Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting

[TAC]

Did Coz say that CNN was NOT biased?

In this instance, I was trying to point out to him that it had NOTHING to do with CNN.  All he heard was the headline, which was 100% factual, and his IMMEDIATE reaction was "ZOMGBIAS", because CNN.  We were saying "CNN isn't biased because the headline says (paraphrasing) Trump fires Comey".  Anybody prints that, it's fact, whether you like the source or not. 

OK. That makes perfect sense.


To me, you have CNN on one side and Fox on the other. When something major happens, I try and check on both.

[Stadler]

But you know that there are multiple studies on this, and most - if not all - have MSNBC as THE most biased mainstream television news outlet, and CNN as more biased than Fox.   The problem with Fox is two-fold:  one, they run more 'personality driven" op-ed spots - Hannity, O'Reilly, etc. - than CNN, and two, they are basically the lone station whose bias tips right more than left.  But when it comes to news - the actual news - Fox is CONSISTENTLY less biased than CNN.    So Jr. may not be that far off the mark.

And I have no doubt that I could find multiple studies that say the exact opposite.  The conversation went like this:

"Apparently Trump fired James Comey"
"Where'd you read that?"
"CNN"
"So it's biased news."

He had zero details on the story itself and zero desire to even inquire as to the details.  His kneejerk reaction was "biased".  He doesn't know news channels enough to even make that determination on his own, because he's too busy watching gamer videos on YouTube.  He knows what his pro-Trump gf says (that she likely hears from her own parents) and what his criminal justice friends say, most of whom I think are pro-Trump.  So no, he's so far off the mark that if he were the fabled "good guy with a gun", he'd have killed 3 innocent bystanders by accident.

Look, I have kids, I'm with you 100%.  I'm not criticizing you or getting in your (parenting) shit.  I'm just pointing out that most of the studies show that Fox is far less biased than their reputation suggests.    Either way, he has to be able to defend his opinions.   

[Stadler]

The better question is did Stadler just suggest that they were worse than Fox News?  That's the real head-scratcher for me.

I most certainly did.  It's a quick google.    There are literally tens of studies that show this.    MSNBC is almost always (I only say "almost" because I can't vouch for EVERY study) THE most biased.   CNN and Fox are usually close, but more often than not, Fox NEWS - read: NEWS, not the "op-ed" shows like Hannity's nonsense - comes out less biased than CNN.  it is STILL biased, no doubt (and el Barto will rightly point out that "bias is in the stories you pick as much as how you tell them"), but it's not as if it's  CNN>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>MSNBC>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Fox.

It's more like CNN/FOX>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>MSNBC. 

[jingle.boy]

He ran on a platform that was "drain the swamp" - which many took to mean "not going to rely on business as usual", and when he actually DOES that, he's "authoritarian". 

First...    Second... "authoritarian" as in making quick/final decisions that are as much (if not more) self-serving than serving that of your country and citizens.  Third, where and how has he fulfilled on that 'drain-the-swamp' campaign promise?  From the outside, he appears to have done the exact opposite, filling up the swamp with even more questionable people in positions of authority (Devos, Perry, Mnuchin, Ross, Pruitt ... the list goes on).  Then again, maybe blowing up the swamp, and the entire marshland in the process is what he had in mind?  I dunno, but assuming that is what THIS situation is, why did it take him almost 4 months the drain the swamp of Comey?  I don't have a strong argument for keeping Comey on performance merits alone - but the the appearance of impropriety is huge here, given the timing and lack of clear/reasonable justification (not to mention the childish self proclamation that Trump is 3x not under investigation).  In the real world, you don't fire your HR Manager when you know they are in the midst of reviewing an employee complaint against the executive suite.

he did this as right as he could.

Not sure I can get behind this.  I don't know what the "right" thing to do is, but this certainly doesn't seem like it.  Time will tell.

[XJDenton]

Making a distinction between news and editorial/op-ed content is pointless if the news channels themselves don't bother to make that distinction clear to the viewers.

[El Barto]

I'm curious if Spicer was given a heads up since he restated Trump's confidence in Comey only a couple of hours before he was shit-canned. I think Spicer is a terrible press secretary, but I don't envy the job the man has to do working for somebody as flaky as his boss.

[El Barto]

Making a distinction between news and editorial/op-ed content is pointless if the news channels themselves don't bother to make that distinction clear to the viewers.

