The left wants Trump's public persona to be an embarrassment because he's not one of them. They show no such concern about the likes of Maxine Waters and many others in their own ranks.

Trump's anti-intellectualism and emotional, contradictory thinking are not good for this country. He's the last gasp of those Pragmatists who happen to oppose the left. But the articulate "impressive-sounding" establishment intellectuals and politicians are far worse than mere "embarrassment".

Trump is no empty, selfless Peter Keating. He didn't leave his lush lifestyle of wealth and success just to get public attention in politics. He is not stupid, and seems to genuinely care about the country and some remnants of the American sense of life. He is a temporary place-holder, keeping out the likes of the Clinton socialist mafia for now, but is squandering his position because he doesn't know how to intellectually defend against it and does not understand fully what is right himself.

When that happens, America will have the quickest “justice” in history. Not quite as fast as accusation, place against wall, ready, aim, fire.

Their "investigation" did not find even "technicalities". Real legal obstruction of justice is more than a technicality when it really occurs. The accusations against Trump for "obstruction" are entirely political, which is why the Mueller organization and its supporters care so much.

Not forever. It stops when they seize power.

When do Democrats denounce their own racist members and supporters?

No one in public office is a racist simply because there are racists who support him either mistakenly or for different reasons than racism. Elections are won by votes, not political correctness scores. No one running for office is obligated to run around denouncing his own votes regardless of the reasons they are cast. All he can do is make his own position clear (which Trump's emotionalism does not do).

The Democrat ethnicity mongers are racists directly because of their own obsession with race, which in turn is why they won't denounce their racist supporters who realize that and like it.

Trump is no racist, but is inept at defending his own positions, let alone American individualism that he does not hold himself or understanding. But he at least has some sense of remnants of an American sense of life. His rejecting racist totalitarians like Och and her "squad" does not make Trump a racist or sound like a "coy" racist.

Even sincere racists do not deserve "respect".

Offensive ideologies of all kinds are not racism. That is the point. The left is obsessed with race and accuses everyone of "racism" without basis, including Trump. They want him to be racist, along with everyone else who won't endorse their egalitarian nihilism of totalitarian forced equality within a tribe.

The "obstruction" accusation and the rest don't rise to the level of even a legal technicality. They have no legal basis at all. Trump's politically fighting back against them only makes him "look guilty" to those who think opposing the Democrats is by nature guilty and should be made illegal.

How can it be "nice if it turned out he committed a serious crime"? Not liking him is not a justification for wanting him to be a criminal as way to force him out of office. And what would it accomplish? Do you want them to use these tactics to next force Pence as his successor out of office and then stop at Pelosi?

How do you propose to "split up the country", house by house in neighborhood by neighborhood? There are people supporting the false alternative spread across the country in all states, with the worst premises spreading everywhere.

I hope you are joking because that article was ridiculously lame. President Trump is and has been from the beginning an innocent man. President Clinton was and is anything but innocent. There is no comparison. And President Trump let the so-called investigation run it's course.

Great post!
+1 is all I can give.

"Obstruction of justice" is a legal term pertaining to impeding the administration of justice under the law. It is now being re-packaged as a political concept meaning to object in any way, including the use of one's own legal rights, to try to thwart the Democrats' political agenda. "Obstruction of justice" does not mean obstruction of collectivist 'social justice'.

The Mueller "investigation" was not charged with investigating a crime. It was instituted as a fishing expedition against Trump, in the name of Russian "colluuuusion" (which isn't a crime either, no matter it is pronounced), because the instigators, including anti-Trump officials in the FBI, believed that Trump must be guilty of something.

They didn't believe it possible that such a person could win an election against the establishment because they think they are so superior in so many ways, and know that the system is rigged on their behalf against outsiders. Ergo, they concluded that Trump must have committed a "crime" to get elected.

