Trump says he is under investigation by Mueller, slams probe as ‘witch hunt’

[Oceander]

Yeah so says the NeverTrumpers. Did the DAG recommend that Comey be fired? Simple yes no question. As for this "investigation" it is as plan as the nose on your face that the "investigation" is a witch hunt with one objective - take out Trump. Over turn the election result, drive a stake into the heart of our constitutional election process. But yeah yall will get to say "I told you so".

He didn't undercut it because even if Mueller is fired or recuses himself, the investigation will continue, under someone else's guidance, and that person is also equally likely to be not a Trump lackey. 

Only a liberal, or a Trumpette, would think making it worse was making it better because emotional venting was involved. 

[XenaLee]

Give me a break, you guys have been rooting for Trumps down fall ever since he was elected. A little honesty from time to time would be nice.

I don't think that is necessarily true, among most folks that are not Trump fans.   We want Trump to succeed for the good of America, which trickles down to being good for us too.  True, there are certainly a few die-hard Trump bashers that seem to want him to fail, but that's not generally the case among most members here.  JS....

[txradioguy]

Give me a break, you guys have been rooting for Trumps down fall ever since he was elected. A little honesty from time to time would be nice.

You're the one that needs to give the rest of us a break with that tired old lie.

[skeeter]

Actually most of us would prefer Trump not self destruct even if we believe he will. Just because you expect someone to do something bad based on past behavior doesn't mean you want them to.

Even if he doesn't self destruct whatever he does or says will be portrayed as such. The trick will be separating the actual screw ups from the rest.

Face it, much of what we think are mistakes resonates with a significant portion of his audience.

[Oceander]

Even if he doesn't self destruct whatever he does or says will be portrayed as such. The trick will be separating the actual screw ups from the rest.

Face it, much of what we think are mistakes resonates with a significant portion of his audience.

Yes, but the ultimate question is whether what he does helps or hurts, and so far most of what he's been doing has hurt him.  That makes those things objective mistakes, regardless of what his base thinks. 

[skeeter]

Yes, but the ultimate question is whether what he does helps or hurts, and so far most of what he's been doing has hurt him.  That makes those things objective mistakes, regardless of what his base thinks.

And yet Rasmussen now has him up to 50% popularity. Go figure.

[Oceander]

And yet Rasmussen now has him up to 50% popularity. Go figure.

So there are a lot of stupid people in the US; doesn't undercut my point that what matters is whether his actions objectively help or hurt, and so far they've objectively hurt him. 

If Rasmussen polled lemmings, 100% would be in favor of following the others off the cliff. Does that make following the lemmings the correct thing to do?

[skeeter]

So there are a lot of stupid people in the US; doesn't undercut my point that what matters is whether his actions objectively help or hurt, and so far they've objectively hurt him. 

If Rasmussen polled lemmings, 100% would be in favor of following the others off the cliff. Does that make following the lemmings the correct thing to do?

Actually I consider those poll numbers good news. Don't you?

[DCPatriot]

Actually I consider those poll numbers good news. Don't you?

      

[Sanguine]

Actually I consider those poll numbers good news. Don't you?

That is good indeed.  I was afraid he was underwater.

[truth_seeker]

So what exactly is Trump supposed to have done, anyway?

Officer, why did you pull me over?

Keep your hands where I can see them, and be quiet.

Officer, am I being charged? Why are you holding me?

Be quiet. Or I will charge you with resisting arrest.

Officer, what exactly is the 'probable cause?'

Not sure yet. That is what we are investigating.

Am I the only person on this site, who sees a perpetual fishing expedition underway?

[skeeter]

That is good indeed.  I was afraid he was underwater.

It means the MSM doesn't have the grip on public opinion they used to.

Whats not to like about that?

[Applewood]

Yeah so says the NeverTrumpers. Did the DAG recommend that Comey be fired? Simple yes no question. As for this "investigation" it is as plan as the nose on your face that the "investigation" is a witch hunt with one objective - take out Trump. Over turn the election result, drive a stake into the heart of our constitutional election process. But yeah yall will get to say "I told you so".

No, it isn't that plain to me.  Wouldn't you want to know if some foreign power -- one who is not our friend -- interfered in this country's election?  What if Russia had been in cahoots with Clinton and Clinton won?  Wouldn't you want to know?  Wouldn't you care? 

