White House counsel was 'fed up' with Trump: source

"Fake news, folks, fake news," the president told reporters 

Only his staunchest supporters, among them those who along with him want to undermine a free, for profit press, will believe it's fake news, which has come to mean a perspective on events that differs from their worldview.

Here's one of Fox 'news' leading entertainer's take on this story:

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/sean-hannity-reality-check-live-tv_us_5a6aad11e4b01fbbefb06a85?ncid=inblnkushpmg00000009

On a positive, it's good to see Hannity retract - once again.

The Republican congress is complicit in the cover up. Ryan can fire Nunes. The House Republicans can fire Ryan. If the Republicans still have a majority in 2019, then we, the American public, are complicit too.

Trump

is wvery lawyers worst nightmare of a client: Mouthy, thinks he's the smartest person in the room, is incapable of telling the truth, etc.

Only his staunchest supporters, among them those who along with him want to undermine a free, for profit press, will believe it's fake news, which has come to mean a perspective on events that differs from their worldview.

JT sometimes cracks me up with the articles they find that are on page 28 that no one talks about. Look, of course every President wants to be liked by the media or at least is fair and balanced and the liberal mainstream has not been fair to Trump, not at all, they are so hateful and critical of this President that they just blurt stuff or print fake news without even verifying it and especially last year they have had so many retractions and in this business the more retractions you have, you harness your brand and undermine your creditability as a responsible news outlet.

On a positive, it's good to see Hannity retract - once again.

OK, so Hannity has to backtrack a news report. It happens and it's normal. Now compare that to the long list of lies the left have came up with, you just loss count, that's not normal, it seems like an epidemic.

If you are claiming that the "liberal media has had so many retractions," use your keyboard to provide a list of those retractions.

Hillarious and telling that Hannity retracting becomes "walking back."

White House counsel was 'fed up' with Trump

Join the rest of us. The 60% of America, and 90% of the rest of the world.

Make no mistake: Trump is a moral catastrophe. He's inflicted damage on America that will take a long, long time to recover from.

I'm fed up. You're fed up.

And Republicans will not stop him.

VOTE DEMOCRAT!

90% of the rest of the world.

That means, he's doing really well.

VOTE DEMOCRAT!

Yes, let's vote to impose regulations and punish job creators and tax people obsessively, sounds like a winning plan.

If you are claiming that the "liberal media has had so many retractions," use your keyboard to provide a list of those retractions.

The New York Times’ Paul Krugman claimed on the day of President Trump’s historic, landslide victory that the economy would never recover. 

This is a short op-ed, published, it appears, soon after the election — a prediction, not a report.

ABC News’ Brian Ross CHOKES and sends markets in a downward spiral with false report.

ABC News was rightly criticized for botching a report that said President Trump had directed Michael Flynn to make contact with the Russians. Ross later issued a clarification on “World News Tonight,” and ABC News followed up with a full apology for the “serious error,” which it said had not met the network’s editorial standards or vetting process. Ross was suspended from ABC News for four weeks as a result of his misreporting.

CNN FALSELY reported that candidate Donald Trump and his son Donald J. Trump, Jr. had access to hacked documents from WikiLeaks.

CNN initially falsely reported that Donald Trump Jr. received an email from Wikileaks about hacked DNC documents on September 4 — which would have implied he had advance notice of the trove to be released online. But Trump Jr. actually received that email on September 14, the day after the cache was posted online. The Washington Post revealedthe discrepancy and CNN issued a prominently placed correction, though the error undercut the entire report. 

TIME FALSELY reported that President Trump removed a bust of Martin Luther King, Jr. from the Oval Office.

Time reporter Zeke Miller initially reported that the bust was gone, but followed up quickly with a correction. He sent out numerous tweets and apologies immediately correcting the record.

Washington Post FALSELY reported the President’s massive sold-out rally in Pensacola, Florida was empty. Dishonest reporter showed picture of empty arena HOURS before crowd started pouring in.

Dave Weigel, a reporter at the Washington Post, tweeted a picture that underestimated crowd for Trump’s rally in Pensacola. Weigel deleted the initial tweet from his private account, saying “it was a bad tweet on my personal account, not a story for the Washington Post.”

CNN FALSELY edited a video to make it appear President Trump defiantly overfed fish during a visit with the Japanese prime minister. Japanese prime minister actually led the way with the feeding.

The videos and photos of Trump dumping an entire box of food into a koi pond circulated widely on social media, and were picked up by CNN and others before fact-checkers pointed out that the full video disproved the notion that Trump committed a faux pas — although CNN did write in its story that “Abe… actually appeared to dump out his box of food ahead of Trump.” 

