for the Agalarovs who said he also represents Kaveladze.

Balber said Tuesday that he had received a phone call over the weekend from a representative of special counsel Robert S. Mueller III asking whether Kaveladze would agree to be interviewed. Balber said his client would cooperate.

The request is the first public indication that Mueller’s team is investigating the meeting.

The presence of Kaveladze at the Trump Tower meeting introduces a new and intriguing figure into the increasingly complex Trump-Russia drama. A native of the Soviet republic of Georgia who came to the United States in 1991, Kaveladze was the subject nearly two decades ago of a congressional inquiry into Russian money laundering in U.S. banks, although he was never charged with a crime and Balber said there was never any sign of wrongdoing by Kaveladze.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Statement: " There is no crime called collusion"

Response: There is a high crime called Malfeasance

Don Jr was a public official? I call bull shit to that. Link?

Link was a joke, BTW, you don't provide them. It interferes with making up your shit as you go

If you were denied the ability to lie, you would be struck even dumber.

Trump is the target for malfeasance, for I believe the meeting at Trump Tower with Russian's by his family members and Manafort was not hidden from Trump, and we know the meeting was not about adoptions.

Link?

Sure, there are two: THE MSM, AND THE DENIAL BY TRUMP & TRUMPANZEES.

Making up your shit as you go! See, I was right. you don't even know what a link is, LOL.

Just remember next time you whine for a link that you don't provide them, that's why I decided to enforce my rule that you don't provide them, you don't get them

Your dishonesty is endemic to everything you post. You are perplexing, for it seems you have an agenda, and yet it is so hidden even you don't know what it is.

I might have wondered if you are a paid agent of some corporation or foreign entity, but any of those would find someone smarter, more articulate and able to offer opinions way beyond your usual "ain't (you, them, it) awful".

Opinions do not require links, especially when they are based, clearly, on current events available to everyone who is: a) not willfully ignorant; b) has an open mind; c) watches, listens to and reads from a number of diverse sources; and d) isn't a curmudgeon or a misanthrope.

Demanding a link each time someone offers an opinion is a distraction, and one which (seems to me) to be used by those who are ignorant, willful or otherwise, and is incapable of writing a clear, concise and thoughtful rebuttal.

 

[Claudette]

what Representative House Oversight Committee Chairman Trey Gowdy and House Judicial Committee Chairman Robert Goodlatte did in the the hearing Thursday looks flat-out irresponsible. The Republican lawmakers seemed to be playing games with classified and otherwise non-public information to make the FBI look as if it is refusing reasonable congressional requests. Their bigger goal appeared to be the disruption of the Mueller investigation — or at least, constructing a counter-narrative for (and with) Republican-aligned media. House Republicans stopped benefiting from the presumption that they were acting in good faith long ago (see the never-ending Benghazi investigation or the phony controversy of the Nunes memo). Instead, they’re simply using oversight to fan the flames of implausible and illogical conspiracy theories.

Unfortunately, there is no solution to the problem of panel chairs acting irresponsibly when they have the full support of their party. Normally, the constraint on over-the-top grandstanding is that the party collectively cares about its reputation and won’t support such behavior. If a chair is acting up, the leadership might ask her to tone it down, or even in extreme cases threaten to replace her. 1

That doesn’t work with today’s Republican majority, which has convinced itself there is no such thing as neutral media or other nonpartisan institutions and only cares about party-aligned media such as Fox News or the Rush Limbaugh show. 2 And that’s part of what makes the Republicans so dysfunctional. Their incentive is to please their strongest supporters, and so the normal constraints built into the system don’t operate to push against irresponsible actions.

Chafetz suggests the cure is at the ballot box.

Bloomburg

Unfortunately, there is no solution to the problem of panel chairs acting irresponsibly when they have the full support of their party.

and your opinion of the Left wandering off topic, continuously, during that hearing?

What does the problem at the border have to do with the texts under discussion?

or the other numerous Trump bashing comments?

How does calling Trump an illegitimate president, as at least one did, apply to the texts of an FBI agent during the campaign?

It doesn't.

All I see in these posts is a bunch of sore losers with nothing better to do then accuse Trump of everything under the sun.

Wonder if they would be doing the same if Hitlery was POTUS??

Oh wait. I forgot. She has a D after her name. Never mind. LOL

 

[Wry Catcher]

what Representative House Oversight Committee Chairman Trey Gowdy and House Judicial Committee Chairman Robert Goodlatte did in the the hearing Thursday looks flat-out irresponsible. The Republican lawmakers seemed to be playing games with classified and otherwise non-public information to make the FBI look as if it is refusing reasonable congressional requests. Their bigger goal appeared to be the disruption of the Mueller investigation — or at least, constructing a counter-narrative for (and with) Republican-aligned media. House Republicans stopped benefiting from the presumption that they were acting in good faith long ago (see the never-ending Benghazi investigation or the phony controversy of the Nunes memo). Instead, they’re simply using oversight to fan the flames of implausible and illogical conspiracy theories.