As I said before, this whole investigation may be a nothingburger, and if it is, then good.  But if there is the least bit of wrongdoing, we the people should know about it.  This is why we have law enforcement, attorneys general, the FBI, the Justice Department.  They are there to root out crime and bring their perpetrators to justice.  We've  had 8 years of unchecked lawlessness under Obama.  It's time all the entities involved get back to work investigating any and all allegations of wrongdoing and take the necessary steps to correct the situation.

I'm beginning to think that a number of Trump loyalists are lashing out, simply because they are afraid of what the results of this investigation might be.  Seems Trump is afraid.  Otherwise, why is he chronically hurling accusations at those involved with this investigation?  If he did no wrong, he should welcome this investigation.  If it is a witch hunt, let the investigation prove it.  It might actually quiet down those who are still whining about Trump being president.

[Oceander]

Actually I consider those poll numbers good news. Don't you?

I don't consider them germane to the question of whether Trump is objectively hurting his own cause. 

[Oceander]

No, it isn't that plain to me.  Wouldn't you want to know if some foreign power -- one who is not our friend -- interfered in this country's election?  What if Russia had been in cahoots with Clinton and Clinton won?  Wouldn't you want to know?  Wouldn't you care? 

As I said before, this whole investigation may be a nothingburger, and if it is, then good.  But if there is the least bit of wrongdoing, we the people should know about it.  This is why we have law enforcement, attorneys general, the FBI, the Justice Department.  They are there to root out crime and bring their perpetrators to justice.  We've  had 8 years of unchecked lawlessness under Obama.  It's time all the entities involved get back to work investigating any and all allegations of wrongdoing and take the necessary steps to correct the situation.

I'm beginning to think that a number of Trump loyalists are lashing out, simply because they are afraid of what the results of this investigation might be.  Seems Trump is afraid.  Otherwise, why is he chronically hurling accusations at those involved with this investigation?  If he did no wrong, he should welcome this investigation.  If it is a witch hunt, let the investigation prove it.  It might actually quiet down those who are still whining about Trump being president.

I completely agree. 

[skeeter]

I don't consider them germane to the question of whether Trump is objectively hurting his own cause.

Numbers by a reputable pollster are objective, unlike an opinion.

[skeeter]

No, it isn't that plain to me.  Wouldn't you want to know if some foreign power -- one who is not our friend -- interfered in this country's election?  What if Russia had been in cahoots with Clinton and Clinton won?  Wouldn't you want to know?  Wouldn't you care? 

As I said before, this whole investigation may be a nothingburger, and if it is, then good.  But if there is the least bit of wrongdoing, we the people should know about it.  This is why we have law enforcement, attorneys general, the FBI, the Justice Department.  They are there to root out crime and bring their perpetrators to justice.  We've  had 8 years of unchecked lawlessness under Obama.  It's time all the entities involved get back to work investigating any and all allegations of wrongdoing and take the necessary steps to correct the situation.

I'm beginning to think that a number of Trump loyalists are lashing out, simply because they are afraid of what the results of this investigation might be.  Seems Trump is afraid.  Otherwise, why is he chronically hurling accusations at those involved with this investigation?  If he did no wrong, he should welcome this investigation.  If it is a witch hunt, let the investigation prove it.  It might actually quiet down those who are still whining about Trump being president.

Well and good, but personally I'd like to see some evidence BEFORE the investigation.

Otherwise I'm inclined to think the 'investigation' is simply a political ploy. Which is NOT good in ANY case.

[Oceander]

Numbers by a reputable pollster are objective, unlike an opinion.

Are Trump's actions increasing or decreasing the democrats actions against him and the likelihood that one or more of those actions will be successful.  That is the objective question that matters, not whether a certain percentage of polled Americans like or dislike what he's doing. 

So far, Trump's actions have made things worse for him, not better, regardless of whether he has 50% - or even 80% - support in a poll. 

[skeeter]

Are Trump's actions increasing or decreasing the democrats actions against him and the likelihood that one or more of those actions will be successful.  That is the objective question that matters, not whether a certain percentage of polled Americans like or dislike what he's doing. 

So far, Trump's actions have made things worse for him, not better, regardless of whether he has 50% - or even 80% - support in a poll.

You'll have to back that assertion up. what 'actions' and how have they made things worse for him?

The democrats said they would impeach him the day after he was inaugurated, for cripes sake.