Which is a problem I see quite a bit with FOX. As I've said I think their journalism is very good. I just think they only represent their agenda and are, at times, stunningly bad at differentiating between news and opinion.

[jingle.boy]

I'm curious if Spicer was given a heads up since he restated Trump's confidence in Comey only a couple of hours before he was shit-canned. I think Spicer is a terrible press secretary, but I don't envy the job the man has to do working for somebody as flaky as his boss.

Just like Conway was preaching the confidence in Flynn hours before he was whacked.

Making a distinction between news and editorial/op-ed content is pointless if the news channels themselves don't bother to make that distinction clear to the viewers.

No shit!  I can't even tell what is news, and what is sport on these stations anymore.  On the Fox side, Hannity is as much a "character" as Alex Jones in my opinion.  On the CNN side, they've got a 1/2 dozen or so conservative talking heads who are paid just to be as far opposite their liberal counterparts (who seemingly come out of Mary Poppins' travel bag ad infinitum) and simply sound ridiculous.  There's only a handful of mouths on CNN that I actually will truly listening to, a bunch more that I tolerate, and the remaining 50% are rubbish (liberal and conservative).  They purposefully create these verbal combats, and it isn't doing themselves any good.

[Stadler]

Making a distinction between news and editorial/op-ed content is pointless if the news channels themselves don't bother to make that distinction clear to the viewers.

Which is a problem I see quite a bit with FOX. As I've said I think their journalism is very good. I just think they only represent their agenda and are, at times, stunningly bad at differentiating between news and opinion.

Won't argue that.  Not just them, though.  Don Lemon and Van Jones make no bones that most of what comes out of their mouths is "op-ed".  Don't get me started on MSNBC.  It's a problem across the board.    Just saw a story on CNN and the headline was "Anderson Cooper's eyeroll is all of us right now".  What kind of fucking headline is that?   It's not me, I can tell you that for damn sure (even if I agree with the underlying article, that Kellyann Conway is a few songs short of a full album).  Wayyyyyyy down in the small print it says "Analysis by Chris Cillizza CNN Editor-At-Large" but still.   

ALL news has gone down this rathole, it seems, and none of us - least of all Coz's Junior; hell, all of our Juniors - is any better for it.  Not only is it slanted, but it does our thinking for us.  Let US collect the facts and draw our own conclusions. 

[antigoon]

I think we can all agree:









































chris cillizza is a tit

[TAC]

   Let US collect the facts and draw our own conclusions. 

We need a DTF Channel. This is where I get my news anyway.

[XeRocks81]

  Not only is it slanted, but it does our thinking for us.  Let US collect the facts and draw our own conclusions.

I agree doing our thinking for us is bad,  but we do need some some form of analysis,  of vulgarisation (is that a word in english?) to help us make sense of things. 

[XJDenton]

Let US collect the facts and draw our own conclusions. 

That sounds like a recipe for disaster. Ignorant people can shape facts into whatever story they like.

[Sir GuitarCozmo]

Let US collect the facts and draw our own conclusions. 

That sounds like a recipe for disaster. Ignorant people can shape facts into whatever story they like.

You're suggesting they aren't already?   

[antigoon]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/how-trumps-anger-and-impatience-prompted-him-to-fire-the-fbi-director/2017/05/10/d9642334-359c-11e7-b373-418f6849a004_story.html?utm_term=.e5d51c21517a

remarkable piece of reporting right there

[Cool Chris]

Let US collect the facts and draw our own conclusions. 

Ignorant people can shape facts into whatever story they like.

Not false, but is the alternative that people should be told what the facts are and to believe them unequivocally?

Back on track here.... can we please all move on from this Russia thing? They may have "meddled" in the election. I keep feeling that someone is going to rip a mask off Putin and the guy underneath is going to say "I would have gotten away with it too, if it weren't for you meddling kids!" This "meddling" is getting older than Coz's "But her emails!"

[El Barto]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/how-trumps-anger-and-impatience-prompted-him-to-fire-the-fbi-director/2017/05/10/d9642334-359c-11e7-b373-418f6849a004_story.html?utm_term=.e5d51c21517a

remarkable piece of reporting right there

I kept reminding myself that all of this is based on off record, anonymous insiders, yet it all seemed so incredibly plausible based on what we've seen of a Trump presidency and his own demeanor.

