Lock Him Up

In a stunning display of arrogance and incompetence, President Trump single-handedly ground his administration to a halt and changed the 2018 election into a referendum on his potential impeachment.

Firing the head of the FBI took a smoldering scandal about collusion with the Russians and turned it into a full blown bonfire with its own special counselor and an impaneled grand jury.

That’s because this is no longer just a question of connections between the Russians and the Trump campaign.  It is now an investigation of obstruction of justice.  It no longer matters whether or not there is substance to the claims that there were a dozen or so conversations between Russians and the Trump campaign.  It also no longer matters whether the conversations were about coordinating the Russian social media and hacking activities with Trump campaign, or they were about current or future business opportunities, or they were just friends catching up about hockey.  What matters now is that there is evidence that Trump and his administration may have attempted to intervene in an ongoing investigation.

The last two impeachment investigations were based on obstruction of justice claims.  It’s that claim that will drive this investigation forward.  That’s because voters are much more concerned about abuses of power than they are about any other claims of corruption.

Trump has attempted to characterize this as a witch hunt, but he only has himself to blame.  Firing James Comey in a fit of pique and then attempting to discredit him caused the response.  Involving the Deputy Attorney General in the firing, gave the Justice Department no other choice.  AG Sessions had already recused himself because he had lied during his confirmation hearings about his Russian connections.  The President had fired the guy leading the investigation at the FBI.  The DOJ had to appoint an independent counselor in order to preserve the integrity of the DOJ and the FBI.

This is politics 101.  Unfortunately, Trump and his administration appear to have skipped that course.

Here’s the rest of politics 101.  This investigation is going to take a long time.  There are two reasons.

First, there is already a grand jury involved, and they have a broad mandate to follow whatever issues they deem appropriate.  The Starr investigation started out with Whitewater and ended up with Monica Lewinsky four years later.

Second, everyone in the White House and the Trump campaign are going to be asked what they know and when they knew it.  Timing is critical to determine intent.  Intent to obstruct justice is what the special counselor will be attempting to prove or disprove.

The consequences of a long investigation are also obvious.

The administration will grind to a halt because Congress will be unwilling to take any controversial votes until they determine what the results will be from this investigation.

What that leaves is the 2018 election.

All the house seats will be contested as well as 33 senate seats.  A lot more information will dribble out between now and then.  Most of it will be unflattering to the President.  The House will not take an impeachment vote before the election because they will not want to run on how they individually voted.  Instead, House Republicans will be faced with the challenging prospect of defending their vote on a VERY unpopular healthcare bill AND defending the actions of a President who is under investigation for abusing his power.  Every Democrat running against an incumbent Republican in the House or Senate is going to tell voters that re-electing the incumbent will insure that Trump will never be held accountable for his actions AND that healthcare insurance will be taken away from all those who have pre-existing conditions and all those on MedicAid.

What is particularly ironic is that Trump won the election based in part on a last minute surge of voters who were persuaded by Trump’s claims that Clinton was a criminal.  He may now end up losing his majority in at least the House for exactly those same reasons.

BTW the Real Clear Politics combined job approval ratings poll just hit a new low.  For the first time since the inauguration, the aggregate poll slipped below 40.  Same thing with the aggregate FiveThirtyEight job approval poll.

 

23 Responses to “Lock Him Up”

  1. Keith says:

    I have no clue what the outcome will be. So far however not one shread of evidence.

    Bill Clinton climbed on Miss Lynch’s airplane and you were not concerned…. please support evidence so I can understand why President Trump should be impeached…. so far only biased speculation.

    I am GLAD And independent has been named. Lesley’s get behind this. I will be interested to read your public apology to President Trump if your biased speculation is incorrect.

  2. Jeff Beamsley says:

    I have no clue what the outcome will be. So far however not one shread of evidence.

    You appear to have ignored completely the post that I just wrote.

    The “shreds” of evidence are obvious. It is the intent that is still in question. The issue is obstruction of justice, not collusion with the Russians. Trump has already said that he fired Comey because of the Russian investigations. Friends of Comey have said that Trump asked Comey to pledge his loyalty and to give up the Flynn investigation. That’s why the Deputy AG had to hire Mueller as a special counsel. Trump’s actions had compromised both the FBI and the DOJ. He compromised the FBI by meeting privately with Comey and then firing him. He compromised the DOJ by falsely claiming that the Deputy AG’s report was the cause for firing Comey when Trump had already made the decision.

