ChrisWeigant.com

Trump Begins To Push Back

[ Posted Tuesday, April 23rd, 2019 – 17:04 UTC ]

The use of the word "begins" in that headline might be a bit puzzling, since President Donald Trump has pushed back on any number of things during the course of his presidency, most often on Twitter. But today we're not talking about exchanging schoolyard insults with his political opponents, but actual legal pushback from the executive department. Which is somewhat new, and can be expected to grow over the coming months.

While Trump did attempt not just to push back against the investigation Robert Mueller conducted but to actually kill the whole investigation altogether, there wasn't much in the way of legal pushback in the form of refusing to turn over possible evidence or refusing to make people available for interviews. There were no claims of executive privilege, which is pretty unusual for a presidential investigation of this scope. Trump did successfully avoid an in-person interview under oath with Mueller's team by pushing back against the idea, but that was really about it in terms of defying requests from Mueller.

In January, however, Democrats took back control of the House of Representatives, which means they also took control of all the oversight committees. Multiple investigations into Trump and his minions soon ensued, as was to be expected. This is what Trump is now pushing back against, in a big way. He probably feels he's got the political wind at his back after the Mueller Report didn't end with indictments, and he has unleashed his legal team to do everything possible to obstruct the will of Congress as it pertains to all the investigations. At best (for him), Trump will be able to ignore the investigations completely, and even at the worst he'll be able to slow them down to a glacial pace by contesting everything in court.

The Trump administration has already defied a subpoena for the guy at the White House who appears to be responsible for giving out top-secret security clearances like Hallowe'en candy, overturning the recommendation of experienced security personnel that Trump's family members were security risks. Trump has also instructed the head of the I.R.S. to defy federal law by not producing copies of his tax returns to Congress. And he's actually suing to prevent a subpoena for financial records of his business dealings from his accounting firm. All of these should be seen as broadsides in a legal battle that is only going to get fiercer over time.

Trump will want to fight these battles in court, for one very good reason. No matter how many judges rule against him, no matter how many appellate courts uphold such judgments, eventually Trump can (and will) push all these issues to the Supreme Court. Since the addition of Justice Fratboy, Trump thinks he's got a pretty good chance at having the high court rule in purely partisan fashion -- and he's probably right about that (at least, up to a point). So it behooves him to push back all the way in the court system, until those five friendly justices get to hear all these cases. The only thin hope Democrats have is that Chief Justice John Roberts will occasionally side with them to avoid the embarrassment of the court appearing to be nothing short of Trump's lapdogs. And that's a pretty thin hope, at this point.

The main thing Trump will be counting on is how incredibly slowly the wheels of justice grind. All Trump needs, with any of these legal fights, is to push them beyond November of next year, because his main objective is to get re-elected. If he's beginning his second term, then he will care a whole lot less about Democrats investigating him in the House, to state the obvious. So pushing all the investigations beyond election season has to be seen as his prime objective. And with the slow pace of the courts, this isn't as outlandish as it might first seem. We are a year and a half away from voting, but a year and a half is no time at all to a complicated court case (even one not dealing with touchy separation-of-powers constitutional issues).

Democrats' main objective, therefore, should really be acting as quickly as possible, both in their investigations and in their legal responses. So far, they haven't exactly been setting speed records in this regard, but hopefully the new Trump pushback will light a fire under them. The committee chairs have moved overly cautiously so far, mostly because they had the excuse of waiting for the Mueller Report to appear. Now that it has, this excuse no longer exists. But what it all means is that Democrats lost about two months, because the committees could easily have been exactly where they are now back in February. Democrats have to up their pace if they've got any chance of defeating Trump's stalling tactics.

Politically, the pressure will be on the committees to move quickly, not only because the Mueller Report is now out. Some Democrats -- including some presidential candidates -- are explicitly calling on the House to open impeachment hearings. Nancy Pelosi has been pushing back against this faction, and yesterday she led a conference call with the other Democratic House members which reportedly got a little heated at times. Pelosi's stance is that investigating Trump can adequately happen without the label of impeachment hearings, but now she's got to prove her position by unleashing all the investigative committee chairs and urging them to produce some solid results as quickly as possible. If robust oversight happens from multiple committees simultaneously, it will tamp down the cries to begin impeachment, at least for a while.

Trump is signalling that he is going to use every trick in the legal book to avoid such oversight. He'll continually be attempting to slow the process down in the hopes of bogging down all the Democrats' inquiries into his possible malfeasance. He'll be backing this up by making the purely political case that his opponents are out to get him. And we'll all get sick of seeing Rudy Giuliani on our television screens, no doubt.

Democrats need to be ready for this onslaught of obstructionism. Trump's opening moves are signalling loud and clear that he'll be trying to tie up as many avenues for investigation as he can. Democrats need to push back even harder, both in Congress and in the courts. But the most important way they will need to push back is in the court of public opinion. This is actually pretty easy to do, because it can be boiled down to a single catchall question: "What is Trump trying so hard to hide?" This can be accompanied by speculating about the worst possible things Trump could be trying to conceal from the voters. The Democratic nominating race is likely the place these arguments will be made the loudest. The presidential candidates will already be painting Trump as a shifty con man, so this will be a natural extension of this tactic. Because while the pushback is going to happen largely in the courts and in Congress, the most important way Democrats will be able to counter it is by making the political case against Trump to the voters. We'll see whether they're up to this challenge, and fairly soon.

-- Chris Weigant

 

Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant

 

88 Comments on “Trump Begins To Push Back”

  1. [1] 
    Paula wrote:

    Yep. DJT has gotten away with delay tactics his entire adult life - fits right into the strategy now.

    Dems MUST say "not this time" and I hope they do.

  2. [2] 
    Kick wrote:

    Great summary, CW.

    The current administration and the GOP definitely appear to be taking the position that the POTUS is above the law, and this turning a blind eye to the rule of law and thereby expanding the powers of the Executive Branch and the President of the United States will work out nicely for them... right up until the time a Democrat assumes the office and uses that expansion of powers to enact their agenda with little impediment.

    I've said this before, but I'll say it again. With Attorney General Barr's hijacking of the Mueller Report and outright lying to Congress and the American people about Mueller's findings, it appears they may actually be attempting to force impeachment hearings. It even seems to me like the GOP might be itching for impeachment, and I don't see how it is ultimately avoided at some point.