CNN FALSELY reported about Anthony Scaramucci’s meeting with a Russian, but retracted it due to a “significant breakdown in process.”

This retracted story was one of CNN’s biggest black eyes of 2017, but the network’s response was severe — three reporters and editors resigned as a result, including the executive editor in charge of investigations. 

Newsweek FALSELY reported that Polish First Lady Agata Kornhauser-Duda did not shake President Trump’s hand.

Like the koi pond incident, this was a case of a publication (Newsweek, but also Vanity Fair, Time, and The Hill, and that’s just from the first page of Google results) reporting on a viral video clip without seeing the whole story — which, in this case, showed that the Polish first lady eventually shook Trump’s hand after shaking Melania’s first. Newsweek updated its story within three hours with a correction: “The mildly awkward and humorously relatable exchange was just that, and no apparent swipe at the U.S. president.”

CNN FALSELY reported that former FBI Director James Comey would dispute President Trump’s claim that he was told he is not under investigation.

Here’s what CNN got wrong: “One source said Comey is expected to explain to senators that those were much more nuanced conversations from which Trump concluded that he was not under investigation.” That source was apparently incorrect, and the story was corrected and updated after publication. (One of the reporters involved in this story, Eric Lichtblau, resigned after the Scaramucci report, No. 7 on this list, a few weeks later.)

The New York Times FALSELY claimed on the front page that the Trump administration had hidden a climate report.

This isn’t exactly what happened. The Times reported in August that scientists were afraid that the Trump administration would suppress a report on the impact of climate change that was awaiting review, and said it was making the draft publicly available for the first time. This wasn’t true — the report had surfaced on the nonprofit Internet Archive in January 2017, and the Trump administration still had time to approve and publish the report. 

As the Washington Post’s Erik Wemple wrote at the time, this was a significant blow to the Times’s premise. But the reporters never claimed the Trump administration had already suppressed the report. (The climate change report was eventually published.)

And last, but not least: “RUSSIA COLLUSION!” Russian collusion is perhaps the greatest hoax perpetrated on the American people. THERE IS NO COLLUSION!

https://www.vox.com/2018/1/17/16871430/trumps-fake-news-awards-annotated

That's the short list.

Hilarious and telling that Hannity retracting becomes "walking back."

Yeah, doesn't come close

And where is the comparative list of Fox retractions?

Everything printed by anybody that is critical of CornChip is, according to the True Believers in The Dump is “fake news.” Everything. Even with witnesses, even when conservative christian and white supremacists say it. Even if Fox ever pulls its head out of his butt and says it. It will all be “Fake News”

Even his bought-and-paid-for Immigrant Wife doesn’t stand by him opting to walk behind him so as not to be associated with him or photographed with him. When she does, she refuses to smile and dons (pun?) dark glasses. By the way, for CornChip supporters, this paragraph is “fake news” (Unless, of course, you look at the photos of the two together._

Gotta love news reports that quote an unnamed "source".

Time to get with some factual reporting - which is hard to find these days...

The first "retraction" on the list wasn't even something that could be retracted.

The fifth "retraction" was a personal tweet being delete, which is not a news outlet retracting.

The sixth "retractions" is an accusation of dishonest editing, not a retraction.

And the last "retraction" is an assertion, not a retraction.

4 of 11 aren't retractions, so there is only evidence here of 7 retractions. What's Fox's record?

A bit dated, but demonstrates that Fox has retracted plenty. Add in the numerous retraction over the next five years, and we can see that Fox is on par or ahead of other news outlets for retractions.

https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/04/yes-roger-fox-news-has-retracted-false-stories/329355/

And the real issue is how the "liberal" outlets retract relative to the conservative outlets.

CNN, on one hand, retracted its story within a day and issued an apology. The network immediately carried out an internal investigation. Three employees resigned. Those that remained were told that any future stories on the topic would need to be vetted by two top executives before publishing.

Compared to:

Fox, on the other hand, took a week to retract the story, though it was debunked by other news outlets within hours. Little news of an investigation within the network emerged. No on-air apology was issued, despite a week of speculative coverage on the cable network. No employees resigned. And one of the network’s stars — Sean Hannity — continues to promote the conspiracy theory to this day.

JT sometimes cracks me up with the articles they find that are on page 28 that no one talks about. 