    What will now happen is two years or so of grand jury investigations where EVERY possible thread of potential criminal wrongdoing will be followed. That almost certainly means that the grand jury will get to look at Trump’s tax returns. They will see all of the intelligence around the Russian involvement in the elections. They will likely look at potential conflicts of interest. Given how sloppy the Trump administration has been, I think it highly likely that they will find lots of stuff that will result indictments. Whether this is traceable to Trump or not doesn’t matter. What matters is that nothing of substance is going to pass the house or the Senate until after the 2018 elections. As a result, all of those promises that Trump made will go unfulfilled. We’ll see whether Trump will get the blame, but based on past history, the 2018 midterms are going to very difficult for Republicans.

    Bill Clinton climbed on Miss Lynch’s airplane and you were not concerned…. please support evidence so I can understand why President Trump should be impeached…. so far only biased speculation.

    I said it was stupid at the time. I was concerned because of the optics. If they were talking about a “deal” that meeting blew up any possibility that Lynch could affect anything. She had to recuse herself and put the whole investigation in Comey’s hands.

    If Bill Clinton were President at the time, you could bring the same sorts of charges against him – but he wasn’t president and what little he did do, perhaps inadvertently, made the situation worse for his wife rather than better. That said, when he WAS President, Ken Starr was hired on the basis of Whitewater claims which were far flimsier than what Mueller has to work with today. None of those Whitewater charges were ever proved. He ended up being nearly impeached because of obstruction of justice charges related to the Monica Lewinsky affair.

    As far as whether or not Trump SHOULD be impeached, I don’t think I offered an opinion one way or the other. I have predicted what might happen if his popularity ratings dropped into the low 30’s, but that hasn’t happened yet. I don’t think anything is going to happen with impeachment until the Dems have control of the House and that hasn’t happened yet either. So please don’t beat me up with your own strawman.

    Maybe you’re just mad at my graphic, but that’s just a spin on one of Trump’s main campaign positions. If it was OK to claim that Clinton should be jailed, why is it not OK to post a graphic from someone who claimed the same thing about Trump?

    I am GLAD And independent has been named. Lesley’s get behind this. I will be interested to read your public apology to President Trump if your biased speculation is incorrect.

    Just so that we are on the same page here, what specific speculation of mine is it that you feel I should apologize for?

    That way if I turn out to be right, you can publicly apologize to me (on behalf of Donald Trump) for suggesting that I was treating him unfairly (I like this game already). 🙂

  3. Keith says:

    The entire post. The is no hard evidence of anything. You would of have written this article about Hillary durning the election. You would have said let’s wait. Again I DONT KNOW what Trump did or didn’t do. Hillary violates the law CLEARLY with he served and no charges because intent wasn’t proved. So Comey basically said there was no intent proven leading us to believe she was just stupid. Today, TODAY, there is no evidence of anything. To prove intent of obstructing justice will be very difficult. If he did, then out with him.

    The media is reporting with glee. You surely see this. 91% of those inside the belt way voted for Hillary. Not hard to see it.

    And yes, “lock him” up if extreme. I was not leading those cheers. I did say she was guilty.

  4. Jeff Beamsley says:

    The entire post. The is no hard evidence of anything. You would of have written this article about Hillary durning the election. You would have said let’s wait. Again I DONT KNOW what Trump did or didn’t do. Hillary violates the law CLEARLY with he served and no charges because intent wasn’t proved. So Comey basically said there was no intent proven leading us to believe she was just stupid. Today, TODAY, there is no evidence of anything. To prove intent of obstructing justice will be very difficult. If he did, then out with him.

    There’s your bias filter jumping into place again.

    Let’s go through this carefully.

    Trump is being INVESTIGATED for obstruction of justice. The reason he is being investigated is that he fired the guy who was heading up an investigation into the connection between his campaign and Russian attempts to disrupt the election.

    So let’s pause there. Hopefully you don’t have any problem with the ongoing investigations regarding Russian involvement. Hopefully you can appreciate that when a sitting president fires the guy heading up one of those investigations and later admits that they firing was because of that investigation, that there is the POSSIBILITY that he did so in order to disrupt the investigation. That POSSIBILITY was supported by a report that he told the Russians that he was feeling some pressure from the investigations and firing Comey relieved that pressure.

    Now let’s talk about Clinton.