    As far as the executive privilege issue, witnesses will be forced to choose between taking the side of the White House or Congress... answering to the people's representatives or taking orders of the "King," but make no mistake that Trump has forfeited his claim of executive privilege; it is already waived. They're obviously attempting to stall because it's ultimately not a winning argument for them.

    I think Trump is finally cornered; he's just too stupid to know it yet. :)

  3. [3] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    When Trump did not claim “executive privilege” to prevent Mueller’s questioning of White House Attorney Don McGahn, he waived his ability to claim it when Congress wants McGahn to answer their questions. This is set legal precedent that is pretty black/white.

    I am guessing that once a federal court first denies Trump’s claim of executive privilege, none of the higher courts will bother hearing his appeals... because Trump does not get to change what the “rule of law” is whenever he needs to cover up his screw ups!

  4. [4] 
    Mezzomamma wrote:

    The major inquiries should all include the goal of determining whether impeachment is 1) justified and 2) feasible.

  5. [5] 
    Michale wrote:

    I think Trump is finally cornered; he's just too stupid to know it yet. :)

    Funny..

    That's what everyone on the Left said in the run up to the Mueller report being released.. :D

  6. [6] 
    Michale wrote:

    When Trump did not claim “executive privilege” to prevent Mueller’s questioning of White House Attorney Don McGahn, he waived his ability to claim it when Congress wants McGahn to answer their questions.

    Facts to support??

    If a subject makes a written statement during the investigation, nothing prevents him from invoking his 5th Amendment rights at a trial..

    This issue is no different..

    Just because McGahn co-operated with Mueller w/o EP being invoked, doesn't mean EP is waived..

    Congress wants to move BEYOND what was told to Mueller. And THAT is a whole new witch hunt that President Trump CAN invoke EP..

    I am guessing that once a federal court first denies Trump’s claim of executive privilege, none of the higher courts will bother hearing his appeals..

    Yea?? And what's your track record with your "guesses"?? :D

    This is simply more of the same Anti-Trump hysteria...

    By all means, keep at it.. The American people will are getting sick and tired of it all and will remember on 3 Nov 2020...

    But it does prove one thing..

    Ya are not at all confident that Dims can beat President Trump at the ballot box.. :D

    Continue digging yer hole...

  7. [7] 
    Michale wrote:

    The major inquiries should all include the goal of determining whether impeachment is 1) justified and 2) feasible.

    Yes, I agree.. Democrats should concentrate solely and completely on impeachment to the exclusion of everything else..

    It will work out SO well for Democrats and the country.. :D

  8. [8] 
    Kick wrote:

    Michale
    6

    If a subject makes a written statement during the investigation, nothing prevents him from invoking his 5th Amendment rights at a trial..

    Do you somehow think that has anything whatsoever to do with the White House already waiving Executive Privilege... for which Donald Trump is actually bragging and patting himself on the back!? It has exactly zero to do with that.

    It's so cute that you appear to believe a subpoena from the House Committee on Oversight and Reform is a trial subpoena. It's oversight of the Executive Branch, and it's actually their job. Don McGhan is not on trial.

    Fifth Amendment rights granted by the United States Constitution are for the protection of individuals from self-incrimination in criminal trials. Don McGhan is not on trial, and any privilege the Executive Branch could have claimed in regards to his testimony were waived long ago.

    You're welcome. :)

  9. [9] 
    Kick wrote:

    That's what everyone on the Left said in the run up to the Mueller report being released.. :D

    Wrong! Some of the idiots on the left actually voted for Benedict Donald. Duh. ;)

  10. [10] 
    Michale wrote:

    Do you somehow think that has anything whatsoever to do with the White House already waiving Executive Privilege...

    I do...

    Invoking a right is usually not contingent on previous invocations/non invocations of said right..

    If circumstances change there is nothing wrong with changing one's mind..

    Fifth Amendment rights granted by the United States Constitution are for the protection of individuals from self-incrimination in criminal trials. Don McGhan is not on trial,

    If we were talking about 5th Amendment rights w/ regards to McGhan you would have a point..

    and any privilege the Executive Branch could have claimed in regards to his testimony were waived long ago.

    We'll find out when the SCOTUS rules in President Trump's favor.... :D

    Odumbo was famous for invoking EP at a whim... Everyone here supported it...

  11. [11] 
    Michale wrote:

    That's what everyone on the Left said in the run up to the Mueller report being released.. :D

    Wrong!

    Actually it's factually accurate.. Comments are replete with examples of "Trump is finally going down!!" and "THIS TIME we got Trump!!" or statements to that effect..

    In fact, comments since Nov of 2016 constantly harped on various TRUMP IS TOAST predictions that have NEVER come to pass..

    But I am sure you honestly believe that *THIS TIME* it will be different.. :D

    I won't fault you for your faith.. :D

  12. [12] 
    Michale wrote:

    Bad air days on the rise: The nation's most polluted city is ...

    While the air pollution in the U.S. has gotten cleaner in the past decade, pollution inequity has remained high.

    California's reign as the U.S. state with the worst air pollution continues, with Los Angeles again the nation's smoggiest metro area, according to a new report released Wednesday.

    And L.A. isn't alone when it comes to smog-choked cities in California: seven of the nation's top 10 smoggiest cities are in the Golden State, including other sprawling cities such as San Francisco, San Diego and Sacramento.

    Los Angeles has had the worst smog for 19 years of the 20-year history of the report.
    https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2019/04/24/air-pollution-smog-soot-worst-california/3551734002/

    Funny how the most hysterical and who screams the loudest about the planet's climate is changing are the biggest polluters on the planet...

  13. [13] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Let's get real.

    Pelosi doesn't want impeachment because the Democrats want to run against Trump in 2020. Pelosi wants to keep the deception of the big money Democrats being an alternative to Trump/Republicans when the reality is that the big money Democrats are just playing good cop/bad cop with the Republicans and what the big money Democrats are really offering is a false alternative to the Republicans to keep any real alternatives from challenging the big money interests.

    And it's time that citizens said "not this time" and began pushing back against the big money interests that control both CMPs.