Yup - aside from the fact that we came within a hairs-breadth of another Saturday Night Massacre and, probably, a constitutional crisis, nothing to see here. He sure seems very preoccupied with ending the investigation for someone who is innocent. I'm sure the subject is still on Trump's mind; we'll see if upcoming events prompt him to take the plunge.

Anyway, I'm sure Mueller's known about this for months. He must find it amusing that Trump is in such a weak position. And Trump is no doubt stewing, "would love to testify" notwithstanding.

this russian stuff is getting too boring. if the USA is a real democracy, then russian input can be part of it. nobody talks about israeli involvement.

@goodl nobody talks about israeli involvement.

Nobody? If you don't trust Wikipedia, there are dozens of sources at the bottom of the page.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel_lobby_in_the_United_States

@good this russian stuff is getting too boring.

To non-Americans and American rightists I imagine that's true. I don't know which country you're from, but wherever it is you should know you don't have to read articles that bore you.

Biggest nonstory yet. 7 months ago Trump may have thought about doing something. His lawyer may have threatened to quit if he did but didn’t even tell Trump directly he would quit according to the article.

Others around Trump probably didn’t even know why the lawyer was even threatening to quit because they didn’t hear about what Trump couid have wanted to do.

Yeah ok thanks for the update about what someone didn’t do and what people didn’t know.

you don't have to read articles that bore you

its everywhere, everyday, in your face. and i only read the tagline and just wanted to say that just because clinton lost, this stuff grinds on and on. and on.

The Russia "stuff" grinds on and on not bevause Clinton lost, but because none of the multiple investigations have been concluded.

I know, I know. It's a huge nothing burger because there have been no leaks and the investigations have been going for longer than a month. I also know that good investigators run right ships bevause leaks give other suspects information that could lead to those suspects running or taking measures to further hide their misdeeds. I also know that investigations into complex issues take time to properly investigate.

And regarding Mueller allegedly going beyond the scope of his mandate, read his appointment letter and you'll see he is well within his mandate.

Regarding Mueller and his team being biased, nope. Yes, they have political opinions, but like most civil servamts, their interest is in upholding the oath they took to defend the constitution.

No, let’s say you are investigating someone. The lead investigator says we better go easy on someone because they will probably be the next president and we don’t want to anger them?

Then everyone including all the bosses agree and you do exactly that with the boss writing a not guilty letter before even questioning the person?

That is the collusion you been looking for. Now their only interest is covering it all up by distractions like this dated article about nothing.

Carl Bernstein had this to say about the Republican claims of the FBI being a so-called secret society:

"The playbook right now is to go out in front of the cameras with whatever the latest thing down in the reeds is that you might grasp to somehow undermine the investigation and smear it and go out there with it. He looks buffoonish in what we see....The question is: Why are they so afraid and unwilling to allow the facts to be established by a duly constituted investigation supervised by a Republican, Ron Rosenstien, the deputy attorney general, by a Republican special consul?....All the cards are held by Republicans here to speak of and the investigation needs to go forward in the interests of the national security of the United States. And these Republicans are undermining the national security of the United States when they attack our institutions in this unjustified way . . . We are in the midst of learning what our president, his family, his campaign aides, his closest business associates might have done. We are right at the cusp of finding out. That's what we're watching here is their concern that we are at the cusp of finding out and they don't want us to find out."

Carl Bernstein, CNN 1/26/18

The lead investigator says we better go easy on someone because they will probably be the next president and we don’t want to anger them?

Oh, right - remember how easy they went on Clinton? Like the way Comey sent a letter to Congress on October 28 - election eve - saying   the FBI had “learned of the existence of emails that appear to be pertinent to the investigation” which in fact turned out to have nothing to do with anything? While at the same time, the ongoing investigation into individuals involved in Trump's campaign had been continuing secretly since June (well before the Dossier, let's not forget), but no word was leaked of that?

Ironic. Comey put up blazing billboards regarding wayward emails that turned out to be nothing but emitted not a peep about Trump inner-circle connections with foreign countries that have already resulted in two plea bargains and two indictments (one of which, Rick Gates, deputy of Paul Manafort, looks to flip to a plea bargain imminently - he knows his boss is toast and will soon spill his guts).

So, yeah, I agree with your statement above provided you're referring to Trump. Comey cost Hillary the election.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-comey-letter-probably-cost-clinton-the-election/

@stormc And these Republicans are undermining the national security of the United States when they attack our institutions in this unjustified way . . 

