Ten oz

In lieu of actual Nazis marching on our (USA's) streets and stating they support for Trump the inclusion of Nazi methods of propaganda and debate is appropriate for political discussions in 2017. What do you feel is keeping Clinton of of prison? Trump is POTUS and his appointee runs DOJ. The House and Senate are controlled by Republicans. What partisan power structure are Democrats using to shield Clinton? I think this is all just a defection to distract from the real investigations into real crimes which is well on the way. Trump keeps askig why Clinton isn't being investigated for this that or the other but ultimately Trump has the power to make such investigations happen if in fact laws were broke. So what the h3ll are we even talking about; seems like you should be upset with Trump, Kelly, Sessions, and etc for not getting an indepth Clinton investigation going.

Nope!!!! Mueller's investigation primarily about obstruction of justice in relation to the Firing of Comey. It was Comey's investigation which was about the attack on our electoral process and collusion. Part of proving obstruction of justice will include validating the investigation Comey was fired from and a just one in the first place and the charges against Manafort and papadopoulos appear to go a long way towards do that. Trump firing Comey would be obstruction of justice if Comey was investigating partisan nonsense. These charges lay the ground work proving Comey's investigation was legtimate.

Oct. 7th 2016: " The U.S. Intelligence Community (USIC) is confident that the Russian Government directed the recent compromises of e-mails from US persons and institutions, including from US political organizations. The recent disclosures of alleged hacked e-mails on sites like DCLeaks.com and WikiLeaks and by the Guccifer 2.0 online persona are consistent with the methods and motivations of Russian-directed efforts. These thefts and disclosures are intended to interfere with the US election process. Such activity is not new to Moscow—the Russians have used similar tactics and techniques across Europe and Eurasia, for example, to influence public opinion there. We believe, based on the scope and sensitivity of these efforts, that only Russia's senior-most officials could have authorized these activities. " https://www.dhs.gov/news/2016/10/07/joint-statement-department-homeland-security-and-office-director-national Oct 20th 2016 at the 3rd President Debate: CLINTON: ... that the Russians have engaged in cyberattacks against the United States of America, that you encouraged espionage against our people, that you are willing to spout the Putin line, sign up for his wish list, break up NATO, do whatever he wants to do, and that you continue to get help from him, because he has a very clear favorite in this race. So I think that this is such an unprecedented situation. We've never had a foreign government trying to interfere in our election. We have 17 -- 17 intelligence agencies, civilian and military, who have all concluded that these espionage attacks, these cyberattacks, come from the highest levels of the Kremlin and they are designed to influence our election. I find that deeply disturbing. WALLACE: Secretary Clinton... CLINTON: And I think it's time you take a stand... TRUMP: She has no idea whether it's Russia, China, or anybody else. CLINTON: I am not quoting myself. TRUMP: She has no idea. CLINTON: I am quoting 17... TRUMP: Hillary, you have no idea. CLINTON: ... 17 intelligence -- do you doubt 17 military and civilian... TRUMP: And our country has no idea. CLINTON: ... agencies. TRUMP: Yeah, I doubt it. I doubt it. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/10/19/the-final-trump-clinton-debate-transcript-annotated/?utm_term=.4954e8f8987f Tar, it isn't a matter of "IF". We know Trump willfully lied about what he knew and seeded doubt in the very agencies it is his duty as President to lead. As a major party nominee Trump received intelligence briefings. The DHS and DNI joint press release linked above was made public in October. Trump had been brief in greater detail and his respones when asked about intelligence assessment on national TV was to say "And our country has no idea" and "Yeah, I doubt it. I doubt it". I can spend the rest of my morning link you tweets and interviews where Trump has continued to deny our own intelligence communities work and say it might have been China. I am not presuming a darn thing! Facts are facts. Are you, as a proud patriotic American (I presume) honestly going argue that a President bold face lying about his own military, intelligence, and State Department is somehow acceptable? You honestly think there is wiggle room here for you to be using "IF"?

You presume to know what Putin's motives were and are dismissing them as typical. You do not know what Putin's motives were nor is Putin in any way shape or form accountable to U.S. citizens; Trump is. One of the primary functions of the President is to defend the country. The President is directly over our intelligence services, State Department, and military. There is no innocent excuse or acceptable reason for a President or Presidential candidate to tolerate, cooperate with, or otherwise enable what Russia did during the election.