They conducted an "investigation" not into a crime, but a person, believing that if they only looked enough they would find a crime which in turn could be leveraged to force Trump out of office, which was the intent from the beginning. That is the mentality of a kangaroo court, not "administration of justice", and not the way the American system of justice is supposed to work. We investigate known crimes for which there is at least plausible evidence that they exist, not as a of putting someone away you want to "get" from the outset because you consider your political enemies to be criminals by nature.

The Mueller squad was itself of dubious Constitutionality. It was not established under statute -- the law authorizing politically "independent" special prosecutors expired long ago -- and Mueller was appointed with de facto powers greater than those held by Constitutional officers for which Senate confirmation is required. No crime was specified for investigation, only an open ended personal investigation in search of criminality.

Mueller proceeded to hire politically motivated anti-Trump activists, including Clinton campaign activists, who shared the real goal of the kangaroo investigation. This included the infamous Andrew Weissmann known for unethical prosecutorial tactics.

Despite the strong-arm tactics in its "investigation" the Mueller organization could find no crime, let alone criminal guilt, probable cause, or proof.

The Mueller organization proceed to write a prosecutorial "report" indicting by innuendo, including employing Weissman's overly broad redefinition of "obstruction of justice" already rejected by the Supreme Court with its 9-0 overturning of Weissmann's prosecutorial conviction of the Arthur Anderson accounting firm in the Enron case.

They had no legal case and knew it, but cast their "recommendations" into the political arena, begging Congress to pursue impeachment in order to keep the game going for the original intended political purpose of forcing Trump out of office. In that deliberate switch in the audience and intent for the report they exceeded their authority to report back to the Attorney General on the feasibility of specific prosecution for indictable crimes committed, if any.

Part of the politics of the ongoing political flim flam of treating a prosecutor's "report" as if it were an independent investigation with an objective conclusion, to be politically accepted and acted on.

A prosecutor makes a "case" for his prosecution. He is not the judge and does not make a judicial determination. Under a legitimate legal proceeding the defendant is also allowed under the law to make his case and there is an argument before the court. The biased, politically oriented Mueller "report" does not do that and is not the "last word". It even deliberately left out exculpatory evidence in its selective "quoting" and reinterpreting of witness statements in its overtly political appeals.

Yet we are to believe that the hysterical accusations have been objectively established in a "report" by independent scholars only interested in objective law, not a prosecutor looking something to prosecute, and not a prosecutor's organization with a political intent.

Even with that strategy, all they had left for their promotion was the vague, politically-redefined "obstruction of justice" accusation condemning Trump for daring to employ his own rights as a citizen, and presidential authorities, in speaking out against the corruption.

Without the "investigation" that Trump and many others denounced for what it was, there could be no possibility of obstruction of justice -- it's another attempt at a "process crime" created by the investigators themselves -- and there is still no evidence of a crime to investigate or to "obstruct" under the legal meaning of that term.

The Mueller organization and its supporters still cannot believe that Trump committed no crimes to win the election, just as they still can't face the fact that he did win. They believe, and we are expected to believe, that Trump must have done something to destroy or hide evidence of his "guilt", and so the game continues. They have no evidence of Trump destroying evidence, but their feelings are all they need, and we are all constantly badgered to feel the same under their dark conspiracy theory that did not survive their own "investigation".

Such is the nature of the politically-inspired "obstruction of justice" accusations that we are now told to take at face value. Objective people do not jump onto such hysterical band wagons.

Judging and criticizing bad people, bad ideas and bad ideologies is what President Trump openly does. He does not criticize their race or the color of their skin although he may criticize the place they came from.
Not the way I would handle things but not racist either.

"Time for a splitup of the country is some way. Its totally divided anyway"
If the government were strictly limited in power and spending, it wouldn't matter. I don't know a practical way it could happen, but it seems like limiting government gets at the root cause more than creating separate governments.

Sorry. I omitted words, so it made no sense. I meant to write: "I reject the premise that offensive ideologies and racism are the same."