    And it's time for you. CW, to stop the delaying tactics and inform citizens aboot how they can do it- One Demand.

    After all, if you can push back citizens learning how to fight back against the big money interests beyond November of next year, then the big money Democrats can run the same old deception of look how bad the Republicans are and we are your only other choice campaign in 2020 and do their job to preserve the status quo and protect the domination of our political process by the big money interests.

    One could speculate aboot a simple question "What is CW trying to hide by not addressing One Demand?" and speculate aboot the worst possible reasons that you are so firmly in the big money Democrats camp.

    Do you get funding from Pelosi, the DCCC and/or the DNC? Or are you just Bill Murray in "Wild Things"?

    "Did you hear that? See you at the club!"

  14. [14] 
    Kick wrote:

    Michale
    10

    I do...

    Invoking a right is usually not contingent on previous invocations/non invocations of said right..

    Setting aside the fact that Trump has already waived executive privilege and bragged about it, execute privilege is not an unlimited "right." We seem to cover the theme that rights are not unlimited over and over ad nauseam on this forum... because they're not unlimited.

    In 1974, the SCOTUS in United States v. Nixon held that executive privilege cannot be invoked at all if the purpose is to shield wrongdoing. The courts held that Nixon's purported invocation of executive privilege was illegitimate. The SCOTUS also held that even a proper invocation must yield to the other branches' need for information in some cases (that whole co-equal branches of government being equal thing). When invoking executive privilege, the President of the United States is required to try to accommodate the other branches' legitimate need for information.

    If circumstances change there is nothing wrong with changing one's mind..

    Executive privilege was already waived voluntarily. Executive privilege can indeed also be waived involuntarily if the President discusses the same issues and then tries to claim privilege. You may have seen his Twitter feed where Trump discusses this stuff ad nauseam. Trump doesn't get to discuss it and then claim he has an absolute privilege to stop other people from discussing it.

    If we were talking about 5th Amendment rights w/ regards to McGhan you would have a point..

    So you're saying that Donald Trump's "5th Amendment rights" not to testify against himself are somehow transferrable to Don McGhan!? I. Can't. Even!

    We'll find out when the SCOTUS rules in President Trump's favor.... :D

    Repeating the stupidity of Nixon and expecting a different result! *laughs* Nixon claimed privilege and lost in the SCOTUS. Donald Trump has waived privilege voluntarily and involuntarily... yet the minions believe Trump should be able to blather incessantly about an issue on Twitter, happily waive privilege regarding that same issue, and then claim it's a privileged subject. *laughs*

    It won't even get to SCOTUS. McGhan will likely comply with the subpoena... problem solved. :)

    Odumbo was famous for invoking EP at a whim... Everyone here supported it...

    I see your problem, and I'm willing to help you. You're confusing the invoking of executive privilege with a president waiving privilege and whining incessantly about an issue and beating that dead horse mercilessly on Twitter and then trying to claim no one can talk about it. See the problem? No one here supported that because no president has ever done that before because it's patently ridiculous. :)

  15. [15] 
    Kick wrote:

    Michale
    11

    Epic fail at your attempt to redefine the term "everyone" using your standard fake quotes. :)

  16. [16] 
    Michale wrote:

    It won't even get to SCOTUS. McGhan will likely comply with the subpoena... problem solved. :)

    Care to make a wager?? :D

  17. [17] 
    Kick wrote:

    Michale
    16

    Care to make a wager?? :D

    I see no point in making you look foolish. :)

  18. [18] 
    Michale wrote:

    I see no point in making you look foolish. :)

    TRANSLATION: Hell no!!! I can be proven wrong to YOU of all people!!!

    :D

    "It's OK, I understand, this ain't no Never Never Land.."
    -J. Geils Band

    :^*

  19. [19] 
    Michale wrote:

    Suffice it to say, Presidents invocation of Executive Privilege will be upheld by the courts and McGahn will never testify before Congress...

    I have no problem going on the record.. :D

  20. [20] 
    Kick wrote:

    You have seriously drank the Kool-Aid. :)

  21. [21] 
    Michale wrote:

    You have seriously drank the Kool-Aid. :)

    And yet, when it comes to the demise (or, in this case, lack thereof) of President Trump, I have always been right and everyone else (NEN) has been wrong...

    So, I got a pretty good track record going for me.. :D

  22. [22] 
    Michale wrote:

    It's very easy to see President Trump's strategy...

    Goad the Democrats into a hysterical and overreaching push to impeach...

    If Democrats impeach, President Trump's re-election is cemented in stone..

    And, as usual, Democrats will dance to President Trump's tune...

    :D

  23. [23] 
    Kick wrote:

    Michale
    21

    If Democrats impeach, President Trump's re-election is cemented in stone..

    Like when they impeached "Bubba" and Democrats holding the White House was cemented in stone!? Did you think that one through?

    And, as usual, Democrats will dance to President Trump's tune...

    It looks to me like Trump is dancing to Nixon's tune. :)

  24. [24] 
    Michale wrote:

    Like when they impeached "Bubba" and Democrats holding the White House was cemented in stone!?

    Uh... "Bubba" *COULDN'T* hold the White House after he was impeached...

    In other words Clinton's lack of "losing" the White House had NOTHING to do with his impeachment..

    It looks to me like Trump is dancing to Nixon's tune. :)

    Of course it does.. Because you have drunk the kool-aid over and over and over again..

    Time will tell who is factually accurate and who is not..

    But if the past is any indication.... :D

  25. [25] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    M

    "impeached" is like 'indicted' - doesn't guarantee a 'conviction'.

  26. [26] 
    TheStig wrote:

    CW-

    It seems to me that individuals working for Trump are not going see the risk:reward calculus of stonewalling the same way as the President.

    The House of Representatives can declare subpoenaed officials in contempt of Congress. The House O' Reps has powers of arrest, confinement and fines of up to $100K. Trump has no power of pardon in this instance. Granted, arrests and confinements have been rare, but there are precedents. An official in jeopardy has to look at himself, his family and his lunatic boss. Does he feel lucky? Does he feel loyal? Easier, quicker and safer to testify honestly...and look for another job after the fact.

    Any fight between Trump and Congress is going to dominate the news, likely for weeks. The MAGA hats will cheer, but I doubt the rest of the Non-Spinal Thinking World is going to be rushing to the President's side. As you put it "(What is Trump trying to hide?)"

