Whoa! What does that mean? Care or not care about what?
1 Like
Allegations of sexual misconduct.
I should have read on a bit more before commenting here 
No worries, I should cut the late night posting out anyway.
Slowly percolating is the FISA abuse in the lead up to the election. What i expect to emerge is this.
Fusion GPS was given raw access to FISA information, which they then fed to Christopher Steele who used the information in part to create the Trump pee pee dossier. Except sometimes they did âaboutâ questions to the NSA database on the wrong person. As even Jake Tapper realized over a year ago.
They then used the dossier as the main reason to open an investigation into Carter Page giving them FISA warrants that would allow them to spy on everyone in the Trump team plus open an investigation into Trump/Russia collusion, which they would then hide from congressional oversight for 9 months (while saying they do quarterly updates to congressional oversight on sensitive cases, but the reason for not updating congress on this particular case was because of the âsensitivityâ)
Then when the election was lost, the Russia/Trump investigation (insurance policy) was put into action and they tried to overturn the election results in the form of a soft coup, when Comey was fired, Mueller and his special council swooped into action to carry on the work.
The top people at the FBI/DOJ/IRS/DNI/CIA all carrying out investigations for political reasons using the most powerful tools in their arsenal while at the same time killing investigations for political reasons also. The Clinton e-mail investigation wasnât an investigation, it was a clean up. The investigation into the Clinton foundation was killed by the DOJ (ultimately McCabe leaking information about this argument between him and the DOJ shutting down the investigation would get him fired, his motivation for leaking was found to be self serving as his wife was accused of taking 500k US$ indirectly from the Clintons)
There should eventually be charges brought, up to and perhaps including sedition.
2 Likes
I donât call impeachment the same thing as overturning election results â overcoming maybe, but not overturning. 
My story above might sound implausible to those watching the MSM version of events, it should at the very least give rise to concern, which I have yet to see.
I can however back it up with facts, perhaps there is a particular part you would like me to address and I will. But please, try not to take dozens of points all at once, it would make for far too long reading, take the point you are most skeptical of as a starter, or perhaps say you donât care if any and all of what I said is true.
My point was simply that thereâs a distinction youâre overlooking.
Is the Russia investigation really aimed at overturning the election results per se? If the goal is to get Trump out of office, thatâs not the same thing.
By way of analogy, if you win a trial and then win the final appeal, your opponent can ask for a retrial or can sue you for something other than the original matter, but those two options are distinct and should not be confused.
I understand. To also use an analogy, they planted evidence as a means to charge a crime.
To elaborate a little, they already knew of certain people associated with trumps organization as well as Trump who had ties with Russia. Trump/Russia collusion was plan B, there were elements of truth, and like any good lie you build the foundations on some truth and distort and use it to your advantage.
People like Carter page and Paul Manafort were much more known entities to Obama/Clinton/Democrats than they were to Trump.
Why the hell did Trump ever make Sessions AG? At least he has the sense to overrule him on issues that really matter, like marijuana. 
A difference to pragmatism as opposed to strict adherence to the law. Trump is the pragmatist, sessions adheres to the law.
1 Like
These are new words
2 Likes
Okay, itâs not funny anymore. I hope I wake soon.
I believe the term âwaking nightmareâ applies in this situation.
1 Like
Whatâs new? Iâve always said marijuana should be legal, itâs a fools errand to pit the states resources against people who want to smoke a joint.
Oh, donât know about that. My views (go and do a search on my history) are quite strong on this topic. Nothing to do with Trump, if he disagrees with Sessions, then he seems to be more pragmatic, in my view.
So, whats new?
All it takes is to look for âTrump is A pragmatistâ instead of âTrump is THE pragmatistâ.
-__-
A pragmatist does what works. If itâs not known what works, he experiments. Like a scientist, he makes it up as he goes along. Yes, thatâs what good scientists do. Part of what they do, at any rate.
A legalist does what the law says. What the law says is what a bunch of other people - most of them long dead - made up as they went along. Thatâs part of the scientific process, but there are other parts. The other parts are kind of important. A legalist doesnât appreciate the importance of the other parts. He fails to grasp the difference between a scientific hypothesis and a scientific conclusion, or the steps that lead from one to the other. And he canât even be bothered to come up with his own hypotheses.
A lot of people are like that.
1 Like