"Is obstruction of justice legal?
I always thought of it a "technical" crime, but now that I think about it more calling it a technicality just means I don't fully get why it's a crime. In my mind it's like failing to file an important form.

Sorry, but I just don’t understand the meaning of your sentence.

I have a problem debating this subject, when there is such disparity between what is a inappropriate/illegal between this administration and the last one, or essentially R's vs D's.

One cannot get excited about this, without being more upset about The Clinton Foundation, Hillary's emails, the IRS persecuting non-profits, et al...unless one is just biased and seeking a question to support their answer.

"That could've been my son" was racist and irresponsible.

Trump says silly stuff, but not sure I ever heard something that was racist...twisted to be racist, sure.

I read the report. If even one of those "events" had truly been obstruction do you think that crew would have let it slide? NBL. They would have jumped all over it. Mueller would have at the least said they found obstruction but couldn't indict or charge a sitting President. that would have given the House all they needed for impeachment hearings to start. Now we are going through the travesty of the hearings trying to get Mueller to say soothing he withdrew after the 9 1/2 minute mumble fest.
I don't think he will willingly go through another retraction of statements like he had to do.
He may be getting senile but he's not there yet.

That’s a long post! You’re in contempt!

/s

I was hoping CG would look at those pictures.
Likely he would experience a bit of congestive dissonance. From his comment on this thread
“ IMHO President Trump is a disgrace to the US for his clownishness, naked bigotry, and authoritarian impulses.”

If POTUS didn't do his tweets and openly bash those who seriously need bashing the MSM would never report any of the positive results and certainly nothing negative coming from the opposite side. They absolutely hate Twitter because they can't control it and bury the stories that don't support their twisted agenda.

Comey completely misrepresented what the law says about gross negligence regarding the protection of classified material in Clinton's email case. As an Air Force security official I investigated several situations under this law, and "intent" was never required to prove that someone was careless to an extreme in protecting classified material. The only explanation for Comey misrepresenting the law was to protect the Democrat presidential candidate from indictment, which was very much a political act.

Mueller packed the investigative team with people who were Hillary supporters. The question has to be did he pack it this way to make sure no bias in favor of Trump was involved that could cover up evidence, or did he pack it this way to try to insure a case against the president? The fact that in spite of the bias of the investigators, they could find no evidence of collusion with the Russians is glaring support that the whole thing was phony from the outset.

In the case against President Trump, there was no evidence to destroy, nor was there any indication that anything had been tampered with. All subpoenaed documents were handed over, and all witnesses subpoenaed testified. Only if you imagine there must have been some item of evidence that had been so well hidden that no one suspected it even existed can you apply your destruction/tampering/hiding evidence case. The very weak charges of obstruction are based solely on statements the President made out of frustration, and on which he took no action.

First, ASKING about a case is NOT obstruction.
Especially when you know the core facts.

But I think trump was forced to do this to IDENTIFY the deep state actors.

AND OMG It is deep. I think I would say 80% of the DOJ is corrupt and 90% of the FBI Top Brass should be behind bars.

The challenge is that NO OTHER PRESIDENT had the COURAGE to force the Deep State to identify themselves.

According to Q/Others: Mike Flynn got in, pushed a few top secret White Hats (who recovered the deleted Strozk/Page texts), who are tracking/keeping/linking everything...

And then Trump just has to let this play out, and ignore the optics. EVERY OTHER President has been afraid of SOMETHING (usually their past).

I actually believe Trump was given a heads up 20 years ago to keep everything squeaky clean so that he could go down as the guy who brought them down.

I think Trump was FORCED to bring his family in to his Presidency, because he could not trust ANYONE (Not Rince, Not Sessions, Not Comey, NOBODY).

I do not believe Trump obstructed justice in ASKING about Flynn or Firing Comey.

I think Comey, Mueller, and the guy who signed off for sessions were CONFLICTED and should NEVER have been involved the way they were.