Trump Calls on Sessions to ‘Stop the Rigged Witch Hunt Right Now’

[Faun]

Of course they didn’t. They never once complained about the cost. They never complained it took too long. They never complained about Starr being connected to the Paula Jones case. They never complained that events investigated over Whitewater occurred decades earlier. They never called it a witch hunt. They never demanded it be shut down.

Payback’s a *****, let me tell you.

Yes, the current witch hunt is politically motivated, as you are insinuating.

That is actually why the law granting special powers of appointment were allowed to sunset. We are now openly subverting the Constitution. Happy?

Oh? Who’s subverting the Constitution and what exactly are they subverting?

The Attorney general's office is subverting it. They are subverting the appointments clause of the Constitution (article 2, section 2).

That clause of the U.S. Constitution reads as follows...

He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.​

... I’ve taken the liberty to highlight the relevant section which can render it Constitutional for a Special Counsel to be appointed by someone other than the president and without the consent of the Senate. That, however, would require the Congress to have passed such a law — which they did...

CFR › Title 28 › Chapter VI › Part 600: § 600.1 - Grounds for appointing a Special Counsel

The Attorney General, or in cases in which the Attorney General is recused, the Acting Attorney General, will appoint a Special Counsel when he or she determines that criminal investigation of a person or matter is warranted and -

(a) That investigation or prosecution of that person or matter by a United States Attorney's Office or litigating Division of the Department of Justice would present a conflict of interest for the Department or other extraordinary circumstances; and

(b) That under the circumstances, it would be in the public interest to appoint an outside Special Counsel to assume responsibility for the matter.​

So it appears it was Constitutional for Rosenstein to appoint Mueller as Special Counsel as he did. The only argument against that would be if you could prove that Mueller is a principal officer since the Constitution only allows for the Congress to draft such laws as title 28 chapter VI § 600.1 if they apply to inferior officers.

Steven Calabresi of Northwestern University Pritzker School of Law tried to establish that argument but he failed miserably. Let’s see if you can do any better than a law professor....

The Code of Federal Regulations, which you have cited from (600.1), is not law in itself. It is the codification of law. The question reverts back to you. What law is being codified by CFR 600.1?

At one time a law existed which created the Office of Independent Counsel (Ethics in Government Act), but that was allowed to sunset in 1999.

CFR titles are covered by the Administrative Procedure Act.

 

[Faun]

Of course they didn’t. They never once complained about the cost. They never complained it took too long. They never complained about Starr being connected to the Paula Jones case. They never complained that events investigated over Whitewater occurred decades earlier. They never called it a witch hunt. They never demanded it be shut down.

Payback’s a *****, let me tell you.

So if you're so opposed to all those things, then on principle you're opposed to the current costly, lengthy, conflict of interest "investigation, right ? Right ?

I would have been had Republicans not spent some 5 years chasing the Clintons with it. Now it’s the way politics are done. Thank Republicans, who by the way, appointed Mueller too.

 

[Faun]

LOLOL

Rising to 40%.

No, rising ABOVE 50% - better than Obama at the same period - No I won't post the graphic of it. I already did, you klutz.

And whatever the approval rate is, he is the POTUS, Hlllary isn't. Another conservative SCOTUS pick on the way.

I love it when idiots launch into their “neener, neener” posts. It shows how much they regret the Trump Presidency. Other than “he’s not Hillary”, you’ve got nothing.

You’ve got an incompetent idiot in the White House who is destroying your economy with his phony trade war and your world standing. He’s helping Russia divide and destroy your nation and its integrity.

It’s all crashing down around you and you’re ever more loudly proclaiming “He’s not Hillary”. No, he’s a batshit crazy idiot in the pocket of the Russians.

The rest of the world is watching America destroy itself with hatred and animus. Weasels in a barrel.

But people are suffering and dying for your entertainment. When Trump is removed from office, your country has been so dimished by him, you may never recover.

Incompetent huh Comrade?

Which metric would you like to compare and contrast to your god emperor Obama?

So far, Trump is by FAR the most effective president economically, with a 3.2% GDP in his first year - Obama never broke 3% in 8 years. Lowest unemployment rates in history.

I oppose the tariffs, but I must admit that Trump has won concessions from the EU - I admit this because I am honest - you're not, but I am.