    Trump's favorable rating dither around 37% all the way to Nov. 2020. Trump most likely loses the election with that level of support. How many Congressional Republicans fear they will go down with him?

    I don't see stonewalling as a slam dunk for Trump. Not at all. I don't see it going to the Supreme Court. There are very few secrets in the White House these days. Old hands among the Democrats have a good idea who among the WH staff to finger.

  27. [27] 
    Kick wrote:

    Michale
    24

    Uh... "Bubba" *COULDN'T* hold the White House after he was impeached...

    Actually, "Bubba" was impeached in 1998 and held the White House until 2001.

    Can you interpret the written word? I said: "Like when they impeached 'Bubba' and Democrats holding the White House was cemented in stone!?" Meaning: Clinton's impeachment and approval rating didn't keep a Democrat in the White House. You are assuming a Trump impeachment will assure a second term based on... nothing. :)

  28. [28] 
    Michale wrote:

    "impeached" is like 'indicted' - doesn't guarantee a 'conviction'.

    Oh I know.. POTUS can't be indicted in office. So he will have to be successfully impeached first..

    If Democrats attempt impeachment, it will simply make Trump that much stronger.. This is based on how much stronger Clinton was after his impeachment..

    So, facts and history are with President Trump and against Democrats vis a vis impeachment...

    And, as CW pointed out, the more and more Democrats push to impeach, the less confident they are in actually defeating President Trump at the ballot box...

    Look for Democrats to become downright more hysterical to impeach as the election draws near...

  29. [29] 
    Michale wrote:

    Trump's favorable rating dither around 37% all the way to Nov. 2020.

    Which is EXACTLY as accurate as saying President Trump favorable rating is dithering around 50%..

    All depends on how you spin.. :D

  30. [30] 
    Michale wrote:

    The White House will fight House Democrats' subpoena of testimony and documents from ex-White House counsel Don McGahn, Fox News is told -- and almost immediately, House Judiciary Committee chairman Jerry Nadler, D-N.Y, characterized the move as "one more act of obstruction" by the Trump administration.
    https://www.foxnews.com/politics/white-house-to-fight-dems-subpoena-of-ex-white-house-counsel-don-mcgahn

    Get that??

    When you address issues thru the courts as is your constitutional right, according to Democrats, it's a crime??

    Exhibit A that Democrats are hysterical about taking down President Trump...

  31. [31] 
    Kick wrote:

    Michale
    30

    When you address issues thru the courts as is your constitutional right, according to Democrats, it's a crime??

    What court is Trump addressing this issue through?

  32. [32] 
    Michale wrote:

    What court is Trump addressing this issue through?

    In which ever court the Democrats file their witch hunt thru...

  33. [33] 
    Michale wrote:

    Justices Seem Ready to Ok Asking Citizenship on Census
    https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2019/04/24/justices_seem_ready_to_ok_asking_citizenship_on_census_140145.html

    And Democrats lose AGAIN... :D

  34. [34] 
    Michale wrote:

    Like I said.. President Trump was wrong..

    I am **NOT** tired of winning!! :D

  35. [35] 
    Michale wrote:

    The Mueller War rages on

    Americans waited almost two years for Special Counsel Robert Mueller to finish his investigation into the 2016 presidential election. They could be forgiven for celebrating after the report's release, and especially in its finding that no evidence existed showing Americans facilitated Russian efforts to interfere with and "sow discord" during the election. While Mueller's assessment about potential obstruction of justice was ambiguous, the sudden collapse of the Russia-collusion theory left voters with the impression that the country now could turn its attention to policy and the upcoming election.

    But it's become apparent that Democrats have no intention of moving on. If the report closed out the first stage of the Mueller War, it appears to have also launched the second stage — one in which members of Congress will attempt to reshape Mueller's investigation to reach the conclusions they expected. The White House plans to fight this next siege more aggressively than it did the first time around — and it will likely prevail.
    https://theweek.com/articles/837214/mueller-war-rages

    Democrats are just going to dig and dig, witch hunt after witch hunt, fishing expedition after fishing expedition until they find something.. ANYTHING...

    Meanwhile, the American people will boot them out of office in 2020 because they can't seem to govern...

  36. [36] 
    Michale wrote:

    The Second Mueller War will be fought on two fronts. The courts in the D.C. circuit will get a lot of extra work sorting out the nuances of executive privilege, and it's not clear who has the better of that argument. Democrats will claim that privilege has already been waived once and for all time by cooperation with Mueller, but the White House will argue that the fresh venue and the politically charged nature of Congress allows for withdrawal of those voluntary waivers. Without formal impeachment proceedings — which House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) is anxious to avoid — Congress' legal grounds for overturning legitimate privilege claims may well be insufficient.

    You can't change the circumstances of the investigation and expect the old Executive Privilege waiver to still be valid...

    Democrats want more teeth in their bullshit?? Open impeachment hearings..

    I double dog dare them to...

  37. [37] 
    Michale wrote:

    Instead, to paraphrase Al Pacino from another disappointing sequel: "Just when I thought I was out, they pull me back in." A decision by Democrats to pursue impeachment over an obstruction charge in a politically charged independent investigation would be risky — a lesson Republicans learned 21 years ago after the move to impeach Bill Clinton. The longer voters keep hearing about the non-collusion in 2016, the more Democrats risk major backlash in the 2020 election.

    Yep... Go ahead Democrats..

    Dig your hole deeper.. I DARE you!

  38. [38] 
    Michale wrote:

    The Media's Push for Impeachment

    The Mueller report is out, and Donald Trump's summary got it right: "no collusion, no obstruction." Mueller could also have labeled him the next iteration of St. Teresa, but it still wouldn't have made a lick of difference. The left wants him impeached -- period.

    No one on the left is more upset than pretty much everyone in the press. MSNBC's Mika Brzezinski insists Democrats have to do their "patriotic duty to step up for the country." That's lipstick-on-a-pig talk. Their obsession may require medical treatment. It's becoming pathological.

    NBC's Chuck Todd thinks that if there were no impeachment push, it would be "okaying the idea of foreign adversaries helping out political campaigns." He pressed Rep. Jerrold Nadler saying, "you have all of this case of obstruction presented in the Mueller report, as you've just stated. Some might ask ... 'Why haven't you opened an impeachment inquiry?'"