    Clinton was originally being investigated for claims that she mishandled the response to the Benghazi attack. The only thing that investigation turned up was that she had a private email server. Then the FBI got involved to determine if she had violated any laws regarding protecting confidential information. The FBI determined that while there was some confidential information that was mishandled, there was no INTENT to avoid the laws regarding how confidential information is handled. You feel that she was guilty, but that is a personal judgement based on your own bias. She was not charged with a crime. She did not have a trial. According to our legal system she is innocent until proven guilty.

    Here are the similarities.

    Clinton admitted that she had a private email server. That was sufficient to support an investigation by the FBI into how she was using that private email server.

    Trump fired the head of the FBI during an active FBI investigation into the activities of the Trump campaign and administration. His actions also compromised the ability of the DOJ to investigate on their own. So the deputy AG appointed Mueller to conduct an independent investigation into whether or not Trump is guilty of obstruction of justice.

    The other similarity is that these are both potential crimes that involve intent.

    The other similarity is that once an investigation starts, it can go anywhere. In Clinton’s case her investigation turned up a private email server which ultimately cost her an election. We don’t know what the Trump investigations will turn up, but there is the very REAL risk that it will turn up something that will prove FAR more damaging than claims related to Russian involvement in the elections.

    The differences are also important. Obstruction of justice is an impeachable offense. Mishandling to classified information may be a crime, but isn’t nearly as serious politically as using the power of your position to impede an investigation. Though in Clinton’s case she paid a dear price for her mistake. Say what you want about Clinton, but she and her team cooperated completely with the FBI from the very start.

    The media is reporting with glee. You surely see this. 91% of those inside the belt way voted for Hillary. Not hard to see it.

    You also completely ignored the Harvard report that you originally posted to claim media bias. The bias is there, but it has nothing to do with who reporters may have voted for. It is everything to do with reporting bad news. The ONLY one responsible for the BAD news that is currently being reported is Trump. He is making this easy with his daily failures to control his own messaging. It will only get worse when Comey testifies in public. He is going to get a chance to tell his story. That story will contradict EVERYTHING that the President has said about their meetings including who invited whom to dinner, what was said about loyalty, and what was said about the investigation. The public is going to get a chance to decide whether Comey is a showboating nut job, or the President is a liar. For those who miss that interview, the press will write stories asking the same question. That’s because it is NEWS, not because they are biased. The result will be that public support for the investigations will go up and Trump’s job approval ratings will go down. Whether or not individual reporters take any particular pleasure in this is not the issue or even the question. The responsibility of the press is to speak truth to power and inform the public as honestly as they can. They will write stories which include what Trump said and then list how folks like Comey are responding. Trump makes this easy because he obsessively seeks attention and he gets it by telling so many lies. It worked for him during the campaign. It is working against him as president.

    And yes, “lock him” up if extreme. I was not leading those cheers. I did say she was guilty.

    Then I guess you have no standing to complain when others with the same bias against Trump chant the same thing. 🙂

    Finally, back to the “game”.

    So what is it specifically that I’m supposed to apologize to Trump for?

    I’ve documented what he did to cause this investigation to happen. Am I supposed to apologize for the investigation?

    I have said that he is guilty of lying. You want me to apologize for that?

    I haven’t said that he is guilty of the crime of obstructing justice. I agree that is hard to prove.

    I have said that I think this investigation will turn up other things that WILL result in indictments of others in his administration. This one is easy though because Flynn has already as much as admitted that he violated the laws prohibiting people from lobbying for foreign powers. But if that’s the one we need to keep track of, let me know.

    If it is my general enjoyment of the implosion of the Trump administration, yes I am guilty. But I’m curious what event will demonstrate that he is no longer imploding and as a result deserves my apology? Also what will be the point at which you are required to admit that this administration is a disaster and apologize to me (on behalf of Trump) for criticizing them?

    If it’s something else, please let me know. Looking forward to it.

  5. Keith says:

    And yes, “lock him” up if extreme. I was not leading those cheers. I did say she was guilty.

    Then I guess you have no standing to complain when others with the same bias against Trump chant the same thing. 🙂

    Let me clarify the auto filled version of what I typed.

    Yes “lock him up” is extreme. I was not leading those cheers about Hillary. Meaning I was chanting lock her up. I did say I thought she was guilty. She was you know that and I know that. Comeys dressing down of her confirmed that. Unless of course you side with what he lead us to accept in his conclusion that she’s just stupid and naive….

  6. Keith says:

    Again with auto fill. I’m sorry about this.

    I WAS NOT leading those cheers.