His foreign policy is nothing less than masterful. Now I suspect that taming North Korea and Iran is the opposite outcome that you seek, but for those who are not traitors seeking the destruction of America, this is more than any president has done since Reagan, with zero boots on the ground.

So, "incompetent," Comrade? That is quite the lie you are vomiting.

You’re as brain-dead as they come.

“So far, Trump is by FAR the most effective president economically, with a 3.2% GDP in his first year”

Crazy conservative— Obama hit 4.5% real GDP growth in his first year. And Trump’s best in 2017 was 3.0%, not 3.2%.

“Obama never broke 3% in 8 years”

Obama actually broke 3% 12 times.

Q4-2009
Q2-2010
Q3-2010
Q4-2011
Q1-2012
Q1-2013
Q3-2013
Q4-2013
Q2-2014
Q3-2014
Q1-2015
Q2-2015

12/32 = 38%

Trump broke 3% twice so far...

Q2-2017
Q2-2018

2/6 = 33%

Obama inherited the worst economy since the Great Depression and hit 3% growth or better during 38% of the quarters during his presidency; while Trump, who inherited a good economy, has achieved that only ⅓ of the quarters of his presidency (so far).

https://www.bea.gov/national/xlsx

Trump Paints Picture of 6% Growth, Passing Even the Rosiest Forecasts

 

[Tehon]

Yes, the current witch hunt is politically motivated, as you are insinuating.

That is actually why the law granting special powers of appointment were allowed to sunset. We are now openly subverting the Constitution. Happy?

Oh? Who’s subverting the Constitution and what exactly are they subverting?

The Attorney general's office is subverting it. They are subverting the appointments clause of the Constitution (article 2, section 2).

That clause of the U.S. Constitution reads as follows...

He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.​

... I’ve taken the liberty to highlight the relevant section which can render it Constitutional for a Special Counsel to be appointed by someone other than the president and without the consent of the Senate. That, however, would require the Congress to have passed such a law — which they did...

CFR › Title 28 › Chapter VI › Part 600: § 600.1 - Grounds for appointing a Special Counsel

The Attorney General, or in cases in which the Attorney General is recused, the Acting Attorney General, will appoint a Special Counsel when he or she determines that criminal investigation of a person or matter is warranted and -

(a) That investigation or prosecution of that person or matter by a United States Attorney's Office or litigating Division of the Department of Justice would present a conflict of interest for the Department or other extraordinary circumstances; and

(b) That under the circumstances, it would be in the public interest to appoint an outside Special Counsel to assume responsibility for the matter.​

So it appears it was Constitutional for Rosenstein to appoint Mueller as Special Counsel as he did. The only argument against that would be if you could prove that Mueller is a principal officer since the Constitution only allows for the Congress to draft such laws as title 28 chapter VI § 600.1 if they apply to inferior officers.

Steven Calabresi of Northwestern University Pritzker School of Law tried to establish that argument but he failed miserably. Let’s see if you can do any better than a law professor....

The Code of Federal Regulations, which you have cited from (600.1), is not law in itself. It is the codification of law. The question reverts back to you. What law is being codified by CFR 600.1?

At one time a law existed which created the Office of Independent Counsel (Ethics in Government Act), but that was allowed to sunset in 1999.

CFR titles are covered by the Administrative Procedure Act.

Janet Reno didn't follow the procedure for rule making required by the APA. She didn't allow for the comment period.

 

[Faun]

Exactly. The special counsel investigating Clinton was an open ended investigation. Bet you didn't complain about it then.

Of course they didn’t. They never once complained about the cost. They never complained it took too long. They never complained about Starr being connected to the Paula Jones case. They never complained that events investigated over Whitewater occurred decades earlier. They never called it a witch hunt. They never demanded it be shut down.

Payback’s a *****, let me tell you.

Yes, the current witch hunt is politically motivated, as you are insinuating.

That is actually why the law granting special powers of appointment were allowed to sunset. We are now openly subverting the Constitution. Happy?

Boy did I misjudge you...

Sorry.

Thank you, but as it turns out, I was wrong. The special counsel is constitutional.

28 U.S. Code § 533 - Investigative and other officials; appointment

I still don't agree with it however.