    "PBS NewsHour" analyst Mark Shields wants a "new 9/11 commission," apparently because the election of Donald Trump is on the level of a terrorist attack that killed 3,000 Americans.

    What's the moral of the story? If at first your hostile investigations don't wreck the Trump presidency, try, try again.
    https://townhall.com/columnists/brentbozellandtimgraham/2019/04/24/the-medias-push-for-impeachment-n2545259

    Once again, I whole-heartedly support the Demcorat Party's obsessive push of impeachment..

  39. [39] 
    Michale wrote:

    https://media.townhall.com/Townhall/Car/b/afb042419dAPR20190424054509.jpg

    This *EXACTLY* describes the antics of the Demcorat's obsession...

    Simply by defending himself, according to Dumbocrats, President Trump is committing the crime of Obstruction...

    Nothing better illustrates the hysterical zealotry of the Demcorat Party...

  40. [40] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    The Democrats' mantra has become "The Russians elected Trump by 'Sowing Discord' among the U.S ewlectorate, thereby rendering the Trump presidency illegitimate."

    "Sowing Discord"?? Sweet Jesus, I don't know whether to laugh or cry! Laugh at the stupidity, or cry at the gullibility of those who would promulgate such a theory.

  41. [41] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    https://www.huffpost.com/entry/trump-tax-returns-disclosure-la_n_5cbf57fbe4b0cee67039a729

    Trump has apparently run out of people who say "no" to him. Too bad, cause it seems to have put new gas into folks who were ready to drop the whole thing.

    Don't know what game he's playing, but if he thinks that SCOTUS will back him, he could have another thought coming.

  42. [42] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Stucki 40:

    So tell me: where are you high-up sources for what the Russians did? Thought so.

    And, by the way the Russians did much, much more than that. Much of it is still redacted.

  43. [43] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Stucki 40:

    So tell me: where are your high-up sources for what the Russians did? Thought so.

    And, by the way the Russians did much, much more than that. Much of it is still redacted.

  44. [44] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    I have a question for our conservative commenters:

    Just how much resource should we put into the Russia investigation - not the investigation of Trump, mind you, the investigation into the Russians.

    Are you happy about it? Do you realize the scope of what they did? How are we supposed to fix it?

  45. [45] 
    Kick wrote:

    Michale
    32

    In which ever court the Democrats file their witch hunt thru...

    Exactly my point, M. Trump isn't addressing any issue through the courts. Setting aside whatever BS they're spewing on Earth 2, here on Earth 1, Trump is telling his aides to ignore the rule of law. He's simply trying to run out the clock while screaming at the top of his lungs how transparent he is.

    This hiding his financial information, destroying evidence, refusing to cooperate with multiple investigations, telling his former aides and his administration to ignore congressional subpoenas for information while at the same time repeating the utterly asinine propaganda that "Trump is the most transparent president ever" only works on stupid people.

    Trump cannot order a private citizen like McGhan to ignore a congressional subpoena. If he does, that is additional abuse of power and obstruction of justice.

  46. [46] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    Balthy

    Sorry, I don't follow your "high-up sources" thing. I don't have ANY sources, high or low, I'm taking you peoples' word for all that stuff.

    Being a no-social-media kinda guy, I don't even relate to the entire concept of "sowed discord". The e-mail hacking I understand, but all they did was expose the fact that the Dem insiders stacked the primaries deck against Sanders, and the insiders didn't even deny that they did it. If that made Sanders' voters pissed, I say too bad.

    As far as "how much resources", I say any at all would be a total waste. I don't believe that anything the Russians did affected the outcome, and there ain't a damn thing we can do about it anyway, right?

  47. [47] 
    Kick wrote:

    Balthasar
    42

    And, by the way the Russians did much, much more than that. Much of it is still redacted.

    Balthy is correct. They haven't even discussed the issues of the Alpha Bank servers and... oh, I'll just stop right there.

    There is a lot more coming, though. I hope Benedict Donald doesn't think he can shut down Roger Stone's criminal trial or all those redacted issues. I mean, that wouldn't look very transparent now, would it? :)

  48. [48] 
    Kick wrote:

    CRS
    46

    As far as "how much resources", I say any at all would be a total waste. I don't believe that anything the Russians did affected the outcome, and there ain't a damn thing we can do about it anyway, right?

    Wrong, Stucki. There is quite a lot the United States can do to protect itself from active measures of our adversaries, cybercrime, and the criminals who perpetrated it:

    * Investigate
    * Arrest
    * Countermeasures

    If you're unfamiliar with counterintelligence and the sources and methods available to the United States in order to protect itself from attacks on our sovereignty, our democracy, and the rule of law, that does go a long way in explaining your comments.

    Read the Mueller Report and educate yourself. Otherwise, you just sound like an uninformed blowhard, and that's on you. :)

  49. [49] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    Kick

    Actually, I'm well aware that the 2 dozen Russian hackers that exposed the unethical dealings of the Dem insiders are under federal indictment. In fact, I've heard that they are generating such a din from their quaking and trembling in fear that Sarah Palin can hear their distress wailings at her home in Alaska.

    However, I'm also aware that those same 2 dozen Russian hackers will still be free to conduct their cybercrime "attacks on our sovereigh democracy" in the future, regardless of how many resources we devote to "investigation, arrest, and countermeasures", right?

  50. [50] 
    Kick wrote:

    CRS
    49

    However, I'm also aware that those same 2 dozen Russian hackers will still be free to conduct their cybercrime "attacks on our sovereigh democracy" in the future, regardless of how many resources we devote to "investigation, arrest, and countermeasures", right?

    Wrong, Stucki. If you seriously believe all the ridiculous repetitive nonsensical BS you keep spewing, then I'd say your reputation as the forum's know-nothing blowhard is firmly intact. :)

  51. [51] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Michale,

    I am confused as to why you think McGahn is going to risk his legal license by refusing to comply with a subpoena for Trump? Trump bad mouthing McGahn is definitely in Trump’s best interest!

    You claim to support the idea of Democrats starting the impeachment process, but at the same time think that denying them the ability to question witnesses is the way to go?