This whole situation begs for a healthy debate about changing the law. Many other countries are capable of holding special Elections. Here in the U.S. we are able to for Governors and other various elected officials; why not President.

1 - that Russia was interjecting itself into of Democratic process was known early as July of 2016. Candidates were made aware by our intelligence agencies. What did Trump do: joke that he hoped Russia would hack Hillary some more, claim no one knows who is doing hacks, and called the whole issue fake news. That may not be proof of collusion but it is unethical and extremely unpatriotic. At the very least Trump knowingly enabled the Russians by fostering doubt amongst his supporters. 2 - You are sure; do you have any evidence or is this just a gut feeling?

If the President of the United States of America violated the law to win election there is NO MIDDLE ground between him and democracy.

You seem to be attempting to excuse yourself here when in my opinion you should be preparing an apologize. So let me be crystal clear and plant a solid goal post; if Clinton or her campaign is charged with crimes and Trump is vindicated by Mueller's investigation it means I was fooled by propaganda and wrong about a great number of things. That my views over the last year not only were wrong but unpatriotic and a detriment to our nation. Not merely a win some lose some innocent mistake! Likewise if and when Trump and his campiagn are charged with crimes it will mean you have been wrong. It will mean your actions will have been unpatriotic and in no way keeping with our founding principles. That you put your selfish desires above democracy. This is no some matter. This isn't some petty thing. Our (U.S.) leadership around the world, partnerships with allies, and obligations to each other have been abused. Golden showers do not matter. We know Trump is a sexual deviant and likes Eastern European women. People voted for him understanding that. Equally people voted for Clinton knowing that Bill has a wondering eye. I do not care if Trump ever received a Golden Shower. I care about the law and integrity on equal representation under law. Golden Showers are back ground noise. What matters is the sovereignty of our democracy and its institutions. Cheating (breaking the rules/laws) to win an election is an assualt on democracy. It renders an individuals right to representation under the law moot. If those in power broke the law to get there it means we (citizens of the U.S.) do not have a representative govt but rather are being led by an aggressive regime which essentially performed a coup. Who will you stand with? Many (most) politicians lie or exaggerate to con voters into willfully giving their support. Mueller isn't investigating exaggerations; he is investigating crimes. So please do not soften the issue with empty rhetoric about peripheral matters pretending those things have been central all along. Your desire thorought the election WAS NOT to stay united. You acknowledged during primary season that Trump was a lunatic and his supporters dangerously fringe. You literally said if Kasich didn't win the nomination and the choice came down to Trump or Clinton you would have to do what was right for the country, hold your nose, and vote Clinton. Then Trump won the nomination and you voted for him. You justified it by basically saying that you are white man and ultimately Trump was better for old white men and that you simply had to stick with your tribe. Tribalism, which you commonly advocate, amongst racial and gender classifications is the oppoiste of united. You actively supported division by voting for a candidated you literally acknowledged was unfit. On my father's side of the family we go back to the revolutionary war!! On my mother's side we go back a century. Family I have known fought for this country; grandfather in WW2, two uncles in Vietnam, I have been deployed overseas. You sir are not more American than me because you are a self described old white man. Your tribe deserves NO greater inheritance of this nation than mine. I am not expecting lightening to strike tomorrow. I suspect the initial charges will be procedural in nature designed to empower investigators with more leverage to seize records and lean on witnesses. This is all far from over and their will continue to be people carrying buckets of water behind their tribal leaders to keep the flames down long as they can in attempt to selfishly get all they can till the flames rage beyond all measures of supression.

Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s team has reportedly filed the first criminal charges as part of the sprawling inquiry into Moscow’s interference in the 2016 presidential election, CNN reported.. Citing “sources briefed on the matter,” the network said a federal grand jury in Washington, D.C., approved the charges, which have been sealed by a federal judge. CNN did not indicate who had been charged, how many people had been charged, or what charges had been filed by Mueller’s team. An arrest could come by Monday. Reuters subsequently confirmed CNN's report. https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/10/robert-mueller-sealed-indictment/544292/ Mueller has investigated the Dossier well as collusion and obstruction of justice. Since you agree that those who broke the law (team Clinton or team Trump) should be prosecuted I won't see you attempting to label Mueller partisan, the charges a witch hunt, or otherwise attempting to unburdenTrump and his associates of responsibility for their actions?? Ican promiseyou that if Clinton or anyone in her campaign is charged in connection with Dossier I will not defend their actions. Lets keep the goal posts anchored in place.