No, you were right the first time.

https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R43112.pdf

No, he wasn’t. The U.S. Constitution provides for the Congress to draft laws to circumvent the Senate/presidential consent/appoint process for appointing “inferior officers,” which the Congress has done to allow the Attorney General to appoint Special Counsels.

 

[Faun]

Oh? Who’s subverting the Constitution and what exactly are they subverting?

The Attorney general's office is subverting it. They are subverting the appointments clause of the Constitution (article 2, section 2).

That clause of the U.S. Constitution reads as follows...

He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.​

... I’ve taken the liberty to highlight the relevant section which can render it Constitutional for a Special Counsel to be appointed by someone other than the president and without the consent of the Senate. That, however, would require the Congress to have passed such a law — which they did...

CFR › Title 28 › Chapter VI › Part 600: § 600.1 - Grounds for appointing a Special Counsel

The Attorney General, or in cases in which the Attorney General is recused, the Acting Attorney General, will appoint a Special Counsel when he or she determines that criminal investigation of a person or matter is warranted and -

(a) That investigation or prosecution of that person or matter by a United States Attorney's Office or litigating Division of the Department of Justice would present a conflict of interest for the Department or other extraordinary circumstances; and

(b) That under the circumstances, it would be in the public interest to appoint an outside Special Counsel to assume responsibility for the matter.​

So it appears it was Constitutional for Rosenstein to appoint Mueller as Special Counsel as he did. The only argument against that would be if you could prove that Mueller is a principal officer since the Constitution only allows for the Congress to draft such laws as title 28 chapter VI § 600.1 if they apply to inferior officers.

Steven Calabresi of Northwestern University Pritzker School of Law tried to establish that argument but he failed miserably. Let’s see if you can do any better than a law professor....

The Code of Federal Regulations, which you have cited from (600.1), is not law in itself. It is the codification of law. The question reverts back to you. What law is being codified by CFR 600.1?

At one time a law existed which created the Office of Independent Counsel (Ethics in Government Act), but that was allowed to sunset in 1999.

CFR titles are covered by the Administrative Procedure Act.

Janet Reno didn't follow the procedure for rule making required by the APA. She didn't allow for the comment period.

What “comment period?”

CFR › Title 28 › Chapter VI › Part 600: § 600.1 - Grounds for appointing a Special Counsel

The Attorney General, or in cases in which the Attorney General is recused, the Acting Attorney General, will appoint a Special Counsel when he or she determines that criminal investigation of a person or matter is warranted and -

(a) That investigation or prosecution of that person or matter by a United States Attorney's Office or litigating Division of the Department of Justice would present a conflict of interest for the Department or other extraordinary circumstances; and

(b) That under the circumstances, it would be in the public interest to appoint an outside Special Counsel to assume responsibility for the matter.​

 

[Tehon]

The Attorney general's office is subverting it. They are subverting the appointments clause of the Constitution (article 2, section 2).

That clause of the U.S. Constitution reads as follows...

He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.​

... I’ve taken the liberty to highlight the relevant section which can render it Constitutional for a Special Counsel to be appointed by someone other than the president and without the consent of the Senate. That, however, would require the Congress to have passed such a law — which they did...

CFR › Title 28 › Chapter VI › Part 600: § 600.1 - Grounds for appointing a Special Counsel

The Attorney General, or in cases in which the Attorney General is recused, the Acting Attorney General, will appoint a Special Counsel when he or she determines that criminal investigation of a person or matter is warranted and -

(a) That investigation or prosecution of that person or matter by a United States Attorney's Office or litigating Division of the Department of Justice would present a conflict of interest for the Department or other extraordinary circumstances; and

(b) That under the circumstances, it would be in the public interest to appoint an outside Special Counsel to assume responsibility for the matter.​

So it appears it was Constitutional for Rosenstein to appoint Mueller as Special Counsel as he did. The only argument against that would be if you could prove that Mueller is a principal officer since the Constitution only allows for the Congress to draft such laws as title 28 chapter VI § 600.1 if they apply to inferior officers.

Steven Calabresi of Northwestern University Pritzker School of Law tried to establish that argument but he failed miserably. Let’s see if you can do any better than a law professor....