They're not just undermining the national security, but other democratic institutions along with it. But then we've heard their supporters say they WANT to see the US systems torn down. They seem to be fearful people (look at their attitudes about arming themselves at a military level) who need big guns and big daddy in the form of a 'strong' executive to look out for them. They don't want to see the US systems of balance of powers continue.

@PTwonsend: "They don't want to see the US systems of balance of powers continue."

Like in a banana republic?

Interesting that you mention that they don't want to see the US systems of balance of powers continue because, for the sake of keeping it short, I left out the part Bernstein said about the danger of becoming a banana republic.

It's that fundamentalist Christian/corporate nexus expressing their will on America. Anyone who thought it would be anything else - that Trump would somehow be able to "drain the swamp" without the GOP's most influential constituencies flooding in to fill the vacuum of technocrats - is a fool.

First, if Comey really cost Hillary the election why do all liberals love him and his arrogant self serving twitter quotes?

Second, if they didn’t go easy on Hillary why were so many of her staff given immunity? Immunity from WHAT?

Third, if they didn’t go easy on her they would have pushed for a special counsel not against it. Was more proof she committed an actual crime than there was on Trump at that time (and even now).

First, liberals do not like Comey. They sympathize with him.

Second, giving immunity to those who testify during an investigation is common in the findings stage. This encourages the witness to testify honestly. It in no way indicates guilt or innocence. Do you honestly think that, given the hysteric hostility the GOP harbors against Clinton, if her (granted unwise) email server decision had warranted prosecution, it wouldn't have been - particularly now with Trump on the cusp of some serious trouble? (I know - the House is trying it's best, but it's very difficult to find something that's not there.)

Third, see above.

Really, the lengths GOPers in the house are resorting to now have exceeded farce. "Secret committee"? Nune's memo (which they could release tomorrow, BTW, if they wanted to)? Go ahead and knock yourself out, but truth has a tendency to prevail. If Clinton is in fact guilty of something, they'll find it; if Trump, the same.

I just don’t get why it’s a “bombshell report” that CNN reporters have to scream across the room to get trump’s comment about.

Its called a meeting with your staff. Lots of things are talked about that are never done based on staff input. It’s news now that it may have been discussed? Nope

Meanwhile in real Political crime with “Russians”. Illegal financial contributions. One time the evidence didn’t magically get lost or deleted.

http://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/community/broward/article196985709.html

(a Democrat in case the article seems not to really mention it. )

Black, it's called "intent." Obstruction of justice is a so-called "intent crime" as it often involves seemingly innocuous actions (such as calling a meeting with your staff) that have nefarious motives. Let's look at the three justifications Trump gave for dismissing Mueller:

Mueller had left one of Trump’s golf clubs in a dispute about dues (trivial!);

Mueller’s former law firm had represented Jared Kushner (should make Mueller more sympathetic to Trump, not less);

Trump had interviewed Mueller as a possible interim replacement for Comey as F.B.I. director (shows that Trump had trust in Mueller).

Does any one of these seem justifiable? White House counsel Don McGahn certainly didn't think so; in fact, he saw these purported reasons as pretexts for shutting down the investigation, and hence his threat to resign.

That is why this revelation is important. Such behavior on Trump's part limited to Comey could have been explained away; when a pattern appears, it reveals intent.

Yet another kitten-trying-to-catch-a-laser-light article. So funny to watch the supporters of America's rapidly shrinking minority political party pin their hopes onto anything and all things anti-President Trump released by the NWO-controlled media.

What the low information leftists fail to realize is President Trump never tries to fire someone; he fires them. . . .

What the low information leftists fail to realize is President Trump never tries to fire someone; he fires them.

Not this time (nice try, though - instead, Trump decided, if ya can't fire 'em, slime 'em). In fact the FT has just reported that Trump was so incensed that he ordered a smear campaign conducted against three senior FBI officials:

President Donald Trump pressed senior aides last June to devise and carry out a campaign to discredit senior FBI officials after learning that those specific employees were likely to be witnesses against him as part of special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation, according to two people directly familiar with the matter… Trump — as well as his aides, surrogates, and some Republican members of Congress — has engaged in an unprecedented campaign to discredit specific senior bureau officials and the FBI as an institution. 

This revelation could turn out to be a big thing. One wonders if the White House is coordinating their attacks with Congress on Mueller and the FBI. One day, we'll find out - and if so, there'll be a few ex-congressmen looking for a job. Another example of Trump's intent.

http://foreignpolicy.com/2018/01/26/trump-launched-campaign-to-discredit-potential-fbi-witnesses/

Oh, right - remember how easy they went on Clinton? Like the way Comey sent a letter to Congress on October 28 - election eve

Yep. The fact that the FBI made this announcement days before the election is forgotten by those who claim Comey wanted to help Clinton.

