Turkey fans BOO during pre-match minute's silence for the victims of Paris attacks an

[Unregistered]

I don't believe it does because of the general nature of the letter regardless of its origin. It's the specifics revealed in the NYT's article at issue. Trump could have made a case against the doctor at that time. I would presume their long history may have been partly why he did not, but I can also see why he felt he should claim ownership of his medical records.

Doc signed the note, so whatever is in the letter he owns.

And he is bound by HIPAA as a physician. Anyone with access to medical information is bound by HIPAA.

Also, commenting about a patient's medical history is a no-no unless there are very specific reasons. Never to the press and never to anyone outside of the healthcare system unless under very specific circumstances.

This is especially true of well-known patients.

[Unregistered]

From a Bill Clinton associate: Most of the public, based on the last Harvard Caps-Harris Poll, supports Robert Mueller going forward with his investigation, but I wonder whether that would still be the case if he were required to answer a few questions himself.

When you interviewed for FBI director with President Trump, had you had any conversations with Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, FBI Director James Comey or any other current or former officials of the U.S. government about serving as a special counsel? Didn’t you consider going forward with the interview or being rejected as FBI director to create the appearance of conflict?

When you picked your team, what was going through your mind when you picked zero donors to the Trump campaign and hired many Democratic donors, supporters of the defiant actions of Sally Yates, who at the time was deputy attorney general, and prosecutors who had been overturned for misconduct? What were you thinking in building a team with documented biases?

When you were shown the text messages of FBI officials Lisa Page and Peter Strzok, why did you reassign them and not fire them for compromising the investigation with obvious animus and multiple violations of procedure and policy? Why did you conceal from Congress the reasons for their firing for five months and did you discard any of their work as required by the “fruits of a poisonous tree” doctrine?

What were your personal contacts with Rod Rosenstein and James Comey during the investigation as special counsel and before that as a private attorney? Would you be considered a friend of James Comey? Would that personal relationship not disqualify you as a prosecutor on the case under Justice Department guidelines?

Doesn’t the fact that Rod Rosenstein wrote a memo urging the firing of James Comey and, therefore, is a witness to key events you are reviewing, disqualify him as your supervisor under Justice Department guidelines?

Did you see in advance any of the text of the book by James Comey or have any conversations related to its contents? Are you reviewing the contradictory statements made by James Comey on key issues for possible perjury or referral for perjury?

Did you or members of your team participate directly or indirectly in any leaks to the press about elements of the investigation, and what steps have you taken, if any, to investigate such leaks? Have members of your team been questioned under oath about leaks?

When you raided former Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort’s home at gunpoint, was the scope of your investigation expanded in writing before or only days after you carried out the raid?

Would you be willing to undergo a lie detector test about your potential involvement, as alleged by constitutional law professor Alan Dershowitz, in protecting Boston crime boss Whitey Bulger and the jailing of four people whose convictions were later overturned amid prosecutorial abuse? What were you thinking as the local U.S. attorney while this unfolded and you took no action to stop it?

During the course of the current investigation, many questions have been raised about the Steele dossier and its Russian sources, the leaking of its contents, the covering up through illegal cutouts of the source of funding from the Clinton campaign and Democratic National Committee. Did you follow up and investigate any of those questions?

When you secretly obtained all of the emails of the transition including possible privileged material, did you have it first reviewed by a “taint team” and did you believe you could evade legal process, while the government official in charge was on vacation, to obtain everything instead of selections of those emails relevant to the investigation?

After a year of investigation, what concrete evidence have you found about collusion with the Russians and Donald Trump to leak the emails of the Democratic National Committee or John Podesta? Did you in fact obtain the Democratic National Committee servers and investigate whether they had been hacked or merely had internal leaks, or did you just rely on the organization’s own security firm?

What role, if any, did you or members of your team play in the public raiding of the offices of Donald Trump’s personal attorney, Michael Cohen? In light of recusal of the New York U.S. attorney, did you consider that such action would in effect reveal a defendant in what should be a confidential investigation?

What discussions have you had about bias in the team, leveraging relatives, flipping close confidants, conducting very public raids, the impact of conducting and leaking investigations on the president’s family, and any other potential abuses of the office of special counsel?

Do you consider firing the FBI director, thinking about pardons, considering firing you, and any conversations questioning your methods, bias or the foundation of your investigation to be matters you believe you can investigate, even though they are within the clear constitutional and First Amendment rights of the president? If you think you can question the president on these matters, then why should you not be subject to the same questions about your thought process, conflicts, possible bias and conduct in office?

[Unregistered]

The old liberal tradition used to read: You fight bad speech with more and better speech.

Now you just annihilate it so it can't be heard.

There are two reasons the left labels most conservatives and all Trump supporters “white supremacists,” “neo-Nazis” and “racists.” One is to defeat conservatives without having to defeat conservative ideas. The other is to instill fear: Speak out and you will suffer the consequences.

[Unregistered]

Demographics: A new poll shows that the millennial generation has suddenly soured on Democrats just before the Blue Wave was supposed to crash over Republicans in Congress. There's a good reason for their change of heart.