The Code of Federal Regulations, which you have cited from (600.1), is not law in itself. It is the codification of law. The question reverts back to you. What law is being codified by CFR 600.1?

At one time a law existed which created the Office of Independent Counsel (Ethics in Government Act), but that was allowed to sunset in 1999.

CFR titles are covered by the Administrative Procedure Act.

Janet Reno didn't follow the procedure for rule making required by the APA. She didn't allow for the comment period.

What “comment period?”

CFR › Title 28 › Chapter VI › Part 600: § 600.1 - Grounds for appointing a Special Counsel

The Attorney General, or in cases in which the Attorney General is recused, the Acting Attorney General, will appoint a Special Counsel when he or she determines that criminal investigation of a person or matter is warranted and -

(a) That investigation or prosecution of that person or matter by a United States Attorney's Office or litigating Division of the Department of Justice would present a conflict of interest for the Department or other extraordinary circumstances; and

(b) That under the circumstances, it would be in the public interest to appoint an outside Special Counsel to assume responsibility for the matter.​

It's not a big deal, we don't need to waste time on it, however. You cited the Administrative Procedure Act and that act requires a 30 day comment period before CFR rules are entered into the registry. Janet Reno did not allow for the comment period when making the rules for the special counsel. She cited exceptions that could be challenged in court if someone had such a desire.
5 U.S. Code § 553 - Rule making

 

[Dragonlady]

This post is the essence of ignorance and stupidity. Hillary as the all-present demon.

Your economy is being torched in a tariff war. Employment is slowing. The rest of the world is laughing at your stupidity.

And you’re going “but Hillary”.

You are posting FALSE "information". No, employment is not slowing. In fact if is INCREASING >>

While UNemployment is dropping nicely >>

As for "the economy", it is BOOMING.

I notice how all your charts and graphs show the economy since Trump was elected.

Try going back to 2010 and charting job creation and the stock market. It’s there you will see the booming Obama economy in an uninterrupted line of growth, until Trump is elected. Then tat steady line of growth slows and starts dipping here and there.

The boom you’re talking about is Obama’s boom, not Trump’s. Trump is undoing everything Obama did, including the economy.

The economy is like a giant freight train. It took 8 years for W to crash the strong healthy economy he took over from Clinton. Trump is making bad decisions on steroids. He should be able to do it a lot faster than W.

 

[Faun]

That clause of the U.S. Constitution reads as follows...

He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.​

... I’ve taken the liberty to highlight the relevant section which can render it Constitutional for a Special Counsel to be appointed by someone other than the president and without the consent of the Senate. That, however, would require the Congress to have passed such a law — which they did...

CFR › Title 28 › Chapter VI › Part 600: § 600.1 - Grounds for appointing a Special Counsel

The Attorney General, or in cases in which the Attorney General is recused, the Acting Attorney General, will appoint a Special Counsel when he or she determines that criminal investigation of a person or matter is warranted and -

(a) That investigation or prosecution of that person or matter by a United States Attorney's Office or litigating Division of the Department of Justice would present a conflict of interest for the Department or other extraordinary circumstances; and

(b) That under the circumstances, it would be in the public interest to appoint an outside Special Counsel to assume responsibility for the matter.​

So it appears it was Constitutional for Rosenstein to appoint Mueller as Special Counsel as he did. The only argument against that would be if you could prove that Mueller is a principal officer since the Constitution only allows for the Congress to draft such laws as title 28 chapter VI § 600.1 if they apply to inferior officers.

Steven Calabresi of Northwestern University Pritzker School of Law tried to establish that argument but he failed miserably. Let’s see if you can do any better than a law professor....

The Code of Federal Regulations, which you have cited from (600.1), is not law in itself. It is the codification of law. The question reverts back to you. What law is being codified by CFR 600.1?

At one time a law existed which created the Office of Independent Counsel (Ethics in Government Act), but that was allowed to sunset in 1999.

CFR titles are covered by the Administrative Procedure Act.

Janet Reno didn't follow the procedure for rule making required by the APA. She didn't allow for the comment period.

What “comment period?”

