How much more overt does it need to be? He admitted on live TV that he fired Comey because of the Russia investigation.

Well, that’s telling. Trump makes an unspecific statement regarding the firing being because of the Russia investigation, and you finish his thought for him, assuming that the statement an have no other logical meaning than to obstruct an investigation.

Morover, you have no trouble listing scores of datapoints regarding who said what to whom, indicating that you’re more than a little bit obsessed with this topic, and you’ve cautioned me about reading anything exculpatory by Caitlin Johnstone.

There’s a serious problem afoot when people start searching for evidence that fits a predetermined outcome, rather than looking at all the evidence and letting it lead where it may.

Suffice to say that you’d have something a bit more condemning than that, counselor. Impeachment isn’t a Court of Law, as I’ve pointed out, but in order for Trump’s base to turn, you’re going to need sufficient evidence to get a conviction in a Court of Law.

Really? You mean something like this?

Be serious. That transaction took place in 2008, and it’s not unusual at all for Russians to snap up US real estate assets.

Or maybe this?

I knew you’d go to the “whataboutism” well eventually.

And I knew that you’d equivocate, straight up. Your answer is easily interpreted to mean than you didn’t care that the Sect of State herself could have been in a conflicted position. The fact that she wasn’t/isn’t the president. and they don’t take money from the Foundation, is not germane to the question. If you have a Foundation, foreign actors know that you appreciate donations to it, period. They’re not concerned about the accounting.

But even if your point were relevant, I might just say, “Yeah, you’re right, Clinton was dirty. So why are you okay with Trump being dirty again?”

I’m always concerned about corruption in government. The question was designed to determine if you’re honestly concerned about corruption or not. Apparently you’re not, at it’s all about Trump.

I think you’re sticking your head in the sand here. His attacks on the free press are not trivial.

No, they’re not. But with freedom comes responsibility, and it does not appear to many of us that our press takes its responsibility to provide clear and accurate reporting seriously. If they’re wrong, they need to be called out not just as “making a mistake”, but in some cases damaging the nation as a while. And as long as they keep trotting out (related to your point and the cite below) known prevaricators and political animals like Clapper and Brennan to comment on these matters, they quite frankly are not worth the bandwidth they consume.

His slander of the FBI and intelligence community is not harmless.

No, it’s not. But it’s not news that our intel agencies are a little fucked, after 9/11 and the Iran fiasco. What, you don’t believe in accountability for major mistakes that cost American lives?

(bored with the list)

And spare me your indignation about Bill and Monica. Those were two consenting adults, so the rest of the world didn’t give a shit about it.

Oh, I am not sparing you anything on that one, you misogynist son of a bitch. If the Dems hadn’t closed ranks around Clinton, we’d have been having the national discussion on sexual behavior and power dynamic THEN, instead of today. Tens of thousands of women might have avoided abuse had it happened THEN rather than NOW, and come to think about it, had it happened THEN, Trump never would have been considered from the presidency.

In this excellent article where Matt does some mea culpas, he now realizes that the same attitude that you have just expressed was tremendously damaging to women’s rights.

And, I might remind you, Republicans tried to impeach him for lying about that, but you apparently want to give Trump a pass on everything he has lied about?

Clinton never should have been impeached., And I’m not giving Trump a PASS on anything. Obviously the man has a problem with the truth. But we’re talking about what it would take to get an impeachment vote in the House, here, and nobody’s being impeached for lying.

What tax breaks did the upper 0.1% lose?

I’ve seen numbers that show how STAGGERING the deductions they were getting from the mortgage and SALT deductions; evidently those deductions to them were amazingly high. That tiny upper bracket was subtracting hundreds of thousands of dollars off their tax bills just on the two alone.

Democrats were for it when it wasn’t going to be paid for by handing $1T to the super rich and corporations. Obama actually tried to lower the corporate rate to 28%, and the GOP wanted nothing to do with it. Funny how things change, eh?

The GOP wanted a much lower rate, and Obama’s “suggestion” was tied to higher taxes in other areas. LIke on most things, Obama wasn’t serious. He liked to make it look like he wanted to compromise on things, but he never did.

Lastly, there have been no non-partisan analyses of this tax bill that have concluded that it will create more growth and revenue than we will lose from the lowered taxes.

It;s not perfect; it’s just better than what we have today.

so I’m still waiting for a discussion on why their behavior would change now.

Depends on the corporation and the industry and the amount of business they’re doing overseas. If you have substantial amounts of revenue made overseas and the old tax code forces you leave the money over there, then you build new plants and hire over there. With a territorial tax system and lower rates, then you can build and hire whenver you want. It’s not a matter of “now they will build and hire over here”, it’s more like “now the penalty for building and hiring over here is removed.”

What they actually do with the money will vary, of course. But as a basic precept of free markets, you don’t want to encumber the decisions made by your corporations without a damn good reason. The former system did that.

Then, on top of it, referring to the article I cited to you previously, the new system makes foreign investment in the US very attractive. So, I would expect you’ll see plans in reasonably short order for more foreign automakers to build plants over here, which will be nice.

The whole thing is built on lies.

Yea, it’s really going to suck to have a growing business environment again. (wink)

Though Corker’s LLCs, Trump’s real-estate investments, and the recipients of massive inheritances will make out like bandits. Mission accomplished.

Tsk, You’re such a negative nanny. :-)

Data Driven Econophile. Muslim, USA born. Been “woke” 2x: 1st, when I realized the world isn’t fair; 2nd, when I realized the “woke” people are full of shit.

Data Driven Econophile. Muslim, USA born. Been “woke” 2x: 1st, when I realized the world isn’t fair; 2nd, when I realized the “woke” people are full of shit.