BTW there's a reason public goodwill is considered the currency of politics.

[Sanguine]

So what exactly is Trump supposed to have done, anyway?

Officer, why did you pull me over?

Keep your hands where I can see them, and be quiet.

Officer, am I being charged? Why are you holding me?

Be quiet. Or I will charge you with resisting arrest.

Officer, what exactly is the 'probable cause?'

Not sure yet. That is what we are investigating.

Am I the only person on this site, who sees a perpetual fishing expedition underway?

No, that's how I see it.  And, odds are, they will find something.  Heck, I'm Mrs. Clean, and I be they could find something that would make me appear to look bad.

[Oceander]

Well and good, but personally I'd like to see some evidence BEFORE the investigation.

Otherwise I'm inclined to think the 'investigation' is simply a political ploy. Which is NOT good in ANY case.

Comey's statements are just barely sufficient, particularly in context.  Those of a jaundiced predisposition would ask why Trump insisted on having that conversation with Comey in private and not with the Attorney General present.  Similarly, context means that the phrase "I hope" means more than just wishful thinking.  When I tell my kid "I hope you'll finish your homework before you go to your friend's house," I'm not just expressing a simple desire, I am giving a veiled order.  A jaundiced person could see Trump's remarks as a veiled order as well.  In other words, a suitably jaundiced person could see Trump as having given a veiled order, intentionally couched as a desire, under circumstances that imply corrupt intent (otherwise, why not have others present to hear you express your hopes).

I don't think Trump was intentionally trying to subvert the process - I think he's too stupid for that - I think he just forgot that he wasn't still back at NYC hall trying to wrangle a crony real estate deal from a venal city council member.  In other words, I don't think he was trying to obstruct justice, I just think he's a sleaze.  But I don't get to have a say in what the investigators think about what he did, and they might be as jaundiced as the hypothetical person I just described. 

[Oceander]

You'll have to back that assertion up. what 'actions' and how have they made things worse for him?

The democrats said they would impeach him the day after he was inaugurated, for cripes sake.

BTW there's a reason public goodwill is considered the currency of politics.

We'll just have to agree to disagree and see how it all plays out.  I hope it ultimately comes to naught, but I fear that Trump's innate sleaziness, honed over 70 years, will cause substantial damage to his presidency. 

[mystery-ak]

I don't think Trump was intentionally trying to subvert the process - I think he's too stupid for that - I think he just forgot that he wasn't still back at NYC hall trying to wrangle a crony real estate deal from a venal city council member.  In other words, I don't think he was trying to obstruct justice, I just think he's a sleaze.  But I don't get to have a say in what the investigators think about what he did, and they might be as jaundiced as the hypothetical person I just described. 

I don't think Trump is stupid..more politically naive and extremely bullheaded especially in listening to advice from his advisors...he is their worst nightmare

[Oceander]

I don't think Trump is stupid..more politically naive and extremely bullheaded especially in listening to advice from his advisors...he is their worst nightmare

Beyond a certain point that makes him stupid.  He is most definitely a sleazy NYC real estate developer (which is redundant because they all are) and a sleazy reality tv star.  He is also notoriously egotistical and thin-skinned, and is beginning to show signs of the same paranoia that destroyed Nixon. 

[truth_seeker]

Beyond a certain point that makes him stupid.  He is most definitely a sleazy NYC real estate developer (which is redundant because they all are) and a sleazy reality tv star.  He is also notoriously egotistical and thin-skinned, and is beginning to show signs of the same paranoia that destroyed Nixon.

Okay you claim ALL New York Real Estate developers, are sleazy.

I claim all lawyers are sleazy. I claim all politicians are sleazy, too. Around half of federal legislators are lawyers (provable).

Neither of us can "prove" our claims, and attempts to do so would most likely achieve nothing.

* Many people love their homes, which were built by real estate developers. Those developers, all across the country, had to deal with sleazy career government employees, and lawyers. That they put up with the process is a testimonial to their pragmatism, intelligence, etc.

The professions which seek to impede development are career government employees, sleazy politicians, lawyers etc. 

Pick your side. Personally I see a lawyer calling a politician "real estate developer" sleazy as on the ridiculous side.

I am with the developer, at the end of the day. Developers are entrepreneurs, that add value. Lawyers are parasites, that attach themselves to people, processes, institutions and suck on their lifeblood.