  7. Jeff Beamsley says:

    Yes “lock him up” is extreme. I was not leading those cheers about Hillary. Meaning I was chanting lock her up. I did say I thought she was guilty. She was you know that and I know that. Comeys dressing down of her confirmed that. Unless of course you side with what he lead us to accept in his conclusion that she’s just stupid and naive….

    This is an interesting part of this discussion.

    There are two parts of the Clinton email claim. The first is obvious. She had a private email server that she used for business. Her claim was that no confidential email went through that server. The FBI discovered that wasn’t true. But they couldn’t prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Clinton INTENTIONALLY used her private email server to circumvent government rules regarding treatment of confidential information. In other words, she did not stand to gain in any particular way from keeping confidential email out of the government system. You looked at that with your own bias and claim that the only conclusion you can come to is that she was guilty. You use a different definition of guilt here, since legally she remains innocent until proven guilty in a court.

    Now we have Trump. The evidence of potential obstruction of justice is that he fired the person directing an investigation into his administration for dealing with the Russians. The reason why this is solid evidence is because he admitted publically that his reason for firing Comey was the Russian investigation. It has also been reported that he told Russians that Comey’s firing relieved pressure that he was feeling. It has also been reported that Comey’s notes after separate meetings with Trump document that Trump asked him to give Flynn a pass AND Trump asked him for a pledge of personal loyalty. Comey declined both requests. Finally, it has also been reported recently that someone in the Trump administration, “very close to the President”, is a “person of interest” in the Russian investigation.

    The only thing missing in the Trump investigation is the same question in the Clinton investigation – INTENT.

    Yet you claim that there isn’t a “shred” of evidence to suggest that Trump is guilty while “guilty” or “stupid” are the only available conclusions available for Clinton. You base your Clinton claim on what Comey said, even though Comey’s conclusion was that HE couldn’t prove intent. Now the same guy, Comey, is saying that Trump DID in fact INTEND to obstruct an investigation that he was conducting by asking him to stop investigating Flynn and asking that he put his loyalty to the President above his duty as head of the FBI.

    If I follow the same path with Clinton that you suggest, Trump also has be deemed guilty. So which is it? Is he guilty, or are you biased? Aren’t those the only two choices? 🙂

  8. Keith says:

    http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2017/05/breaking-complete-panic-set-highest-levels-dnc-seth-rich-murder-investigation/

    Think anyone in the mainstream media will take a run at this?
    No clue if it’s true but do you think someone other then conservative far right media will sniff around?

    I’ll answer your question soon.

  9. Keith says:

    http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2017/05/breaking-complete-panic-set-highest-levels-dnc-seth-rich-murder-investigation/

    Alan says “show me the crime”
    I’ve said “there isn’t a shred of evidence.” There might be some somewhere but so far nothing.

    Hillary set up an email server in which to do government business. Guilty
    She was untruthful about it.

    She is above and beyond all things a lawyer. Everything thing she says and does it well considered. “I didn’t receive or send anything classified” changed immediately to “I didn’t knowingly…..” Comeys public dressing down of her did not end with “and she’s guilty.” This leads only to the conclusion that’s she’s stupid. She’s not stupid.

    Trumps handling and firing was ignorant. Not guilty or stupid.

  10. Jeff Beamsley says:

    http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2017/05/breaking-complete-panic-set-highest-levels-dnc-seth-rich-murder-investigation/

    Think anyone in the mainstream media will take a run at this?
    No clue if it’s true but do you think someone other then conservative far right media will sniff around?

    Ethical media aren’t going to touch this until they can get some additional reliable sources to support the story. Kim Dotcom and Sean Hannity are not reliable sources.

    BTW Democrats are not backing away from the Russian story these days because it has turned into an obstruction of justice investigation. Also it is pretty clear the at Flynn broke the law. Whether this can be traced back to Trump doesn’t matter anymore because Trump has provided enough evidence himself for probably cause for obstruction of justice. Just need probable cause to conduct a thorough investigation.

  11. Jeff Beamsley says:

    Alan says “show me the crime”
    I’ve said “there isn’t a shred of evidence.” There might be some somewhere but so far nothing.

    Unlike you, Dershowitz doesn’t deny the evidence. In his view, the law is pretty broad with regard to what is allowed in a campaign, and the president has broad powers to hire and fire people. Doesn’t really matter. The investigations have started. We can be fairly confident of a couple of things. The investigation will take a long time. There will be continued drip-drip of bad news for Trump. His administration’s ability to do anything significant legislatively will be dramatically reduced. Republicans feeling the pressure of 2018 will begin to distance themselves from Trump (this is already happening).