I actually did mention the rape stuff; read the post again. Who paid for the research doesn't make everything resulting from that research a lie. You are conflating a lot of different things. Carry on about the millions spent as if spending money itself were suspicious. How many millions of tax payers dollars, not campaign dollars, were squandered investigating Clinton?? If anything you should be pleased this matter is being investigated and hope Trump doesn't do anything to interfere with Mueller's work since you care so much about it. If Clinton broke the law I hope she is prosecuted. If Trump broke the law I hope he is prosecuted. If you feel the same don't move the goal posts if and when indictments start rolling out.

Has there even been a single year over the last two decades Republicans weren't investigating Hillary Clinton? Wtf are you even saying. No public figure has been the focal point of more investigations. There are websites dedicated to the number of people she is said to killed. We don't need to imagine if the tables were turned Hillary Clinton has been accused of murder, pay for play, selling uranium, bullying rape victims, having secret illnesses, and the list goes on and on. She was even sabotage by an aggressive foriegn power yet you think opposition research is a line never crossed?

Company Announcement: RT and Sputnik Advertising By Twitter PublicPolicyThursday, 26 October 2017 Twitter has made the policy decision to off-board advertising from all accounts owned by Russia Today (RT) and Sputnik, effective immediately. This decision was based on the retrospective work we've been doing around the 2016 U.S. election and the U.S. intelligence community’s conclusion that both RT and Sputnik attempted to interfere with the election on behalf of the Russian government. We did not come to this decision lightly, and are taking this step now as part of our ongoing commitment to help protect the integrity of the user experience on Twitter. Early this year, the U.S. intelligence community named RT and Sputnik as implementing state-sponsored Russian efforts to interfere with and disrupt the 2016 Presidential election, which is not something we want on Twitter. This decision is restricted to these two entities based our internal investigation of their behavior as well as their inclusion in the January 2017 DNI report. This decision does not apply to any other advertisers. RT and Sputnik may remain organic users on our platform, in accordance with the Twitter Rules. https://blog.twitter.com/official/en_us/topics/company/2017/Announcement-RT-and-Sputnik-Advertising.html

The House Intelligence Committee, Senate Intelligence Committee, and the Independent Investigator assigned by the deputy Attorney General are all still investigating these matters. Saying "nothing became of it" is a complete mis-characterization of what has and is currently happening.

Woody Allen is every bit bad as Polanski. Everyone who signed a petition on Polanski behalf or publicly argued on his behalf as Goldberg did should be ashamed. Unless they have since apologized for supporting Polanski it would be hypocritical for any of those individuals to pretend to be upset about Weinstein.

Perfect, we can all agree Meryl Streep is a Hypocrite.

Why is this where we need to start; some unspecified group. We are talking about specific people. Weinstein and Polanski are specific people and both have had specific public critics and supporters. I think we all know the definition of Hypocrite. So let MigL name those Hypocrites they are referencing.

What group of people specifically; those who support Roman Polanski have names. Off the top of my head I am aware that Jack Nicholson and Woody Allen support Polanski. Have either of them spoken out against Weinstein? Who specifically are the Hypocrites MigL is referencing? Hollywood royalty is incredibly vague. I have no idea who is considered Hollywood royalty or how each of those persons have responded to both Polanski and Weinstein.

I don't feel the label "big star"& "royalty" really clarifies the matter. I have no idea which individuals MigL considers Hollywood royalty. Does that list include writers, producers, cinematographers, and etc or is it exclusive to actors and directors? There are actors, writers, producers, etc who have chosen to work with Roman Polanski we can name specifically and hold accountable. I don't think that those without any affiliation are accountable for anything. This conversation reminds me of when people accuse the entire Islamic community at large of not being sufficiently anti Islamic Terrorism. As if to a person every Muslim individually owes some symbolic display of public opposition. They do not. Every person in the film industry who doesn't come out and comment on Harvey Weinstein or Roman Polanski isn't guilty of something. A "big star" who has never met or worked with Polanski has no obligation to familiarize themselves with and speak out against him. I addressed what Swansont provided which we all agree satisfied what MigL asked for. My shift, in context, merely was stating the "Hollywood" isn't a singular thing. It is an industry full of individuals. MigL keeps referencing Hollywood singular and has yet to define exactly what it it is.