[El Barto]

Back on track here.... can we please all move on from this Russia thing? They may have "meddled" in the election.

No, and here are two reasons why. First, it's very important to understand what happened. If "they may have meddled" do we really want to just wait and hope for the best in 2020? My hunch is that Grabby had no involvement in any of this, but that doesn't mean that the situation shouldn't be investigated. Second, as was so often pointed out with the whole Benghazi thing, the coverup is always worse than the crime, even if there wasn't one to begin with. By sacking a person heading an investigation he opened the door to a helluva lot more scrutiny on the matter. Whether it was right or wrong to shitcan Comey, and I think it probably was, by doing so now, and in such a haphazard fashion, he just threw a bucket of chum in the water.

[Cyclopssss]

Let US collect the facts and draw our own conclusions. 

Ignorant people can shape facts into whatever story they like.

Back on track here.... can we please all move on from this Russia thing? They may have "meddled" in the election. I keep feeling that someone is going to rip a mask off Putin and the guy underneath is going to say "I would have gotten away with it too, if it weren't for you meddling kids!" This "meddling" is getting older than Coz's "But her emails!"

No we won't. The second World Power Nation has meddled, interfered, call it whatever you want in the US Elections. Hello?! Remnants of the Cold War, anyone?!
And after the whole Comey cafuffle, Kelleyanne Conway and Spicer went outside to stand in the dark and later asked to turn the lights off in the office so they couldn't be seen discussing how to proceed  and present this whole thing to the waiting press outside. Face it, folks, this president is a loose cannon.

[Chino]

Let US collect the facts and draw our own conclusions. 

Ignorant people can shape facts into whatever story they like.

Back on track here.... can we please all move on from this Russia thing? They may have "meddled" in the election. I keep feeling that someone is going to rip a mask off Putin and the guy underneath is going to say "I would have gotten away with it too, if it weren't for you meddling kids!" This "meddling" is getting older than Coz's "But her emails!"

I prefer we didn't. Honestly, if it did occur, I wouldn't be surprised if Trump legitimately didn't know about it. But that doesn't mean it doesn't deserve looking into. There seems to be two main ways Russia could have interfered; 1) They hacked our networks and strategically leaked info on the Democratic party, and only the Democratic party. 2) They played a hell of a social media game.

I think the first one needs to be looked into. Maybe I'm getting a little conspiracy here, but the willingness of many of the high ranking GOP members (Ryan, McConnel, etc..) to fall in line time and time again suggests that their stuff may have been breached too, and acting otherwise would result in a dump of their emails or something.

The second one is fascinating to me, and maybe even more troubling than the first simply because it's so easy and widespread. I've seen many people on the right (not because they're right leaning, but because they're in a defensive position during these exchanges) laugh at the idea that Russia could have swayed an election with Facebook. Is it really that crazy of an idea? Companies invest billions of dollars a year strategically manipulating what we see on social media to subconsciously make us need/want shoes, phones, shirts, jewelry, and all kind of unnecessary crap. Getting someone to not only hate a political opponent, but nearly worship another (God Emperor) isn't all that farfetched. Spam bots and fake accounts are a very real thing on Facebook, Reddit, and Twitter. They artificially inflate articles time and time again, spreading blatant propaganda to generate additional exposure.

[Sir GuitarCozmo]

This "meddling" is getting older than Coz's "But her emails!"

Sorry you're not a fan.

Actually, no, I'm not sorry.  The complete horseshit fabrication of an issue that "her emails" were something to keep beating the American public over the head about is something everyone needs to be CONTINUALLY reminded of, because it's part of what helped put this clown-shoed 24-carat fuck up in the White House.

[antigoon]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/how-trumps-anger-and-impatience-prompted-him-to-fire-the-fbi-director/2017/05/10/d9642334-359c-11e7-b373-418f6849a004_story.html?utm_term=.e5d51c21517a

remarkable piece of reporting right there

I kept reminding myself that all of this is based on off record, anonymous insiders, yet it all seemed so incredibly plausible based on what we've seen of a Trump presidency and his own demeanor.

The wild thing is how consistently leaky this administration has been. 30 sources? That's nuts.

[antigoon]

 meanwhile....

[Stadler]

Let US collect the facts and draw our own conclusions. 

That sounds like a recipe for disaster. Ignorant people can shape facts into whatever story they like.