CFR › Title 28 › Chapter VI › Part 600: § 600.1 - Grounds for appointing a Special Counsel

The Attorney General, or in cases in which the Attorney General is recused, the Acting Attorney General, will appoint a Special Counsel when he or she determines that criminal investigation of a person or matter is warranted and -

(a) That investigation or prosecution of that person or matter by a United States Attorney's Office or litigating Division of the Department of Justice would present a conflict of interest for the Department or other extraordinary circumstances; and

(b) That under the circumstances, it would be in the public interest to appoint an outside Special Counsel to assume responsibility for the matter.​

It's not a big deal, we don't need to waste time on it, however. You cited the Administrative Procedure Act and that act requires a 30 day comment period before CFR rules are entered into the registry. Janet Reno did not allow for the comment period when making the rules for the special counsel. She cited exceptions that could be challenged in court if someone had such a desire.
5 U.S. Code § 553 - Rule making

I could be wrong, but it appears to me that 30 day grace period applies to the first 30 days following the proposal of a new rule — not the application of an existing rule.

 

[Tehon]

The Code of Federal Regulations, which you have cited from (600.1), is not law in itself. It is the codification of law. The question reverts back to you. What law is being codified by CFR 600.1?

At one time a law existed which created the Office of Independent Counsel (Ethics in Government Act), but that was allowed to sunset in 1999.

CFR titles are covered by the Administrative Procedure Act.

Janet Reno didn't follow the procedure for rule making required by the APA. She didn't allow for the comment period.

What “comment period?”

CFR › Title 28 › Chapter VI › Part 600: § 600.1 - Grounds for appointing a Special Counsel

The Attorney General, or in cases in which the Attorney General is recused, the Acting Attorney General, will appoint a Special Counsel when he or she determines that criminal investigation of a person or matter is warranted and -

(a) That investigation or prosecution of that person or matter by a United States Attorney's Office or litigating Division of the Department of Justice would present a conflict of interest for the Department or other extraordinary circumstances; and

(b) That under the circumstances, it would be in the public interest to appoint an outside Special Counsel to assume responsibility for the matter.​

It's not a big deal, we don't need to waste time on it, however. You cited the Administrative Procedure Act and that act requires a 30 day comment period before CFR rules are entered into the registry. Janet Reno did not allow for the comment period when making the rules for the special counsel. She cited exceptions that could be challenged in court if someone had such a desire.
5 U.S. Code § 553 - Rule making

I could be wrong, but it appears to me that 30 day grace period applies to the first 30 days following the proposal of a new rule — not the application of an existing rule.

I'm talking about the proposal of a new rule. Janet Reno is dead now.

 

[protectionist]

I would have been had Republicans not spent some 5 years chasing the Clintons with it. Now it’s the way politics are done. Thank Republicans, who by the way, appointed Mueller too.

There are 2 kinds of "Republicans" Patriot conservatives, and traitor RINOs.

And so from your post you're saying that you're not opposed to the current costly, lengthy, conflict of interest "investigation". So if you're not opposed to that investigation of Russian meddling, which even Rosenstein says has no impact on our election, then you sure ought to be OK with an investigation of our lax election security laws, which allow millions of foreigners to penetrate it, and VOTE in our elections, with no requirement for proof of citizenship, RIGHT ?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Trump could order him to, it’s within his power to do so. Why do you think he hasn’t?

Because his own party has threatened to begin impeachment proceedings, if he did so. Damn son, pay attention!

Link?

You didn't Know that congressional republicans have come out and said it would be the beginning of the end for Trump, if he fired Mueller? How are you not in possession of the most basic facts of this topic?

Link or STFU.

Haha..yes, I'm sure that, if I link these quotes, you will capitulate and admit you don't know what you were talking about and thank me for the info.

 

[PredFan]

Trump could order him to, it’s within his power to do so. Why do you think he hasn’t?

Because his own party has threatened to begin impeachment proceedings, if he did so. Damn son, pay attention!

Link?

You didn't Know that congressional republicans have come out and said it would be the beginning of the end for Trump, if he fired Mueller? How are you not in possession of the most basic facts of this topic?

Link or STFU.

Haha..yes, I'm sure that, if I link these quotes, you will capitulate and admit you don't know what you were talking about and thank me for the info.