Unfortunately, there is no solution to the problem of panel chairs acting irresponsibly when they have the full support of their party. Normally, the constraint on over-the-top grandstanding is that the party collectively cares about its reputation and won’t support such behavior. If a chair is acting up, the leadership might ask her to tone it down, or even in extreme cases threaten to replace her. 1

That doesn’t work with today’s Republican majority, which has convinced itself there is no such thing as neutral media or other nonpartisan institutions and only cares about party-aligned media such as Fox News or the Rush Limbaugh show. 2 And that’s part of what makes the Republicans so dysfunctional. Their incentive is to please their strongest supporters, and so the normal constraints built into the system don’t operate to push against irresponsible actions.

Chafetz suggests the cure is at the ballot box.

Bloomburg

Unfortunately, there is no solution to the problem of panel chairs acting irresponsibly when they have the full support of their party.

and your opinion of the Left wandering off topic, continuously, during that hearing?

What does the problem at the border have to do with the texts under discussion?

or the other numerous Trump bashing comments?

How does calling Trump an illegitimate president, as at least one did, apply to the texts of an FBI agent during the campaign?

It doesn't.

All I see in these posts is a bunch of sore losers with nothing better to do then accuse Trump of everything under the sun.

Wonder if they would be doing the same if Hitlery was POTUS??

Oh wait. I forgot. She has a D after her name. Never mind. LOL

Thank you for you biased and absurd opinion. It is an example of how effective brainwashing can be.

Though in your case, only a light rinse would seem to have been sufficient.

 

[kaz]

Don Jr was a public official? I call bull shit to that. Link?

Link was a joke, BTW, you don't provide them. It interferes with making up your shit as you go

If you were denied the ability to lie, you would be struck even dumber.

Trump is the target for malfeasance, for I believe the meeting at Trump Tower with Russian's by his family members and Manafort was not hidden from Trump, and we know the meeting was not about adoptions.

Link?

Sure, there are two: THE MSM, AND THE DENIAL BY TRUMP & TRUMPANZEES.

Making up your shit as you go! See, I was right. you don't even know what a link is, LOL.

Just remember next time you whine for a link that you don't provide them, that's why I decided to enforce my rule that you don't provide them, you don't get them

Your dishonesty is endemic to everything you post. You are perplexing, for it seems you have an agenda, and yet it is so hidden even you don't know what it is.

I might have wondered if you are a paid agent of some corporation or foreign entity, but any of those would find someone smarter, more articulate and able to offer opinions way beyond your usual "ain't (you, them, it) awful".

Opinions do not require links, especially when they are based, clearly, on current events available to everyone who is: a) not willfully ignorant; b) has an open mind; c) watches, listens to and reads from a number of diverse sources; and d) isn't a curmudgeon or a misanthrope.

Demanding a link each time someone offers an opinion is a distraction, and one which (seems to me) to be used by those who are ignorant, willful or otherwise, and is incapable of writing a clear, concise and thoughtful rebuttal.

You'll provide pictures of a yeti before you provide links to back up your stupid crap.

And you have no idea what my positions are. You proved that. You started a thread to attack me for my positions and got ... every ... position ... wrong ...

 

[Claudette]

what Representative House Oversight Committee Chairman Trey Gowdy and House Judicial Committee Chairman Robert Goodlatte did in the the hearing Thursday looks flat-out irresponsible. The Republican lawmakers seemed to be playing games with classified and otherwise non-public information to make the FBI look as if it is refusing reasonable congressional requests. Their bigger goal appeared to be the disruption of the Mueller investigation — or at least, constructing a counter-narrative for (and with) Republican-aligned media. House Republicans stopped benefiting from the presumption that they were acting in good faith long ago (see the never-ending Benghazi investigation or the phony controversy of the Nunes memo). Instead, they’re simply using oversight to fan the flames of implausible and illogical conspiracy theories.

Unfortunately, there is no solution to the problem of panel chairs acting irresponsibly when they have the full support of their party. Normally, the constraint on over-the-top grandstanding is that the party collectively cares about its reputation and won’t support such behavior. If a chair is acting up, the leadership might ask her to tone it down, or even in extreme cases threaten to replace her. 1

That doesn’t work with today’s Republican majority, which has convinced itself there is no such thing as neutral media or other nonpartisan institutions and only cares about party-aligned media such as Fox News or the Rush Limbaugh show. 2 And that’s part of what makes the Republicans so dysfunctional. Their incentive is to please their strongest supporters, and so the normal constraints built into the system don’t operate to push against irresponsible actions.

Chafetz suggests the cure is at the ballot box.

Bloomburg

Unfortunately, there is no solution to the problem of panel chairs acting irresponsibly when they have the full support of their party.

and your opinion of the Left wandering off topic, continuously, during that hearing?

What does the problem at the border have to do with the texts under discussion?

or the other numerous Trump bashing comments?

How does calling Trump an illegitimate president, as at least one did, apply to the texts of an FBI agent during the campaign?

It doesn't.

All I see in these posts is a bunch of sore losers with nothing better to do then accuse Trump of everything under the sun.

Wonder if they would be doing the same if Hitlery was POTUS??

Oh wait. I forgot. She has a D after her name. Never mind. LOL

Thank you for you biased and absurd opinion. It is an example of how effective brainwashing can be.

Though in your case, only a light rinse would seem to have been sufficient.

Hey dumbass.

If the shoe fits, just wear it. LOL