    Hillary set up an email server in which to do government business. Guilty
    She was untruthful about it.

    She never denied that she set up her own server. What was she untruthful about?

    She is above and beyond all things a lawyer. Everything thing she says and does it well considered. “I didn’t receive or send anything classified” changed immediately to “I didn’t knowingly…..” Comeys public dressing down of her did not end with “and she’s guilty.” This leads only to the conclusion that’s she’s stupid. She’s not stupid.

    Trumps handling and firing was ignorant. Not guilty or stupid.

    Funny. Trump is innocent because he is ignorant. Clinton is guilty because she is not ignorant. You are straining at gnats and swallowing camels.

    Here are the facts. Clinton is innocent because she was not charged with a crime. Until someone is convicted in court, they are innocent. That’s the law. Trump is also innocent for the same reasons. The big difference is that Trump is under investigation because there is sufficient evidence that crime has been committed to justify an investigation. The results of that investigation will determine whether or not he or others in his administration will be charged with a crime. If they are charged with a crime, their guilt or innocence will be determined by a court (or perhaps Congress).

    Everything else is your particular belief, which obviously just like religion, can’t be argued.

  12. Jeff Beamsley says:

    Wash Post reports that Trump ask two other intelligence chiefs to issue statements and directly intervene to ask Comey to drop his investigation.

    “The problem wasn’t so much asking them to issue statements, it was asking them to issue false statements about an ongoing investigation,” a former senior intelligence official said of the request to Coats.

    Just more drip-drip that will provide Mueller more data regarding intent to obstruct justice.

    Still convinced that there is “not a shred of evidence” of at least an attempt to slow the Comey investigation?

  13. Jeff Beamsley says:

    http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2017/05/breaking-complete-panic-set-highest-levels-dnc-seth-rich-murder-investigation/

    BTW that Hannity conspiracy theory that you helped him and Newt Gingrich promote?

    Completely bogus. What’s worse it pulled Seth Rich’s family into the fray. They sent Sean Hannity’s producer a letter asking him to stop.

    Think about how you would feel losing a son or brother. And while dealing with this, you had baseless accusations of your lost family member being part of a vast conspiracy

    Fox News took the story off their website saying it was improperly researched.

    Turns out that it was one of those Fox CREATED stories where one person who works at Fox quotes another person who works at Fox and suddenly there is a story. In this case it took a couple months for one of the two people, who also is a private investigator working for the family, to admit that he had no new information.

    Your suggestion is that mainstream media bias filters these stories out. In fact it’s just good honest journalism that keeps stuff like this from wider circulation.

    It’s this sort of stuff that is really disgusting about the right wing news bubble because they don’t care if it is bogus. They only care that it reinforces a particular political position.

    Please don’t post any more of it.

  14. Keith says:

    Jeff,
    Need to clear one thing up. I’m not promoting conserisey theory. I mearely asked you if someone else might want to investigate. Many times I’m merely asking your thoughts. I’m not promoting ANYTHING!!! You and I have a discussion. Because I ask your thoughts on something doesn’t mean I believe it, endorse it, or promote it.

  15. Keith says:

    YS) The big difference is that Trump is under investigation because there is sufficient evidence that crime has been committed to justify an investigation.

    I don’t know what you’ve missed but Alan’s where’s the crime and my where’s the evidence is the same thing.

    Trump DOES NOT know what he should and shouldn’t do. That is ignorant. Hillary send and received classified information which is a crime because of the considered decision she made to set up her own server. She wasn’t charged so it falls apart. Her “considered actions” are more guilty then Trumps, IF THEY ARE, ignorant actions.

    I am not defending him but challenging you based on your “nothing to see” attitude with Hillary firming her losing campaign. Just like there was nothing to see when Bill hopped on Miss Lynch’s airplane.

    Question. How much money has the Clinton Foundation raised in the last five months?

  16. Keith says:

    I’m going to ask a question out of my ignorance. President Obama is in Germany today saying 20 million people have health care today because of the ACA. The CBO scored yesterday 23 million would lose their health coverage if the bill the republicans passed were to become law. How can that be? In summary 3 million more people will lose coverage then the total amount that, today benefited from the law. Can you help me because the obvious, though maybe wrong, conclusion is this doesn’t seem possible.

    Help!!!