Swansont supplied names but since they were not the specific ones you want they don't count? It is reminds me of arguments I have had with Republicans who claim all of Hollywoodin liberal; when I mention Reagan, Schwarzenegger, Heston, and etc the comeback is always that Reagan wasn't a big enough star, Schwarenegger wasn't conservative enough, Heston too old, and etc. From Mel Gibson to Bruce Willis there are plenty of Hollywood actors who openly support Republicans. Sylvester Stallone is a Republican and just won an oscar in 2016 for his work in "Creed". Are you using the title Hollywood to mean the entire U.S. and Canadian Film industry? You haven't really defined what Hollywood is or who the "royalty" you reference are. If Royalty is defined by how they perform at the box office any of the names I listed above count. The names above have had done better numbers than the open liberas like George Clooney and Ben Affleck. The reality is that the title Hollywood only describes a type of industry. It does not accurately describe a type of political ideology. As with all industries the film industry is made up of many different types of people. There are Jewish film producer/writer/actor/directors like Mel Brooks and then they are anti semite producer/writer/actor/directors like Mel Gibson. You have liberal actors like Angelina Jolie who endorsed Hillary Clinton and you have conservative actors like Jolie's father Jon Voight who endorsed Donald Trump. Niether side of the coin is more hollywood than the other.

This from October of 2016 (a year ago): "The U.S. Intelligence Community (USIC) is confident that the Russian Government directed the recent compromises of e-mails from US persons and institutions, including from US political organizations. The recent disclosures of alleged hacked e-mails on sites like DCLeaks.com and WikiLeaks and by the Guccifer 2.0 online persona are consistent with the methods and motivations of Russian-directed efforts. These thefts and disclosures are intended to interfere with the US election process. Such activity is not new to Moscow—the Russians have used similar tactics and techniques across Europe and Eurasia, for example, to influence public opinion there." https://www.dhs.gov/news/2016/10/07/joint-statement-department-homeland-security-and-office-director-national This issue was even a central focus during the televised debates between Clinton and Trump. It has gone on for over a year and you are in a political forum about Trump referencing it as seeming like a "big conspiracy" and asking for evidence which can be easily found with simply searches.

I provided the evidence you requested and you choose to respond with sarcasm? Perhaps you don't really care about the evidence; which is what I feared was the case. Shame on me for letting you waste my time. I'll know better the next time you pretend to not understand something.

Has the media claimed the pee tape is real? Reports I have seen are that it is claimed a Trump Dossier exists. The House and Senate investigations have issued subpoenas on the issue in an attempt to get more information. Trump himself has been briefed about it. It isn't fake news as it is a real thing the govt is looking into. Whether or not it includes a pee tape is speculative but that is pointed out in the reporting of the story.

I am only bothering to respond because you bothered to concede that you don't know and provided a reason for how it could be possible that you don't know. This is the declassified version of the intelligence community's report on Russian activities and elections in the November election based on information known as of Dec. of 2016. Since that time much more has been learned as there is currently House and Senate intelligence investigations ongoing and an independent prosecutor investigating but that report is a good start and provides more than enough proof to counter your "big conspiracy theories" comment: https://www.washingtonpost.com/apps/g/page/politics/the-intelligence-community-report-on-russian-activities-in-the-2016-election/2153/ The Intelligence assessment from all our Intelligence agencies to include past and present leadership appointed by both Democrat and Republican is that Russia interfered. The Senate (majority Republican) already voted 98-2 on sanctions against Russia in response to the interference. Yet Trump himself continues to call the whole thing Fake News and claim it never happened. That alone, Trump's denials, provides Russia cover and aids future interference. I agree that more info will come but what we already know is jaw dropping. Trump and his supporters have raised the bar for what evidence must look like to the level of basically saying unless audio & video is released of the pee tape with Putin in the room talking about the DNC hacks Trump is innocent. Never mind Trump's refusal to acknowledge what is knowm or act to prevent such from happening again. Never mind Kushner, Sessions, and others lying on security clearance forms. Forget all about Trump Jr knowinly arranging to meet with someone who representedthemselves as Russian intelligence. Who cares about all the social media ad buys in swing states linked directly to Russia. The list goes on and on and on.

By claiming it so strongly Trump and his supporters make it a bitterly partisan issue and most average people aren't overly partisan or comfortable with taking sides in partisan disputes. Saying "some" stories are made up is the easiest way for one to feel like they are being moderate.

This is just another case where Trump has been caught lying and his supporters simply don't care. Ends justify the means to his supporters. I also think it is worth noting that the family is of color and his ire is directed at women. There is a clear tend.