Try it. Unlike you idiots on the left, I have intellectual and moral honesty.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Because his own party has threatened to begin impeachment proceedings, if he did so. Damn son, pay attention!

Link?

You didn't Know that congressional republicans have come out and said it would be the beginning of the end for Trump, if he fired Mueller? How are you not in possession of the most basic facts of this topic?

Link or STFU.

Haha..yes, I'm sure that, if I link these quotes, you will capitulate and admit you don't know what you were talking about and thank me for the info.

Try it. Unlike you idiots on the left, I have intellectual and moral honesty.

No need, someone else posted them. You missed it? Go back...

 

[protectionist]

I notice how all your charts and graphs show the economy since Trump was elected.

Try going back to 2010 and charting job creation and the stock market. It’s there you will see the booming Obama economy in an uninterrupted line of growth, until Trump is elected. Then tat steady line of growth slows and starts dipping here and there.

The boom you’re talking about is Obama’s boom, not Trump’s. Trump is undoing everything Obama did, including the economy.

The economy is like a giant freight train. It took 8 years for W to crash the strong healthy economy he took over from Clinton. Trump is making bad decisions on steroids. He should be able to do it a lot faster than W.

OK let's look at the economy for 2 years, 2015 & 2016, when Obama was president, and compare that with the quarters afterward with Trump. You wanna play that game ? I'll play that game with you.

As you can see, after Obama had 6.5 years to work on the economy, in mid -2015, he produced dismal GDP levels of no more than 1%. In 2016, he improved only as high as 2.3%, which incidentally is just about equivalent to the lowest of Trump's GDP quarters (which now reach 4.1%) A stark contrast indeed.

As for what you call >> "booming Obama economy in an uninterrupted line of growth", in reality is nothing more than the recoil back to normal, after a sudden and unusual low dip in 2008. It's like a spring that springs back to normal after you squeeze it tight. The growth had more to do with that normal reaction of the economy, than any economic planning from Obama.

And the proof of that ? >> Once the economy reset itself back to normal (by 2015), we can look at Obama's numbers, and they are dismal. Lucky for us, Trump got elected and now the economy is "booming" (for REAL).

 

[Uncensored2008]

LOLOL

Rising to 40%.

No, rising ABOVE 50% - better than Obama at the same period - No I won't post the graphic of it. I already did, you klutz.

And whatever the approval rate is, he is the POTUS, Hlllary isn't. Another conservative SCOTUS pick on the way.

I love it when idiots launch into their “neener, neener” posts. It shows how much they regret the Trump Presidency. Other than “he’s not Hillary”, you’ve got nothing.

You’ve got an incompetent idiot in the White House who is destroying your economy with his phony trade war and your world standing. He’s helping Russia divide and destroy your nation and its integrity.

It’s all crashing down around you and you’re ever more loudly proclaiming “He’s not Hillary”. No, he’s a batshit crazy idiot in the pocket of the Russians.

The rest of the world is watching America destroy itself with hatred and animus. Weasels in a barrel.

But people are suffering and dying for your entertainment. When Trump is removed from office, your country has been so dimished by him, you may never recover.

Incompetent huh Comrade?

Which metric would you like to compare and contrast to your god emperor Obama?

So far, Trump is by FAR the most effective president economically, with a 3.2% GDP in his first year - Obama never broke 3% in 8 years. Lowest unemployment rates in history.

I oppose the tariffs, but I must admit that Trump has won concessions from the EU - I admit this because I am honest - you're not, but I am.

His foreign policy is nothing less than masterful. Now I suspect that taming North Korea and Iran is the opposite outcome that you seek, but for those who are not traitors seeking the destruction of America, this is more than any president has done since Reagan, with zero boots on the ground.

So, "incompetent," Comrade? That is quite the lie you are vomiting.

You’re as brain-dead as they come.

“So far, Trump is by FAR the most effective president economically, with a 3.2% GDP in his first year”

Crazy conservative— Obama hit 4.5% real GDP growth in his first year. And Trump’s best in 2017 was 3.0%, not 3.2%.

“Obama never broke 3% in 8 years”

Obama actually broke 3% 12 times.

Q4-2009
Q2-2010
Q3-2010
Q4-2011
Q1-2012
Q1-2013
Q3-2013
Q4-2013
Q2-2014
Q3-2014
Q1-2015
Q2-2015

12/32 = 38%

Trump broke 3% twice so far...