So?  Ignorant people can force feed their conclusions to us.  We are accountable for the positions we take, no one else.  I think it's negligent that we as individuals coopt our thought process out to so-called "experts", who are expert in many cases simply because they look good on camera and are reasonably articulate reading someone else's work. 

Plus, "forming your own conclusion" doesn't exist in a vacuum.  This point is lost today on social media and Twitter (see above) but it goes hand in hand with the lately-ignored maxim that any conclusion one draws has to account for ALL facts, not just the ones that fit the narrative or that we agree with.  We can't tell people what to think.  We can, however, challenge them to account for all the facts when they present their case. Some, like Coz's Junior will cower and run when confronted with ideas that don't compute, but others - like many of the people here - will stand and debate, accounting for the details as they go, and hopefully - since no human is perfect, and no human is ALWAYS right (except for Ritchie Blackmore) - perhaps both parties in the debate will come out with a more honed, more cogent position.   

[Stadler]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/how-trumps-anger-and-impatience-prompted-him-to-fire-the-fbi-director/2017/05/10/d9642334-359c-11e7-b373-418f6849a004_story.html?utm_term=.e5d51c21517a

remarkable piece of reporting right there

I kept reminding myself that all of this is based on off record, anonymous insiders, yet it all seemed so incredibly plausible based on what we've seen of a Trump presidency and his own demeanor.

Plausible, and yet:

Ignorant people can shape facts into whatever story they like.

Not calling those writers ignorant, but without corroboration, it just becomes more of the same.   How do you verify the veracity of the sources if you don't know who they are?  At least Bob Woodward - as just one famous example - was able to ground truth the information he got from other sources so that there was a documentable trail.   And while WOodward is no Shakespeare, his work is pretty free of dumb suppositions and innuendos like commenting on press secretaries standing in the dark in front of hedges as if it's straight out of a Bond movie. 

[Stadler]

Let US collect the facts and draw our own conclusions. 

Ignorant people can shape facts into whatever story they like.

Back on track here.... can we please all move on from this Russia thing? They may have "meddled" in the election. I keep feeling that someone is going to rip a mask off Putin and the guy underneath is going to say "I would have gotten away with it too, if it weren't for you meddling kids!" This "meddling" is getting older than Coz's "But her emails!"

No we won't. The second World Power Nation has meddled, interfered, call it whatever you want in the US Elections. Hello?! Remnants of the Cold War, anyone?!
And after the whole Comey cafuffle, Kelleyanne Conway and Spicer went outside to stand in the dark and later asked to turn the lights off in the office so they couldn't be seen discussing how to proceed  and present this whole thing to the waiting press outside. Face it, folks, this president is a loose cannon.

Oh my GOD!  They STOOD IN THE DARK?  And discussed THEIR JOBS?    THE HORROR!  THE HUMANITY!   

My God, these people must be stopped.  Doing their jobs?  In the DARK?    HEATHENS.    ANIMALS. 



Not that I'm un-American or anything, but a) I need more hands than I have to count the number of elections we have gleefully, willfully and unabashedly "meddled" in over the years, and b) if you don't think that there has been "meddling" by Russia - as well as China, Israel, and others - in our elections in the past, you've had your head in the sand.   It is well documented that at a minimum, Saint Ronald, Wild Bill, and Audacious Obama all spoke with foreign powers in advance of their inauguration (and potentially in violation of the strictest of the codes on such behavior).  So there's no foul there.  There is absolutely not a shred of even a wisp of a hint of evidence that actual votes have been changed either for or against any candidate (which would be a precedent, and would be a grave concern), so now we're down to propaganda.  We live in a free - relatively - society, and part of that is the free flow of information, even that kind of information that is against the norm of society as we know it.  Short of something that violates a campaign guideline or regulation, what do you expect to find here?       

[El Barto]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/how-trumps-anger-and-impatience-prompted-him-to-fire-the-fbi-director/2017/05/10/d9642334-359c-11e7-b373-418f6849a004_story.html?utm_term=.e5d51c21517a

remarkable piece of reporting right there

I kept reminding myself that all of this is based on off record, anonymous insiders, yet it all seemed so incredibly plausible based on what we've seen of a Trump presidency and his own demeanor.

Plausible, and yet:

Ignorant people can shape facts into whatever story they like.