The latest Reuters/Ipsos poll of 16,000 millennials found that support for Democrats among this generation dropped to 46% — a nine-point plunge from 55% just two years ago. Just 39% of white millennials now say they favor Democrats. It also found that more millennials say the GOP is a better steward of the economy.

https://www.investors.com/politics/e...-poll-economy/

[Unregistered]

From a Bill Clinton associate: Most of the public, based on the last Harvard Caps-Harris Poll, supports Robert Mueller going forward with his investigation, but I wonder whether that would still be the case if he were required to answer a few questions himself.

When you interviewed for FBI director with President Trump, had you had any conversations with Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, FBI Director James Comey or any other current or former officials of the U.S. government about serving as a special counsel? Didn’t you consider going forward with the interview or being rejected as FBI director to create the appearance of conflict?

When you picked your team, what was going through your mind when you picked zero donors to the Trump campaign and hired many Democratic donors, supporters of the defiant actions of Sally Yates, who at the time was deputy attorney general, and prosecutors who had been overturned for misconduct? What were you thinking in building a team with documented biases?

When you were shown the text messages of FBI officials Lisa Page and Peter Strzok, why did you reassign them and not fire them for compromising the investigation with obvious animus and multiple violations of procedure and policy? Why did you conceal from Congress the reasons for their firing for five months and did you discard any of their work as required by the “fruits of a poisonous tree” doctrine?

What were your personal contacts with Rod Rosenstein and James Comey during the investigation as special counsel and before that as a private attorney? Would you be considered a friend of James Comey? Would that personal relationship not disqualify you as a prosecutor on the case under Justice Department guidelines?

Doesn’t the fact that Rod Rosenstein wrote a memo urging the firing of James Comey and, therefore, is a witness to key events you are reviewing, disqualify him as your supervisor under Justice Department guidelines?

Did you see in advance any of the text of the book by James Comey or have any conversations related to its contents? Are you reviewing the contradictory statements made by James Comey on key issues for possible perjury or referral for perjury?

Did you or members of your team participate directly or indirectly in any leaks to the press about elements of the investigation, and what steps have you taken, if any, to investigate such leaks? Have members of your team been questioned under oath about leaks?

When you raided former Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort’s home at gunpoint, was the scope of your investigation expanded in writing before or only days after you carried out the raid?

Would you be willing to undergo a lie detector test about your potential involvement, as alleged by constitutional law professor Alan Dershowitz, in protecting Boston crime boss Whitey Bulger and the jailing of four people whose convictions were later overturned amid prosecutorial abuse? What were you thinking as the local U.S. attorney while this unfolded and you took no action to stop it?

During the course of the current investigation, many questions have been raised about the Steele dossier and its Russian sources, the leaking of its contents, the covering up through illegal cutouts of the source of funding from the Clinton campaign and Democratic National Committee. Did you follow up and investigate any of those questions?

When you secretly obtained all of the emails of the transition including possible privileged material, did you have it first reviewed by a “taint team” and did you believe you could evade legal process, while the government official in charge was on vacation, to obtain everything instead of selections of those emails relevant to the investigation?

After a year of investigation, what concrete evidence have you found about collusion with the Russians and Donald Trump to leak the emails of the Democratic National Committee or John Podesta? Did you in fact obtain the Democratic National Committee servers and investigate whether they had been hacked or merely had internal leaks, or did you just rely on the organization’s own security firm?

What role, if any, did you or members of your team play in the public raiding of the offices of Donald Trump’s personal attorney, Michael Cohen? In light of recusal of the New York U.S. attorney, did you consider that such action would in effect reveal a defendant in what should be a confidential investigation?

What discussions have you had about bias in the team, leveraging relatives, flipping close confidants, conducting very public raids, the impact of conducting and leaking investigations on the president’s family, and any other potential abuses of the office of special counsel?

Do you consider firing the FBI director, thinking about pardons, considering firing you, and any conversations questioning your methods, bias or the foundation of your investigation to be matters you believe you can investigate, even though they are within the clear constitutional and First Amendment rights of the president? If you think you can question the president on these matters, then why should you not be subject to the same questions about your thought process, conflicts, possible bias and conduct in office?

This is why I believe that this one may end up going to the Supreme Court. Trump knows that Mueller is trying to trap him. He is carrying the water for his DOJ/FBI buddies and wants to even the score. He also needs to find SOMETHING or this entire episode was nothing but a costly waste of time and indeed a Witch hunt.

The questions are very broad and ambiguous. They are designed to entrap or a confirmation that Mueller has nothing, maybe both.

Trump should refuse to meet with Mueller and let this one go to the Supreme Court. Let them figure out the powers of the Special Counsel vs. Executive privilege.

[Unregistered]

Clean energy sector swings Republican with U.S. campaign donations

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-u...-idUSKBN1I31DZ

[Unregistered]

Ukraine, Seeking U.S. Missiles, Halted Cooperation With Mueller Investigation
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/02/w...-missiles.html

[Unregistered]

Clinton, Trudeau, Obama, “lefties”....