    Trump is terrified because while Mueller’s report listed many times Trump’s orders were simply ignored by his staff, it doesn’t offer the reasons given by the staff for their refusing to follow Trump’s orders!

    Trump claims that no one who works for him refuses to follow through when he tells them to do something... so shouldn’t he be pushing the FBI to charge his staff for lying to federal law enforcement???

    We have a White House where rampant insubordination is viewed as the best course of action by those that work there...and the DOJ seems to agree with them.

    My favorite thing about Trump’s tweet this morning was how he kept referring to the Democrats as “MEAN”! Seriously, we have a giant man-baby President who believes Congress cannot be allowed to do oversight if doing so hurts his feelings!

    When they finally drag this POS off to prison, I hope they force him into a orange jumpsuit made to fit someone 6’3” and 235#! The TRUTH MATTERS!

  52. [52] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    49: those same 2 dozen Russian hackers will still be free to conduct their cybercrime "attacks on our sovereigh democracy" in the future, regardless of how many resources we devote to "investigation, arrest, and countermeasures", right?

    Yeah, you'd think so, but you'd be wrong. In fact, there has been a lot of hacking out of Russia, and it's an ongoing threat, so there are resources devoted to it now, certainly.

    But there's so much more that we could do to 'harden' our election systems. Much more.

    If we want to do it.

  53. [53] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    Balthy

    If it's true, as you Dems claim, that the American electorate is stupid enough to vote for Trump over Hillary because they got an e-mail that led them to believe there was "Discord" among us, I seriously doubt that there is anything meaningful you could do to "harden our election systems".

  54. [54] 
    Kick wrote:

    BREAKING NEWS

    Deutsche Bank has begun turning over documents in New York AG’s Trump probe

    https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/deutsche-bank-has-begun-turning-over-documents-in-new-york-ags-trump-probe/ar-BBWg2kU?ocid=spartanntp

    Well, this is an unexpected turn of events. /sarcasm off

    It appears the State of New York is investigating the President of the United States. I guess it's a good thing that the POTUS is immune from prosecution of the 50 states... oh, wait.

    Thank you, New York, New York. Congress will have their peeps call your peeps. :)

  55. [55] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    Kick [54]

    What is it you understand the NY AG is probing? Does it have bearing on whether Trump "colluded/conspired" with the Russians?

  56. [56] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Stucki 53: Are you really that thick? I don't know the exact configurations of every election connection in the country, but lots of them are essentially open lines to hackers. That has to get closed. Everyone has to retreat behind firewalls, and at the same time, every election operation has to be as transparent and observable as possible. More complex systems to detect hackers could be installed. Much more..

    It's gonna take a lot.

  57. [57] 
    Kick wrote:

    CRS
    55

    Do you think it's possible that virtually the only bank in the world that will do business with Donald Trump might shed some light on his dealings with Russia? *laughs*

    What part of "follow the money" is confusing at all to you, Stucki?

  58. [58] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    No, Deutsche Bank follows Cohen's statement that Donald Trump inflated the value of assets when he applied for a loan there. Some reporting was that the bank was aware of Trump's cheating, and approved the loan anyway. Now we'll see if that's true.

  59. [59] 
    Kick wrote:

    Balthasar
    56

    Are you really that thick?

    Look at what he just asked me. *laughs*

  60. [60] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    As someone said the other day, Trump's "got a lot of pots coming to a boil all at once."

  61. [61] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Or as someone once said about Roosevelt: "he's got everyone's balls in the air including his own."

  62. [62] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    Balthy

    Not real sure exactly how "thick" I am, but I'm 'thin' enought to know that our "election connection" machines nation-wide are not vulnerable to hacking, because, moron, THEY ARE NOT CONNECTED TO THE INTERNET!!!

    I've had this argument with Dems before, and they invariably respond "everything can be hacked", and I invariably respond, "bullshit." Possibly true that every machine can be sabotaged, by people who have direct access to it, but that is NOT HACKING. Hacking requires an internet connection, and voting machines have NO INTERNET CONNECTION.

  63. [63] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    Kick

    There is no law against overstating the value of your assets, collateral, etc. when you're borrowing money.
    And by that I mean U.S fed law. I don't really care if there is such a law in Kabukastan or some such place, and if there were it obviously would be unenforceable just like the ID law against "pricegouging".

    Nevertheless, I wonder why you care if Trump lied to Deutchebank about the value of his assets. Everybody knows the man is crooked in his business dealings. Are you hoping that since your hopes of getting rid of him crashed over "collusion/conspiracy" with Russians, you can now get rid of him for cheating a foreign bank on personal business dealings??

    Sounds like desperation time to me!

  64. [64] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    CRS

    Not real sure exactly how "thick" I am, but I'm 'thin' enought to know that our "election connection" machines nation-wide are not vulnerable to hacking, because, moron, THEY ARE NOT CONNECTED TO THE INTERNET!!!

    True, but all of them that are electronic do have a thumb drive port... which means they are all hackable.

    Also, many of the machines come from China or are made up from parts that come from China. Our government has found Chinese hardware that has spyware built right into some of the components. It was why we were going to sanction that Chinese phone maker...until Trump unexplainably saved it from going out of business by waiving the sanctions.

  65. [65] 
    Michale wrote:

    As someone said the other day, Trump's "got a lot of pots coming to a boil all at once."

    Yea... Ya'all have been saying something like that since Nov of 2016...

    And Ya'all have ***ALWAYS*** been wrong..

    Why on gods green earth do you think ya'all have even a SCINTILLA of credibility???

  66. [66] 
    Michale wrote:

    True, but all of them that are electronic do have a thumb drive port... which means they are all hackable.

    Any facts to support Russians having physical access to the machines???

    Any facts at all...

    No???

    Of course not...

  67. [67] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    CRS

    Possibly true that every machine can be sabotaged, by people who have direct access to it, but that is NOT HACKING. Hacking requires an internet connection, and voting machines have NO INTERNET CONNECTION.

    You only need access to one to infect all the others. Once the polling center closes, each machine is connected to a reader that transfers the voting data into the county’s database. Those results are generally transferred via the Internet. Also, it is possible to hack the software updates that are made prior to each election. This is why all electronic voting machines should provide the voter with a hard copy showing how they voted to check their accuracy.