Not calling those writers ignorant, but without corroboration, it just becomes more of the same.   How do you verify the veracity of the sources if you don't know who they are?  At least Bob Woodward - as just one famous example - was able to ground truth the information he got from other sources so that there was a documentable trail.   And while WOodward is no Shakespeare, his work is pretty free of dumb suppositions and innuendos like commenting on press secretaries standing in the dark in front of hedges as if it's straight out of a Bond movie.

Woodward's investigation, at least to the best of my knowledge, was also all based on inside information. Yes, he had a documented paper trail of inside informants, but what makes you think all of these sources aren't? And more to the point, was there any one thing in that entire article that seemed out of character for this administration as you've seen it thus far?

[El Barto]

"Honey, somebody tried to break into the house while we were out!"
"Did they get the TV?"
"No."
"So what difference does it make?"
"But they might come back! We need to find out what happened and make sure it doesn't happen again."
"But they didn't get the TV. It doesn't matter."
"But they might next time."
"They didn't this time so they probably won't next time."
"Do we want them to try, though?"
"They didn't get the TV. End of story. Where's the remote?"

[hefdaddy42]

Can we please move on from this "breaking in" narrative?

[Stadler]

Let US collect the facts and draw our own conclusions. 

Ignorant people can shape facts into whatever story they like.

Back on track here.... can we please all move on from this Russia thing? They may have "meddled" in the election. I keep feeling that someone is going to rip a mask off Putin and the guy underneath is going to say "I would have gotten away with it too, if it weren't for you meddling kids!" This "meddling" is getting older than Coz's "But her emails!"

I prefer we didn't. Honestly, if it did occur, I wouldn't be surprised if Trump legitimately didn't know about it. But that doesn't mean it doesn't deserve looking into. There seems to be two main ways Russia could have interfered; 1) They hacked our networks and strategically leaked info on the Democratic party, and only the Democratic party. 2) They played a hell of a social media game.

I think the first one needs to be looked into. Maybe I'm getting a little conspiracy here, but the willingness of many of the high ranking GOP members (Ryan, McConnel, etc..) to fall in line time and time again suggests that their stuff may have been breached too, and acting otherwise would result in a dump of their emails or something.

The first DOES bear some looking into.  But let's not ignore all possibilities, and one of those is simply that there was dirt on the left side.  I know it's hard to believe for some - to some the GOP members have breakfast, shower, go to work, come home, worship Satan, sacrifice goats (on odd days of the week) and small children (even days of the week), fornicate with their wives and neighbors in an bacchanalian orgy involving the remaining goats, then sleep in their coffins until they can start the process over the next day - but it IS within the realm of possibility that the Podesta thing WAS the worst thing that was found.   

The second one is fascinating to me, and maybe even more troubling than the first simply because it's so easy and widespread. I've seen many people on the right (not because they're right leaning, but because they're in a defensive position during these exchanges) laugh at the idea that Russia could have swayed an election with Facebook. Is it really that crazy of an idea? Companies invest billions of dollars a year strategically manipulating what we see on social media to subconsciously make us need/want shoes, phones, shirts, jewelry, and all kind of unnecessary crap. Getting someone to not only hate a political opponent, but nearly worship another (God Emperor) isn't all that farfetched. Spam bots and fake accounts are a very real thing on Facebook, Reddit, and Twitter. They artificially inflate articles time and time again, spreading blatant propaganda to generate additional exposure.

But it shouldn't surprise anyone.  From days past when we would drop fliers into other countries from bombers overhead, to Obama being praised high and low for his "ground game" (and thus coining the phrase), which was essentially a "social media movement", to the morons who think that they can cover the entire $20 trillion economy of our country in 140-characters or less, it's pretty disingenuous to live by social media (as in 2008), then whine when you die by social media, no?   (And by the way, this applies to that Twittering fool in the White House, too). 

[Stadler]

This "meddling" is getting older than Coz's "But her emails!"

Sorry you're not a fan.

Actually, no, I'm not sorry.  The complete horseshit fabrication of an issue that "her emails" were something to keep beating the American public over the head about is something everyone needs to be CONTINUALLY reminded of, because it's part of what helped put this clown-shoed 24-carat fuck up in the White House.

Simple question - and for anyone that cares, THE only reason I didn't vote for Hillary Clinton - if the "emails" were nothing, why did she repeatedly commit perjury - lying under oath to a government investigator(s) about them?   