And where is the comparative list of Fox retractions?

Between what you posted and one from last year, 2.

The first "retraction" on the list wasn't even something that could be retracted.

Yes, that's why he apologized for it.

The fifth "retraction" was a personal tweet being delete, which is not a news outlet retracting.

Which amounts to an apology, because he say a slander lawsuit coming his way was rumored, if he thought he was in every way right, he would have fought it and he didn't which means, he knew he lied. Nevertheless, it was a huge mistake and huge retraction of the humiliating kind.

The sixth "retractions" is an accusation of dishonest editing, not a retraction.

Dishonest another euphemism for "lie" which they corrected.

And the last "retraction" is an assertion, not a retraction.

One that has proved so far to not any merit and as the days go by are revealing that this is the biggest witch hunt in US history.

4 of 11 aren't retractions, so there is only evidence here of 7 retractions. What's Fox's record?

Not quite, so when you add the blatant dishonesty and the intentional lie you're at 10.

A bit dated, but demonstrates that Fox has retracted plenty.

They have, but not even close to the other networks.

Add in the numerous retraction over the next five years, and we can see that Fox is on par or ahead of other news outlets for retractions.

Not even close to the truth, the other networks had more retractions in ONE year compared to FNC in a 5 years. Every news has a couple of retractions here and there, but last year, the liberal networks were on a roll.

2001, 2002 yes, there were a few, it happens of course, but in a 17 year span in the news business that's not bad at all, in fact, that's seen as great, now compare that to 11 or rather 10 retractions in one year and you have a serious credibility crisis on your hands

And the real issue is how the "liberal" outlets retract relative to the conservative outlets. 

Not exactly...

http://thefederalist.com/2017/12/11/political-journalists-credibility/

This week alone, four big scoops were run by major news organizations — written by top reporters and presumably churned through layers of scrupulous editing — that turned out to be completely wrong: Reuters, Bloomberg, **The Wall Street Journal, and others reported that the special counsel’s office had subpoenaed Donald Trump’s records from Deutsche Bank. They weren’t. **

ABC reported that Trump had directed Michael Flynn to make contact with Russian officials before the election. He didn’t (as far as we know). 

*The New York Times*** ran a story that showed K.T. McFarland had acknowledged collusion. She didn’t. **

Then CNN topped off the week by falsely reporting that the Trump campaign had been offered access to hacked Democratic National Committee emails before they were published.

Fox, on the other hand, took a week to retract the story, though it was debunked by other news outlets within hours. Little news of an investigation within the network emerged. No on-air apology was issued, despite a week of speculative coverage on the cable network. No employees resigned. And one of the network’s stars — Sean Hannity — continues to promote the conspiracy theory to this day.

Because he promised not to bring up the Seth Rich story. I heard supposedly he spoke with the family that he wouldn't bring up his name, so there was no need for a resignation. CNN can do that as the Miki-Ds of the media.

What the low information leftists fail to realize is President Trump never tries to fire someone; he fires them. . . .

What Trumpists fail to realize is that being President of the United States is not the same as being a reality TV star. There are necessary limits that are placed on the office so as to protect something more important than Trump himself: i.e. a well-functioning democratic government of checks and balances.

First, liberals do not like Comey. They sympathize with him.

Oh, please, they liked him, loved him when he was going after Trump and when he went after Hillary, they hated him. They now feel, as you say sorry (lol) for Comey because since trump fired him, they are hoping to come up with something pertaining to this bogus witch hunt.

Second, giving immunity to those who testify during an investigation is common in the findings stage. This encourages the witness to testify honestly.

You mean: perjury trap, let's not mix words and be honest with what it really is.

It in no way indicates guilt or innocence.

Hmmm....

Do you honestly think that, given the hysteric hostility the GOP harbors against Clinton, if her (granted unwise) email server decision had warranted prosecution, it wouldn't have been - particularly now with Trump on the cusp of some serious trouble?

Doubt it

(I know - the House is trying it's best, but it's very difficult to find something that's not there.)

Yes, the same for the Dems, they hope, but nothing and so Mueller has to be as inventive as possible to come up with something/anything to make a case.

Really, the lengths GOPers in the house are resorting to now have exceeded farce. "Secret committee"?