Q2-2017
Q2-2018

2/6 = 33%

Obama inherited the worst economy since the Great Depression and hit 3% growth or better during 38% of the quarters during his presidency; while Trump, who inherited a good economy, has achieved that only ⅓ of the quarters of his presidency (so far).

https://www.bea.gov/national/xlsx

Trump Paints Picture of 6% Growth, Passing Even the Rosiest Forecasts

Oh, okay.

GDP, Annual - Economic Data Series | FRED | St. Louis Fed

Wait, that says 2009 had an annual of 2.1%

Guess you're just ******* lying.

Standard Disclaimer: You have to plug in numbers for Fred to work - stupid.

 

[Uncensored2008]

I would have been had Republicans not spent some 5 years chasing the Clintons with it. Now it’s the way politics are done. Thank Republicans, who by the way, appointed Mueller too.

There are 2 kinds of "Republicans" Patriot conservatives, and traitor RINOs.

And so from your post you're saying that you're not opposed to the current costly, lengthy, conflict of interest "investigation". So if you're not opposed to that investigation of Russian meddling, which even Rosenstein says has no impact on our election, then you sure ought to be OK with an investigation of our lax election security laws, which allow millions of foreigners to penetrate it, and VOTE in our elections, with no requirement for proof of citizenship, RIGHT ?

But only one kind of democrat - Communist traitors.

 

[protectionist]

But only one kind of democrat - Communist traitors.

That's exactly right, and every time they accuse Trump of being an isolationist and a nationalist, they increasingly show themselves to be the globalist, open borders INTERNATIONALISTS (aka Communists) that they are.

And who is the most recent Trump basher to call him an "isolationist" ? The leader of Iran.

 

[Faun]

I would have been had Republicans not spent some 5 years chasing the Clintons with it. Now it’s the way politics are done. Thank Republicans, who by the way, appointed Mueller too.

There are 2 kinds of "Republicans" Patriot conservatives, and traitor RINOs.

And so from your post you're saying that you're not opposed to the current costly, lengthy, conflict of interest "investigation". So if you're not opposed to that investigation of Russian meddling, which even Rosenstein says has no impact on our election, then you sure ought to be OK with an investigation of our lax election security laws, which allow millions of foreigners to penetrate it, and VOTE in our elections, with no requirement for proof of citizenship, RIGHT ?

Sure, if you can prove illegals vote in prevalent numbers, which you can’t.

But you are right when you say there are 2 kinds of Republicans— liars and pedophiles.

 

[Faun]

I notice how all your charts and graphs show the economy since Trump was elected.

Try going back to 2010 and charting job creation and the stock market. It’s there you will see the booming Obama economy in an uninterrupted line of growth, until Trump is elected. Then tat steady line of growth slows and starts dipping here and there.

The boom you’re talking about is Obama’s boom, not Trump’s. Trump is undoing everything Obama did, including the economy.

The economy is like a giant freight train. It took 8 years for W to crash the strong healthy economy he took over from Clinton. Trump is making bad decisions on steroids. He should be able to do it a lot faster than W.

OK let's look at the economy for 2 years, 2015 & 2016, when Obama was president, and compare that with the quarters afterward with Trump. You wanna play that game ? I'll play that game with you.

As you can see, after Obama had 6.5 years to work on the economy, in mid -2015, he produced dismal GDP levels of no more than 1%. In 2016, he improved only as high as 2.3%, which incidentally is just about equivalent to the lowest of Trump's GDP quarters (which now reach 4.1%) A stark contrast indeed.

As for what you call >> "booming Obama economy in an uninterrupted line of growth", in reality is nothing more than the recoil back to normal, after a sudden and unusual low dip in 2008. It's like a spring that springs back to normal after you squeeze it tight. The growth had more to do with that normal reaction of the economy, than any economic planning from Obama.

And the proof of that ? >> Once the economy reset itself back to normal (by 2015), we can look at Obama's numbers, and they are dismal. Lucky for us, Trump got elected and now the economy is "booming" (for REAL).

I like how you conveniently leave out better numbers under Obama’s. For all of 2015, GDP was 2.9%.