[Stadler]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/how-trumps-anger-and-impatience-prompted-him-to-fire-the-fbi-director/2017/05/10/d9642334-359c-11e7-b373-418f6849a004_story.html?utm_term=.e5d51c21517a

remarkable piece of reporting right there

I kept reminding myself that all of this is based on off record, anonymous insiders, yet it all seemed so incredibly plausible based on what we've seen of a Trump presidency and his own demeanor.

Plausible, and yet:

Ignorant people can shape facts into whatever story they like.

Not calling those writers ignorant, but without corroboration, it just becomes more of the same.   How do you verify the veracity of the sources if you don't know who they are?  At least Bob Woodward - as just one famous example - was able to ground truth the information he got from other sources so that there was a documentable trail.   And while WOodward is no Shakespeare, his work is pretty free of dumb suppositions and innuendos like commenting on press secretaries standing in the dark in front of hedges as if it's straight out of a Bond movie.

Woodward's investigation, at least to the best of my knowledge, was also all based on inside information. Yes, he had a documented paper trail of inside informants, but what makes you think all of these sources aren't? And more to the point, was there any one thing in that entire article that seemed out of character for this administration as you've seen it thus far?

None of it is out of character; if anything, just the opposite.  But that doesn't translate into the level of conspiracy that some are painting.  It defies logic at this point.   There is almost no possibility of "conspiracy" with this level of disfunction, with this level of in-fighting, with this level of people looking to save their ass, with this level of people willing to say anything as long as their name isn't tied to it...   it's just ludicrous.   

I still don't think it's "wrong" per se, but assuming it is, it's far more likely to just be "ineptness" than "corruptness". 

[Stadler]

Can we please move on from this "breaking in" narrative?

Can we please move on from this moving on?        

[El Barto]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/how-trumps-anger-and-impatience-prompted-him-to-fire-the-fbi-director/2017/05/10/d9642334-359c-11e7-b373-418f6849a004_story.html?utm_term=.e5d51c21517a

remarkable piece of reporting right there

I kept reminding myself that all of this is based on off record, anonymous insiders, yet it all seemed so incredibly plausible based on what we've seen of a Trump presidency and his own demeanor.

Plausible, and yet:

Ignorant people can shape facts into whatever story they like.

Not calling those writers ignorant, but without corroboration, it just becomes more of the same.   How do you verify the veracity of the sources if you don't know who they are?  At least Bob Woodward - as just one famous example - was able to ground truth the information he got from other sources so that there was a documentable trail.   And while WOodward is no Shakespeare, his work is pretty free of dumb suppositions and innuendos like commenting on press secretaries standing in the dark in front of hedges as if it's straight out of a Bond movie.

Woodward's investigation, at least to the best of my knowledge, was also all based on inside information. Yes, he had a documented paper trail of inside informants, but what makes you think all of these sources aren't? And more to the point, was there any one thing in that entire article that seemed out of character for this administration as you've seen it thus far?

None of it is out of character; if anything, just the opposite.  But that doesn't translate into the level of conspiracy that some are painting.  It defies logic at this point.   There is almost no possibility of "conspiracy" with this level of disfunction, with this level of in-fighting, with this level of people looking to save their ass, with this level of people willing to say anything as long as their name isn't tied to it...   it's just ludicrous.   

I still don't think it's "wrong" per se, but assuming it is, it's far more likely to just be "ineptness" than "corruptness".

I'm not "some" and I'm not translating this to the level of massive conspiracy. I'm pointing out why we should continue investigating Russia, contrary to Cool Chris's wishes, and remain skeptical of Grabby's motives. The former is something that needs to be understood and the latter is something that should apply to all presidents. This one just happens to be even more necessary, IMO. You yourself agree that the president must be scrutinized, and also that the sort of instability and dysfunction we're seeing seems to be typical of the character of this administration.

And I think this level of dysfunction would be perfectly understandable. Much of the people involved weren't hand picked by Grabby and probably aren't used to this style of operating. Moreover, the more unstable the leader the more rattled the subs are likely to be. There's a reason KJ-U whacks his staff from time to time.

[Sir GuitarCozmo]

Simple question - and for anyone that cares, THE only reason I didn't vote for Hillary Clinton - if the "emails" were nothing, why did she repeatedly commit perjury - lying under oath to a government investigator(s) about them?

I can't answer that.  But the other side of that, is that if they were as big a deal as everyone made them out to be at the time, why did the issue all but drop off the face of the earth after election day?