You can believe what you want, you didn't see the documents, none of us have and this notion that liberals think that they are the smartest tool in the shed is at times amusing, but very annoying. Everything from the mails and other evidence that they have leads to that allegation.

Nune's memo (which they could release tomorrow, BTW, if they wanted to)? Go ahead and knock yourself out, but truth has a tendency to prevail. If Clinton is in fact guilty of something, they'll find it; if Trump, the same.

Yes, we will knock ourselves out and let's see where this goes, be careful for what you wish for.

when he went after Hillary, they hated him

Stop projecting what you would have done as being what we did.

When comey started reinvestigating Hillary right before the election, most of us on the left said he was doing the right thing.

Uninformed comservatjvds trying to bend facts.

1:

https://www.google.co.jp/amp/deadline.com/2017/07/fox-friends-donald-trump-james-comey-retraction-report-1202126869/amp/

2:

https://www.google.co.jp/amp/www.foxnews.com/us/2017/10/19/correction-veteran-glass-artist-falsified-his-military-record.amp.html

3:

https://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_5a2c1d58e4b0a290f051304f

4:

https://www.google.co.jp/amp/s/www.nbcnews.com/politics/white-house/amp/fox-retracts-story-sparked-conspiracy-about-slain-dnc-staffer-n763746

5:

https://theintercept.com/liveblogs/trumpdown/trump-ignores-fox-news-retraction-of-false-report-indictment-likely-in-f-b-i-clinton-foundation-probe/

6:

https://www.google.co.jp/amp/insider.foxnews.com/amp/article/53287

The White House counsel did not resign. Trump did not actually fire Mueller. So what’s the point of this story?

... they liked him, loved him when he was going after Trump...

Hmm. I was never aware of any event in which FBI Director Comey was ever tasked with investigating the president, not to mention "going after" - unless you're referring to that episode when Comey refused to kiss the Don's ring. Put it this way: he could run for any office on the Democratic ticket anywhere in the country, and he'd never make it through the primaries.

The White House counsel did not resign. Trump did not actually fire Mueller. So what’s the point of this story?

Wolf, see my below post regarding "intent."

“Intent” of something you did, sure. Intent of something you didn’t do? That’s a stretch. That’s called “thought about it”. Is thinking a crime now?

Why doesn't he leave the White House if he was fed up?

I'll leave the job if I was unhappy because it will kill me. Perhaps, I'll get heart attack in White House.

Funny how liberals get hung up on intent. Hillary isn’t in jail only because Comey said she didn’t intend to mishandle top secret and classified materials.

She is simply too stupid to know that’s wrong, so let her off, how convenient. The most qualified person in history to be president too dumb to know this simple thing.

But Trump, he is the dumbest person in the world when it suits your narrative. Yet now he is being held to the standard to know that even asking if he can fire someone=intent= guilty of obstruction. just asking and never doing it. No way, not even close.

"Intent” of something you did, sure. Intent of something you didn’t do? That’s a stretch. That’s called “thought about it”. Is thinking a crime now?

Why was it that Trump fired Comey? He's given several reasons, from protesting Comey's rough handling of Clinton email issues to trying to stamp out any probe into Russian meddling in the election (methinks the truth lies in the latter - and to think, Trump used to go ballistic over such trivial issues as the number of people attending his inauguration! - events have grown more serious on the eve of his first State of the Nation address). Then there's the smearing of senior FBI employees and the department as a whole. Why? Who knows! Maybe just for fun! At any rate, these were ACTIONS, not simply thoughts, and Comey's firing was the original sin. Trump didn't have to take this path, but he's a megalomaniac narcissist of dubious intelligence, so of course he's going to dig his own grave.

With zero evidence, I still feel Mueller's obstruction of justice bent is a red herring to distract from the money. Money laundering through real estate. It's what Manafort was snagged for, and his deputy Gates seems ready to sing. I just have a feeling Mueller is shouting "Squirrel!" while something deeper is going on.

Funny how liberals get hung up on intent.

It's neither a liberal nor a conservative thing. It is a legal thing. Kinda like how bullets don't care about race, religion, or class - they're blind. Trump's got some answering to do. We'll see how it goes.

It's neither a liberal nor a conservative thing.

It's a liberal hit job all the way

Yes, those liberals Rosenstein and Sessions. And Comey, Mueller, and the massive liberal base at the FBI. And those liberals heading up the Senate and House investigations.

Trump and the right wing media are getting people on board with ignoring any wrongdoing the FBI finds, which is fine since it won't change things in a court of law. And if Trump walks, the headlines about the corrupt FBI will vanish overnight.