3 PAGES of unhinged 🥜 ter rants in 2 hrs! After the last few record setting days .

[i] Coincidentally, (😂😂😂) the cons seem ennured to yet another shuffling of the criminal’s acquiring new lawyers AGAIN.

Too funny. Trump is on the ropes in ways no pervious president has been and that the standard con lizard brain cannot comprehend.

😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂

Please keep making it better for me Cons.

Thanks !!!!

Bwa ha ha
Tee hee
😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂

[Unregistered]

Trump attorney Cobb is out, replaced by an attorney that defended Clinton in his impeachment proceedings. Lmao

[Unregistered]

This is why I believe that this one may end up going to the Supreme Court. Trump knows that Mueller is trying to trap him. He is carrying the water for his DOJ/FBI buddies and wants to even the score. He also needs to find SOMETHING or this entire episode was nothing but a costly waste of time and indeed a Witch hunt.

The questions are very broad and ambiguous. They are designed to entrap or a confirmation that Mueller has nothing, maybe both.

Trump should refuse to meet with Mueller and let this one go to the Supreme Court. Let them figure out the powers of the Special Counsel vs. Executive privilege.

Agree. Let the Supreme Court rule that a sitting President can't be indicted without Impeaching him first. There isn't any evidence of any crimes, just accusations. In order to Impeach him, one must present evidence of " Reason, Bribery or other high crimes and misdemeanors " to the House of Representatives. Then there would be a trial if there were enough votes.

[Unregistered]

Agree. Let the Supreme Court rule that a sitting President can't be indicted without Impeaching him first. There isn't any evidence of any crimes, just accusations. In order to Impeach him, one must present evidence of " Reason, Bribery or other high crimes and misdemeanors " to the House of Representatives. Then there would be a trial if there were enough votes.

That’s why he’s dodging the “interview” like a true yellow-bellied coward, because as you say, “nothing there?”

😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂

Then in another post alludes to “conservative values.”

😂😂😂😂😂🥜😂😂😂😂😂😂

I remember a certain conservative value .....

“If you didn’t do anything wrong, what are you AFRAID of ?

😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂

What cons? Why doesn’t he “clear this all up” by answering a few questions for Bobby M.

He has the questions in advance , in a concession to his “privelege” isn’t that enough of a “handicap” for him?

😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂

Oh my!

[Unregistered]

Agree. Let the Supreme Court rule that a sitting President can't be indicted without Impeaching him first. There isn't any evidence of any crimes, just accusations. In order to Impeach him, one must present evidence of " Reason, Bribery or other high crimes and misdemeanors " to the House of Representatives. Then there would be a trial if there were enough votes.

I’m absolutely fine with this so long as all the Bobby M. Findings are laid in front of the public.

Then we can decide at the ballot box in a fair election and stop arguing .

So yeah. I’m down with that ....cons want transparency too so let’s get as many “findings” out as soon as we can

THEN decide

😊😊😊😊😊🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔😂😂😂😂😂

[Unregistered]

That’s why he’s dodging the “interview” like a true yellow-bellied coward, because as you say, “nothing there?”

😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂

Then in another post alludes to “conservative values.”

😂😂😂😂😂🥜😂😂😂😂😂😂

I remember a certain conservative value .....

“If you didn’t do anything wrong, what are you AFRAID of ?

😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂

What cons? Why doesn’t he “clear this all up” by answering a few questions for Bobby M.

He has the questions in advance , in a concession to his “privelege” isn’t that enough of a “handicap” for him?

😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂

Oh my!

Really simple. The collusion has been on the part of the DOJ/FBI and Mueller. There is zero credibility to this process and those running it. Trump would be a fool to agree to be interviewed.

Unless of course he got the same deal Hillary got. Not under oath and no recordings. Seems fair right?

[Unregistered]

Really simple. The collusion has been on the part of the DOJ/FBI and Mueller. There is zero credibility to this process and those running it. Trump would be a fool to agree to be interviewed.

Unless of course he got the same deal Hillary got. Not under oath and no recordings. Seems fair right?

Which of the “48 questions” do you see as “out of bounds?”

Try to be specific - if you are even able

Tee hee
Bwa ha ha
😂😂😂😂😂😂


Get back to me when trump decides to either :

A) comply
B) destroy his presidency if he does not a)

Have a lovely afternoon....

Oh quick question.

Cons have ANY legislation passable before midterms ? You know with the WH, House , Senate , etc during on all cylinders for them.

[Unregistered]

Really simple. The collusion has been on the part of the DOJ/FBI and Mueller. There is zero credibility to this process and those running it. Trump would be a fool to agree to be interviewed.

Unless of course he got the same deal Hillary got. Not under oath and no recordings. Seems fair right?

Absolutely . Trump should tell Mueller to go pound sand.
Almost a year on the job, and this is all Mueller has ? Nothing new there, nothing at all. No smoking guns, no evidence. nothing.