    Currently, the state of Georgia uses machines that provide no hard copies needed for recounts. They refused federal money to help secure their system claiming that Russia did not try to hack their Secretary of State’s office. Russia did not try to hack the state government, but it did hack the university that the computer department that is contracted to run and store all of the state’s voting machines are stored is located!

  68. [68] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Michale,

    Any facts to support Russians having physical access to the machines???

    Any facts at all...

    Let’s see...the state of Georgia allows Russian nationalists to apply to their universities...and there are hundreds that get in each year. These students have access to their computer departments at each college.

    It isn’t nearly as tough as you’d think to get a Russian spy access to these sort of things. Don’t believe me? Watch the video of Trump taking questions at one of his fundraisers from Maria Butina — the Russian spy working with the NRA. Funny, out of all the hands raised, Trump chose to answer HER question before any other!

  69. [69] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    LWYH

    Everything you describe (Re state and county voting machines) falls under the "sabotage" heading, not "hacking".

    As far as I'm aware, nobody really believes the Russians have sent, or are contemplating sending, the hundreds of people over here that would be required to visit all the thousands of counties one by one to sabotage voting machines. Simply not realistic. That's total paranoia. You've been watching way too many Boris and Natasha episodes of Bullwinkle.

  70. [70] 
    Kick wrote:

    C. R. Stucki
    62

    Educate yourself, old man.

    https://medium.com/@jennycohn1/all-voting-machines-can-be-hacked-including-through-the-internet-8d054645e860

    Newer machines are particularly vulnerable to hacking via differing means, and voter data being shared/hacked is just one of the myriad of ways to "screw" with democracy.

    Any more questions? :)

  71. [71] 
    Kick wrote:

    C. R. Stucki
    63

    There is no law against overstating the value of your assets, collateral, etc. when you're borrowing money.

    Wow! The stupid just permeates every cell of your body and goes bone deep!

    Title 18. CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE Part I. CRIMES Chapter 47. FRAUD AND FALSE STATEMENTS Section 1014. Loan and credit applications generally; renewals and discounts; crop insurance

    18 U.S. Code Section 1014.Loan and credit applications generally; renewals and discounts; crop insurance

    Whoever knowingly makes any false statement or report, or willfully overvalues any land, property or security, for the purpose of influencing in any way the action of the Federal Housing Administration, the Farm Credit Administration, Federal Crop Insurance Corporation or a company the Corporation reinsures, the Secretary of Agriculture acting through the Farmers Home Administration or successor agency, the Rural Development Administration or successor agency, any Farm Credit Bank, production credit association, agricultural credit association, bank for cooperatives, or any division, officer, or employee thereof, or of any regional agricultural credit corporation established pursuant to law, or a Federal land bank, a Federal land bank association, a Federal Reserve bank, a small business investment company, as defined in section 103 of the Small Business Investment Act of 1958 (15 U.S.C. 662), or the Small Business Administration in connection with any provision of that Act, a Federal credit union, an insured State-chartered credit union, any institution the accounts of which are insured by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, [1] any Federal home loan bank, the Federal Housing Finance Agency, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, the Farm Credit System Insurance Corporation, or the National Credit Union Administration Board, a branch or agency of a foreign bank (as such terms are defined in paragraphs (1) and (3) of section 1(b) of the International Banking Act of 1978), an organization operating under section 25 or section 25(a)?[2] of the Federal Reserve Act, or a mortgage lending business, or any person or entity that makes in whole or in part a federally related mortgage loan as defined in section 3 of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act of 1974, upon any application, advance, discount, purchase, purchase agreement, repurchase agreement, commitment, loan, or insurance agreement or application for insurance or a guarantee, or any change or extension of any of the same, by renewal, deferment of action or otherwise, or the acceptance, release, or substitution of security therefor, shall be fined not more than $1,000,000 or imprisoned not more than 30 years, or both. The term “State-chartered credit union” includes a credit union chartered under the laws of a State of the United States, the District of Columbia, or any commonwealth, territory, or possession of the United States.

    https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1014

    Is there anything else stupid you'd like to declare? :)

  72. [72] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Good work, Kick! You seem to have background stuff on everything today! Give yourself some wine.

  73. [73] 
    Kick wrote:

    Stucki
    63

    There is no law against overstating the value of your assets, collateral, etc. when you're borrowing money.
    And by that I mean U.S fed law.

    18 U.S. Code §?1344. Bank fraud

    Whoever knowingly executes, or attempts to execute, a scheme or artifice—

    (1) to defraud a financial institution; or

    (2) to obtain any of the moneys, funds, credits, assets, securities, or other property owned by, or under the custody or control of, a financial institution, by means of false or fraudulent pretenses, representations, or promises;

    shall be fined not more than $1,000,000 or imprisoned not more than 30 years, or both.

    https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1344

    ______________________________________

    You should ask Pauly Walnuts Manafort about bank fraud, Stucki. He can tell you all about how it's not illegal to misrepresent your assets if he weren't busy in his jail cell in a Scranton, PA, prison.

    Sounds like desperation time to me!

    If you've spent your entire life this stupid and uneducated regarding United States laws, then "desperation time" has long since passed, old man. :)

  74. [74] 
    Kick wrote:

    Balthasar
    72

    Heh. :)

  75. [75] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    CRS,

    As far as I'm aware, nobody really believes the Russians have sent, or are contemplating sending, the hundreds of people over here that would be required to visit all the thousands of counties one by one to sabotage voting machines. Simply not realistic.

    ALL of Georgia’s electronic voting machines are housed in the back offices of the computer department at one of the state’s university. That means ONE person could taint the entire state’s voting results.

    And you also missed or simply ignored the fact that most state voting centers email a file with the day’s results to their elections’ centers. In Georgia, a judge ordered the school in charge of the care of the state’s voting machines to turn over the database with all of the voting history details collected to the court for it to review. That court learned absolutely NOTHING from the database — somehow the entire database and all redundant copies were wiped from their servers.

    That's total paranoia.

    Yeah, that was what Georgia’s Sec.of State (and current governor) said at the time about the possibility of anyone tampering with the election.

  76. [76] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    Kick

    More than six million people overstated the value of their assets during the buildup of the housing bubble, almost all of them with the full knowledge of the financial institutions involved. Not a single one was ever prosecuted.

