General statistics
List of Youtube channels
Youtube commenter search
Distinguished comments
About

Triple 9
Styxhexenhammer666
comments

Comments by "Triple 9" (@Betta66) on "Crazed Leftists Still Want to Impeach Trump" video.

@JAG8691 "Pseudo-comedian"? Your best attack against him is that he isn't the thing that he demonstrably is? If people like Trevor Noah and John Oliver hate America so much, why would they choose to keep working here? And don't tell me it's to destroy America from the inside. If they wanted to do that, they should've gone into banking instead.
3
The Russians made several attempts to contact the campaign offering dirt on Hillary, to which the report says the campaign had been receptive. Trump also instructed aides to stop the investigation. The reasons for there being no definitive conclusions reached on Trump either conspiring with the Russians or obstructing the investigation were twofold: Trump's team was too incompetent to conspire with the Russians, and Trump's aides never carried out his repeated orders to stop the investigation. The investigation is only a nothing burger in the sense that Trump doesn't know how to cook.
2
It is, but the Mueller report said there was evidence that had been destroyed before it could be examined in the investigation. Just saying, selective outrage isn't just a liberal thing.
2
The Russians made several attempts to contact the campaign offering dirt on Hillary, to which the report says the campaign had been receptive. Trump also instructed aides to stop the investigation. The reasons for there being no definitive conclusions reached on Trump either conspiring with the Russians or obstructing the investigation were twofold: Trump's team was too incompetent to conspire with the Russians, and Trump's aides never carried out his repeated orders to stop the investigation. The investigation is only a nothing burger in the sense that Trump doesn't know how to cook.
1
@SonoftheAllfather Actually, federal campaign finance law says it's illegal for a foreign national to "directly or indirectly, make a contribution or a donation of money or other thing of value." https://www.fec.gov/regulations/110-20/2018-annual-110#110-20-a-7 So yes, it is absolutely illegal. But that doesn't matter to you because you fail to do the smallest amount of research and still call that a success.
1
@AnarchAngel1 A serious case, huh? Do you work at the medical offices of Ronny Jackson with a degree you got from Trump University? Because you aren't showing me any reason to take you seriously when your best insult is "you have TDS." Sure, I'm the one who's mentally unstable. Tell that to the guy whose paranoia is so bad that William Barr used it as an honest to God excuse for why it was legal for Trump to attempt obstruction.
1
@AnarchAngel1 Mueller didn't come out with no evidence whatsoever. What he said was "We don't have enough evidence to definitively prove there was CONSPIRACY between Trump and Russia, but we don't have enough evidence to prove he didn't commit obstruction of justice." Even if Trump didn't do either of those things, do you really think it would be a stretch to suspect that someone sued over 3,000 times would do something shady and unethical? Is that your final answer? That liberals were crazy to look at a documented con man and serial liar and think he was up to no good? Wow, and you think I'm the NPC here. It's literally the same fucking talking points from every fucking commenter on every fucking video. How am I supposed to tell you apart from the other fifty commenters who talk in exactly the same way you do? I bet you make Trump proud with your powers of being a fraud with no proven credibility. Give me one reason why I shouldn't think you didn't actually read the report and you're just parroting what Trump wants you to think it says. Actually, don't do that. Just fuck off already.
1
You would still defend Trump even if he did, wouldn't you?
1
The Russians made several attempts to contact the campaign offering dirt on Hillary, to which the report says the campaign had been receptive. Trump also instructed aides to stop the investigation. The reasons for there being no definitive conclusions reached on Trump either conspiring with the Russians or obstructing the investigation were twofold: Trump's team was too incompetent to conspire with the Russians, and Trump's aides never carried out his repeated orders to stop the investigation. The investigation is only a nothing burger in the sense that Trump doesn't know how to cook.
1
@alexxaa5697 That's only the truth if you didn't read the actual report. The original charge was obstruction of justice, given that Mueller was hired after Trump fired James Comey. On obstruction, the report said Trump couldn't be exonerated given the evidence. And once again, collusion has no specific legal meaning in criminal law and wasn't in Mueller's appointment letter anyway. So saying that Trump is innocent of everything just because Mueller's report didn't say there was collusion is like saying Ed Gein was innocent of everything just because he didn't kill the judge.
1
@Johan Strydom Then he should be well within his right to prove me wrong.
1
@Johan Strydom I get that humor is subjective, but imagine you're Trump in the 2016 election. People think you're conspiring with a foreign government to collect dirt on your political opponent. Why would you think it would help your case if you said "You know, it would be really funny if Russia hacked Hillary's emails"? Just sayin'.
1
@JAG8691 Maybe my sense of humor is vastly different from yours, but I saw him live earlier this month and I think he's funny.
1
@Rose Quartz You're not partisan? You? Do you read what you type? You are no less partisan than you think I am.
1
@TheAngryRepublican Oh, Trump fixed their water?
1
@TheAngryRepublican Oh, that was so kind of him to sign the $100 million grant back in December 2016. Wait, no, that was Obama. Anything else you want to be wrong about?
1
@Ryan_Harkin How is that a joke? Actually, don't tell me. I don't fucking care to know.
1
@TheAngryRepublican Obama signed an emergency declaration for Flint in January 2016, which ended in August of that year. The work is still ongoing, but to say he did nothing beyond drink filtered water is misleading at best and a lie at worst.
1
Vinnie Provolone "In some instances, the Campaign was receptive." Other times, they were too incompetent, like when Cohen confused the former press secretary of Russia's energy minister with an Olympic weightlifter or when Cohen sent emails to the wrong address. Are you sure we read the same report? Because wow, that's some willful ignorance right there.
1
zero charisma You mean like how no one in the Trump campaign could keep their story straight on the Trump Tower meeting? "It was about Russian adoptions. No wait, it was the Russians trying to offer dirt on Hillary. B-but nothing came of it. A-and even if it did, there's nothing illegal about it. But Hillary totally did it too and she should be in jail for doing the thing we just said wasn't illegal." Once again, Trump's defenders fail to prove why they should be taken seriously.
1
@gulfrelay2249 Rick Snyder's a Republican, and he appointed emergency managers who signed off on the switch away from Detroit’s water system and the decision to use Flint River water as an interim solution. Not that he's 100% responsible, but claiming it was solely the Democrats' fault is misleading.
1
@jeffw1267 It looks good for Trump that his press secretary and Attorney General lied?
1
@Rose Quartz Who's the copy paster? Me or the guy who only know one insult?
1
I'm not saying that just for political reasons, lest you think I listen almost exclusively to Amy Schumer.
1
Whatever.
1
@Tenskwatawa4U Conspiracy, however, is unlawful. "If two or more persons conspire either to commit any offense against the United States, or to defraud the United States, or any agency thereof in any manner or for any purpose, and one or more of such persons do any act to effect the object of the conspiracy, each shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both. If, however, the offense, the commission of which is the object of the conspiracy, is a misdemeanor only, the punishment for such conspiracy shall not exceed the maximum punishment provided for such misdemeanor." (18 U.S. Code § 371) And yes, I am fully aware that Mueller wasn't able to establish that Trump conspired with the Russians. Conspiracy law, however, usually requires only that conspirators have agreed to engage in a certain unlawful act to establish an illegal agreement (which Trump's campaign staff absolutely did).
1
@Tenskwatawa4U They didn't go with collusion. Mueller even felt the need to dedicate an entire section of the report explaining the definition of collusion to clarify what exactly it was they were investigating because, as the report says, collusion "does not have a settled definition in federal criminal law." Instead, Mueller's office "evaluated potentially criminal conduct that involved the collective action of multiple individuals not under the rubric of collusion, but through the lens of conspiracy law." However, while Mueller did say that there was insufficient evidence to prove conspiracy, "several U.S. persons connected to the Campaign made false statements about those contacts and took other steps to obstruct the Office's investigation and those of Congress. This Office has therefore charged some of those individuals with making false statements and obstructing justice." So no, there wasn't enough proof of conspiracy between Trump campaign and Russia in the Mueller report. But lying about it? Oh, the Trump campaign is totally guilty of that. You might call that moving the goalposts, to which I say Trump is still the subject of at least a dozen investigations. "No conspiracy" isn't the same thing as "no crimes committed ever."
1
@Tenskwatawa4U I appreciate the thought, but I must politely decline.
1
@Hijynx87 I suppose you have some other comedians in mind worth recommending.
1
zero charisma The report investigated conspiracy, not collusion. Trump wasn't exonerated on obstruction. The report revealed that the Russians committed election interference to help Trump win and that he and his team lied. Are you absolutely sure you want to keep deluding yourself about Trump still being not guilty of anything? Even Razorfist admits Trump doesn't have a clean record.
1
It's arguably more delusional to think the president you're defending has never committed any wrongdoing in his life just because Mueller didn't say he conspired with Russia.
1
@Rose Quartz Truly, you possess a mind of unparalleled proportions. You have never once proven to me that your side should be taken seriously and you never will because you have the intellect and maturity of an unborn baby. I bet you make your parents so proud to pretend they don't know you if your first reaction to opposing views is to project so hard that you burn a hole in your monitor. Perhaps your efforts would be better spent failing a typing tutor again or, although this is asking too much of you, GROWING THE FUCK UP!!
1
@bc2198 Glad we can agree on that
1
mike sixx It's only the most publicized because Trump and conservatives controlled every branch of government in that time and wouldn't shut up about it. But sure, I will concede that Hillary should answer for destruction of evidence. However, it's kind of rich to hear you complain about being singled out because of your political beliefs when the other 2016 presidential candidate has done the exact same shit. https://www.ibtimes.co.uk/trump-email-cover-presidential-nominees-companies-defied-court-orders-destroyed-documents-1589146 https://www.ibtimes.co.uk/just-like-hillary-trump-accused-deleting-important-emails-required-lawsuit-1565259 https://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/283331-lawsuit-accused-trump-organization-of-deleting-emails https://www.enewspf.com/national-news/latest-national-news/trump-accused-destroying-email-evidence-involved-3500-lawsuits-last-3-decades/
1
mike sixx No, I'm not suggesting Trump keeps it quiet. I'm suggesting that Trump doesn't get to throw stones at Hillary for destruction of evidence. As for one instance of Trump going as far as Obama, I'm not taking your challenge because A) there's no evidence Obama had anything to do with the IRS targeting scandal, and B) even if I did find solid evidence of Trump going that far, you would dismiss it. I know this because you took a look at four sources I cited, said "one of those isn't a primary source and two aren't American," and thought it was enough for you to not address any of the actual content. Don't tell me to try as hard as I can because no amount of effort on my part will be enough for you. Fuck off.
1
@pgtmr2713 And you tell me liberals are more violent. Let me tell you a story. In January 2005, Trump Hotels and Casino Resorts filed a lawsuit in a Florida state court after the opening of two Native American casinos, which both operated under the Hard Rock brand. In his lawsuit, Trump claimed that the companies had unlawfully conspired with one of his former associates to cheat him out of a deal, arguing that the projects should be turned over to him. Negotiations with the tribe and construction of the casinos had taken years, raising the possibility that the state’s four-year statute of limitations had passed before Trump finally got around to filing the lawsuit. If Power Plant (an affiliate of the casinos' developer) could prove Trump knew in early 2000 that his former associate was working on the Hard Rock deal, the case would be thrown out of court. Trump claimed he learned about the deal in January 2001, around the time of the groundbreaking. However, defendants said he had been informed of the projects in 1999. Trump offered no supporting evidence for his claim, so the opposing lawyers filed extensive discovery demands, seeking emails, computer files, calendars and other records that might prove he knew about the casino deal before 2000. A full year into the case, Trump and his company, Trump Hotels, had produced only a single box of documents, many of which were irrelevant. Power Plant's lawyers obtained a court order compelling Trump and his company to hand over the relevant information and documents. In a March 2006 response, Trump’s lawyers argued that the emails and other electronic documents had not been produced because the company didn’t have them, claiming it had no servers until 2001, the year Trump claimed he had learned of the Power Plant project. They also claimed Trump Hotels had no policy regarding retaining documents until 2003. The judge ordered Trump executives to file sworn statements attesting to how their email systems had worked from 1996 onward. In response, Trump Hotels filed an affidavit from one of its information technology managers stating that it had had no servers prior to 2001, which was a lie. During a deposition nine months after he had signed the affidavit, the same Trump executive admitted his assertions in it were untrue. An IBM Domino server had been installed in 1999, the same year witnesses for Power Plant contended that Trump had learned of the casino deal. As early as 1997, the Trump corporations had used servers off-site, according to sworn testimony. The following year, the Trump Organization and Trump Hotels moved to another email provider. Despite knowing back in 2001 that Trump might want to file a lawsuit, his companies had deleted emails and other records without checking if they might be evidence in his case. Beginning around 2003, the company wiped clear the data from everyone’s computers every year. Lawyers for Trump Hotels had never sent out the usual communication issued during litigation instructing employees to stop destroying records that might be related to the case. The deletions continued, and backup tapes were reused, erasing the data they held. Power Plant's lawyers also discovered that after the lawsuit was filed, Trump Hotels disposed of a key witness’ computer without preserving the data on it. In subsequent filings, Power Plant maintained that Trump Hotels had intentionally deceived the court in its March 2006 filing when it claimed it had located no emails relevant to the case because, at that point, it had not yet conducted any searches of its computer system. Trump Hotels executives did not instruct their IT department to examine backup computer tapes until 2007. But when computer specialists finally attempted to electronically locate any relevant documents that had survived the deletions, the procedures were inadequate. While looking for relevant documents, the technology team was told to use only two search terms: the name of the tribe and the last name of the former Trump associate. So even if there was an email that stated, “Donald Trump learned the full details of the Hard Rock casino deal in Florida in 1999,” it would not have been found by that search. Power Plant asked the judge either to impose sanctions or allow its own expert to search for relevant digital records. Trump Hotels argued it had done nothing improper, although its lawyers acknowledged having made some mistakes. Still, the judge ordered Trump Hotels to make its servers and computer systems available for inspection by a computer forensics consulting firm. That review showed there was no digital data in the computers, servers or backup tapes prior to January 2001, when Trump claimed to have learned of the Florida casino deal. Trump Hotels dropped the suit a few months later. But sure, Trump would never destroy evidence.
1
mike sixx You never proved that nothing I claimed was proven in a court of law. I can easily find instances of Trump destroying evidence in a lawsuit. Take the Florida lawsuit against Cordish Co., for example. Or don't. I already know you will claim it won't count for some arbitrary bullshit reason because you are a blatant liar and Trump ass-kisser. Fuck off.
1
@spicecrop Oh sure, completely drop all pretense of being the party of personal responsibility and blame a woman for her husband's infidelity.
1
David Z Ooh, I hope it crashes into Mar-a-Lago.
1
@SonoftheAllfather The real big lie is that Trump was exonerated by an investigation that found no evidence of collusion (which has no specific legal meaning in criminal law and wasn't in Mueller's appointment letter anyway) or obstruction (of which the report very clearly said Trump wasn't exonerated).
1
@scallen3841 He won without their help? So asking Russians on live TV to hack Hillary's emails didn't count? And don't tell me he was joking because there is no context in which that isn't a lazy bullshit excuse.
1
@theakh4238 1. Talking to Russians isn't inherently illegal, no. But when Russians made repeated contact with the Trump campaign offering dirt on Hillary and committed election interference specifically to help Trump win, that shouldn't be dismissed so easily. 2. Show me valid proof of any of that or I will have no reason to take a guy who misspells "accept" seriously.
1
@woopyass Which facts? Collusion has no specific legal meaning in criminal law and it didn't appear in Mueller's appointment letter anyway, so celebrating the fact that he didn't find Trump guilty of collusion is like celebrating that you won Scrabble by feeding all of the tiles to your dog?
1
@dustyl170 The reverse happened in Pennsylvania where a voting machine cast a vote for Romney when the voter picked Obama. What's your point? That voting machines fuck up sometimes? Yeah, we know.
1
@Astares9 No, salty because people still trust, defend, and excuse a serial liar who can't even run a casino.
1
@theakh4238 "Prosecutors don't look to exonerate." Prosecutors can't indict a sitting president either, but you still thinking a guy whose campaign was contacted multiple times by the Russians offering dirt on Hillary, who the Russians committed election interference to help win, and who instructed multiple aides to stop the investigation into said interference has been vindicated. And since when do you think Trump cares about the scientific method anyway?
1
@Rose Quartz The turnout of registered voters in 2016 was 47%. He won because the few people who did show up were people who can't spell "stupid" correctly. Once again, you fail to prove why you should be taken seriously. The Russians committed election interference to help Trump win, but you'd rather "own the libs" than admit the real hoax is that you support a criminal who can't run a casino, much less a country. Grow the fuck up and learn what an encyclopedia is once you're done drinking lead paint.
1
@theakh4238 Disobedient Media pushes conspiracy theories, so I'm already skeptical. But more importantly, Fusion GPS had been hired first by Republicans during Trump’s primary run, so if everyone who hired its services shouldn't be trusted, that goes both ways. The Steele dossier wasn't even what started the Mueller investigation. It originated with George Papadopoulos, who bragged about Russia having dirt on Hillary.
1
@Astares9 I'm salty because you keep defending Trump when there is no evidence of him being trustworthy
1
@SonoftheAllfather "If we had confidence...that the President clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state."
1
@Nitrogang "In some instances, the Campaign was receptive" to Russia's offers of collecting dirt on Hillary. The only reason they didn't was because they were too incompetent.
1
@SonoftheAllfather Dude, how bad at facts are you? The Mueller investigation wasn't started because of the Steele dossier. It was started because George Papadopoulos bragged about the Russians having dirt on Hillary.
1
@theakh4238 No, I read the other two links. But if I asked you to read something written by, say, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, I would definitely not expect you to just go with it regardless of the content.
1
@SonoftheAllfather That goes both ways. I have no confidence that you're not a basement dwelling edgelord wannabe who thinks "owning the libs" is the most hilarious thing in the world because he doesn't know what an actual joke is due to never having had a conversation with actual human beings. I'd like to give you the benefit of the doubt, but until proven otherwise, I have little reason to think I should be taking you seriously.
1
@theakh4238 See, I get called an NPC for repeating myself, but I have no other way to communicate this. THE MUELLER INVESTIGATION HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THE STEELE DOSSIER! THE INVESTIGATION WAS STARTED BECAUSE GEORGE PAPADOPOULOS BRAGGED ABOUT THE RUSSIANS HAVING DIRT ON HILLARY!
1
@SonoftheAllfather The FISA warrant drafted to target surveillance at Page also cited Papadopoulos in a section that suggested Russia was coordinating election collusion through Page and "perhaps other individuals associated" with Trump's campaign. Additionally, the use of hearsay is common in warrant applications. But sure, keep deluding yourself.
1
@SonoftheAllfather In the report, it says that Michael Cohen tried to email Dmitry Peskov, Putin's press spokesman, at Pr_peskova@prpress.gov.ru. But Michael Cohen spelled "gov" as "gof." But sure, their incompetence is totally just a biased opinion.
1
@stagalgiz1097 You were never nice to begin with. And you were definitely never right to begin with. How hard do you trombone Trump that you hear the Russians committed election interference to help Trump win and contacted Trump repeatedly to offer dirt on Hillary while Trump lied repeatedly about the Trump Tower meeting among many other things and still think there was never a single transgression committed at any point? Is Trump paying you to repeat his "total exoneration" lie? Are you so deluded that you think a guy who is still the subject of at least a dozen investigations and who was sued over 3,000 times never did anything wrong? Are you such an asshole that you're going to ignore all of this anyway because you care less about facts than giving yourself an undeserved handjob for proving absolutely nothing? Even before 2016, Trump was a criminal. He still is. And you fail to prove otherwise. Either you prove he isn't a criminal in any capacity or you kindly shut the fuck up.
1
@SonoftheAllfather Bruce Ohr was not the FBI's initial source for their first copies of the early portions of the Steele dossier. They came from Steele's FBI handler in September, months after the investigation actually started.
1
@SonoftheAllfather Seriously? Don Jr. once told Rob Goldstone, who suggested a meeting between Trump and Emin Agalarov (whose family had been on close terms with Trump since the 2013 Miss Universe pageant in a Moscow venue owned by Emin's father) to get dirt on Hillary, "Thanks Rob I appreciate that. I am on the road at the moment but perhaps I just speak to Emin first. Seems we have some time and if it’s what you say I love it especially later in the summer. