https://www.elitetrader.com/et/thre...andrew-mccabe-removed-from-the-bureau.317622/ As Optionpro posted, this is the stuff that sways opinions on the FBI and the DoJ. Makes it difficult to believe the investigation - any investigation by the FBI - can be fair.
let the record show this: " Four in 10 Americans think the president has done something illegal when it comes to Russia, while an additional 3 in 10 say he's at least done something unethical. And 68 percent disapprove of his response to the investigations." Source: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/politics/ct-ap-poll-trump-russia-20171215-story.html December 15, 2017. You may want to compare these poll results to my exact wording to see if you can find a serious disconnect. In your line of work you are undoubtedly good at arithmetic, so you have already added 4 to 3 to arrive at 7. I'll just take the next step and point out that 7 out of 10 is awfully close to two-thirds --especially if we allow for some error in the polling. Might I be excused therefore if I said a "The majority of U.S. adults think there is real substance here" Let me say that the reason you find yourself with your foot in your mouth more less continuously appears to be that you don't take advantage of the information that is readily available to you. It seems you read something that is rather outrageous that you don't recognize as such, and then rely on it without making the effort to check it out. Should you be allowed to vote?
Awesome. Thank you for the source. Now 4 think something illegal was done. But an additional 3 find something unethical. I suppose that can translate to "substance", so I'll give you that. That's why I asked for a poll so I could understand what "substance" meant, since it was so general a statement. I suppose that's why you used it. I'll even ignore the fact that the poll had 46 Democrats to 33 Republicans (page 15 of the survey you failed to link to, but I found), which would almost certainly have skewed the results. Oops, I guess I didn't ignore it. Let me see if I understand you fully here, and correct me if I state this wrongly. When I ask for proof and you don't show it, me saying you're making it up is me putting my foot in my mouth, until afterwards, when you finally provide a link and I accept it. Or perhaps you were expecting me to find the proof of your statements? Yet I post an article with a link in it to the author, you miss the link entirely, and then yell at me to post my sources. Do I understand your position correctly?
That's it? 4 in 10? Well, that's pretty damn good in my book. With a hostile press going at him 24/7 shouldn't those numbers be like, 8 out of 10?
So the intelligence community by and large agree there is proof of Russian interference. We know by and large Russia is still running bots and troll farms in favor of Trump. Campaign personnel did their damnest to hide Russian associates. Perhaps involvement did not include trump(fat chance), in which case Trump just risked obstruction unnecessarily. You want him to just get a pass because the other crime could not be proven/won't stick/etc??