  17. Jeff Beamsley says:

    Jeff,
    Need to clear one thing up. I’m not promoting conserisey theory. I mearely asked you if someone else might want to investigate. Many times I’m merely asking your thoughts. I’m not promoting ANYTHING!!! You and I have a discussion. Because I ask your thoughts on something doesn’t mean I believe it, endorse it, or promote it.

    I can pretty much predict that anything posted by gatewaypundit, drudge, breitbart, etc that hasn’t shown up in the NYT or WashPost IS either fake news or a conspiracy theory. 🙂

  18. Jeff Beamsley says:

    I don’t know what you’ve missed but Alan’s where’s the crime and my where’s the evidence is the same thing.

    You WANT them to be the same thing, but they aren’t unless you are also a Harvard Law Scholar. Dershowitz doesn’t dispute the fact that there is sufficient evidence to begin an investigation. What he disputes is that this evidence will ultimately produce something that can be prosecuted. His opinion is that the President has broad legal powers which include dismissing a the head of the FBI for whatever reason he wants. He also believes that political campaigns also have broad latitude in how they conduct their business because it is a no-holds-barred competition.

    The difference here is that the President doesn’t get tried in a court of law. The President gets tried by the House and Senate. As long as the Republicans have a majority in the House, no bill of impeachment will pass. That doesn’t mean, however, that there won’t be political consequences to the investigations that are underway. Those investigations have begun BECAUSE of actions the President took while in office and actions that his campaign took while he was running for office. The investigations will determine whether or not there is sufficient evidence to indict someone for something. Because of the way this President has chosen to go about his business (no tax returns, no divestiture, no regard for conflicts of interest, management by chaos), I can pretty much guarantee that somebody is going down. Flynn and Sessions already have admitted that they did not provide full disclosure of their activities with the Russians. They are obvious targets for indictments down the road. Whether or not this turns out to reach all the way to the President will depend MUCH more on the outcome of the 2018 midterm elections than anything else.

    BTW, Clinton lost. She is a private citizen. She was not indicted and as a result (just like OJ and Trump) is innocent until proven guilty under the law. So I will use your same argument. If you don’t have evidence of current wrong doing, please drop it.

  19. Jeff Beamsley says:

    I’m going to ask a question out of my ignorance. President Obama is in Germany today saying 20 million people have health care today because of the ACA. The CBO scored yesterday 23 million would lose their health coverage if the bill the republicans passed were to become law. How can that be? In summary 3 million more people will lose coverage then the total amount that, today benefited from the law. Can you help me because the obvious, though maybe wrong, conclusion is this doesn’t seem possible.

    Help!!!

    It also eliminates mandates that companies with more than 50 employees provide coverage. That’s where the additional uninsured come from. The biggest part of that increase in uninsured (14M) comes from the Medicaid population.

  20. Keith says:

    http://pagesix.com/2017/05/29/melania-trumps-revenge-on-designers-who-wont-dress-her/

    So let’s watch this…….
    They will be running to her is my guess.
    Otherwise she is the sole property of D&G.

  21. Jeff Beamsley says:

    http://pagesix.com/2017/05/29/melania-trumps-revenge-on-designers-who-wont-dress-her/

    So let’s watch this…….
    They will be running to her is my guess.
    Otherwise she is the sole property of D&G.

    ???????

    You are really posting something from a celebrity gossip site?

    I honestly don’t care. I care about this even less than the scurrilous rumors that Melania and Donald were preparing to divorce each other prior to the election. WHO CARES? Until he started lying about it, I also didn’t care about Clinton’s affair with Ms. Lewinsky or all of the rumored affairs of virtually every President who came before him (maybe not Nixon).

    I would only hope that the state of nation would be so stable that it would make sense to spent time on such trivial matters – but it’s not.

  22. Keith says:

    Jeff,
    Lighten up and have some fun. The thing to watch are the liberal fashion guys who have real and outspoken hatered for Trump. So much so “they won’t dress His wife.” So how long will that last? Real point they will follow the dollars also. So at they point they because either hypocrites or realists..

    Also did you see Kathy Griffins photo…. wow. Boy.

    Op-Ed: Trump threatening Europe … with the truth – CNBC
    https://apple.news/A-ztmMJNYSUyhwNCzgHzyjQ

  23. Jeff Beamsley says:

    Op-Ed: Trump threatening Europe … with the truth – CNBC
    https://apple.news/A-ztmMJNYSUyhwNCzgHzyjQ

    It is an Op-Ed. As far as the “truth”, that is in the eye of the beholder. Since it’s an op-ed from a conservative pundit, facts are in short supply.

Leave a Reply