    Perhaps you might be misinterpreting that particular law, ya think?

  77. [77] 
    Michale wrote:

    Let’s see...the state of Georgia allows Russian nationalists to apply to their universities...and there are hundreds that get in each year. These students have access to their computer departments at each college.

    It isn’t nearly as tough as you’d think to get a Russian spy access to these sort of things. Don’t believe me? Watch the video of Trump taking questions at one of his fundraisers from Maria Butina — the Russian spy working with the NRA. Funny, out of all the hands raised, Trump chose to answer HER question before any other!

    So, I'll ask again..

    Do you have ANY facts to support your claim that Russians hacked the voting machine..

    ANY facts at all??

    "It COULD happen"

    That's it!? That's ALL you have??

  78. [78] 
    Michale wrote:

    Can anyone give me a fact that even SUPPORTS the idea that a single Hillary vote was changed to a Trump vote..

    Any fact at all??

    No.. No one can...

  79. [79] 
    Kick wrote:

    C. R. Stucki
    76

    More than six million people overstated the value of their assets during the buildup of the housing bubble, almost all of them with the full knowledge of the financial institutions involved. Not a single one was ever prosecuted.

    Are you really this stupid or are you just determined to fabricate your way out of every ignorant and asinine thing you post on this forum? This latest particular bullshit of yours is not even a good try, Stucki. It seems like on issue after issue, you're one of those morons who believes that if you're not aware of something happening, then it never happened. As I have said many times, it's not too late to educate yourself. At the very least, you could stop posting your lies on this forum.

    People actually do get prosecuted for bank fraud and lending/credit card fraud and crime on a regular basis. If you don't believe me, just ask Pauly Walnuts Manafort. He's got time on his hands; why don't you write him a letter in prison?

    Was your head up your ass during the mortgage crisis? How stupid do you have to be make a claim that "not a single one" was ever prosecuted? People lost their homes, and people across a broad spectrum were prosecuted all across America. It was called Operation Malicious Mortgage; where were you?

    https://archives.fbi.gov/archives/news/stories/2008/june/operation-malicious-mortgage-transcript

    Perhaps you might be misinterpreting that particular law, ya think?

    Perhaps you enjoy flaunting your ignorance regarding United States law and any manner of subjects wherein you routinely post false statements and then follow it up with further asinine spew. Read the law again, Stucki. It's not all that complicated. Or perhaps you have a problem with the interpretation of simple English, you think?

  80. [80] 
    Michale wrote:

    "Sowing Discord"?? Sweet Jesus, I don't know whether to laugh or cry! Laugh at the stupidity, or cry at the gullibility of those who would promulgate such a theory.

    Especially when you consider that the ONLY one's providing the "discard" ARE the Democrats, the Never Trumpers and the Trump/America haters...

  81. [81] 
    Kick wrote:

    C. R. Stucki
    76

    Just for you, Stucki:

    This case was part of a nationwide emphasis on mortgage fraud as part of Operation “Malicious Mortgage.” Between March 1 and June 18, the emphasis included 144 mortgage fraud cases and resulted in the charges, convictions or sentencing of 406 defendants, officials said. The operation is a group effort between the Department of Justice and other law enforcement entities.

    The indictment states that the suspects conspired to defraud banks and other financial institutions in a scheme where they would identify houses and use shell companies or third parties to purchase the homes. Meanwhile, they recruited “straw buyers” who would agree to buy the home from the conspirators at an inflated price. The suspects helped the straw buyers with fake paperwork for home loans, falsified documents such as appraisals, deposit verification, employment verification and closing documents. They would then split the proceeds from the fraudulent mortgages, and the straw buyers defaulted on the loans after taking up to $20,000 for their fee.

    http://www.issaquahreporter.com/news/sammamish-man-indicted-for-mortgage-fraud/

    Your ignorance of the law is again duly noted, Stucki. Would it be too much to ask that you stop posting your fabrication out of ignorance on this forum?

  82. [82] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    Kick

    Okay, so 144 fraudulent mortgages out of 6 million got prosecuted. That's .000024% I'm not surprised that it's eating on you that Trump was among the other 99.99998%.

    First, he gets away with election fraud, and now he gets away with mortgage fraud.

    I'm betting you're starting to lose faith in the justice system, right? One more like that, and I'll start worrying about your self-destructive urges.

  83. [83] 
    Kick wrote:

    C. R. Stucki
    82

    Get an education.
    Stop posting lies.

    You're still doing it.

  84. [84] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    Kick

    Re "Stop posting lies . ."

    That wasn't a case of truth or error, that was simple math.

    If you disagree, maybe you need the education.

  85. [85] 
    Kick wrote:

    C. R. Stucki
    84

    That wasn't a case of truth or error, that was simple math.

    It wasn't "simple math" when you were wrong about your statement that "there is no law against overstating the value of your assets, collateral, etc. when you're borrowing money."

    There are multiple laws against bank fraud and many other things that no amount of your simple ignorance and "simple math" exercises in bullshit can erase.

    If you disagree, maybe you need the education.

    You definitely need an education. Stop posting lies and bullshit.

  86. [86] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Michale,

    So, I'll ask again..

    Do you have ANY facts to support your claim that Russians hacked the voting machine..

    You did not ask me to provide evidence of voting machines being hacked by the Russians. You asked:


    Any facts to support Russians having physical access to the machines???

    Any facts at all...

    I provided you the facts of how Russians could have physical access to the machines. You asked, I answered.

    I am waiting for a response to my earlier questions to you [51], FYI.

  87. [87] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    Kick

    The world is full of "feel good" laws, that turn out to be unenforceable, and laws that are unenforceable are exactly the same as no laws at all.

  88. [88] 
    Kick wrote:

    C. R. Stucki
    87

    The world is full of "feel good" laws, that turn out to be unenforceable, and laws that are unenforceable are exactly the same as no laws at all.

    The world is full of petulant uneducated geezers who whine incessantly that laws don't exist regarding all manner of things like price fixing, getting "dirt" from "Russkies" and loan fraud, and brains that are senile are exactly the same as no brains at all.

    You seem desperate for attention, Stucki. :)

Comments for this article are closed.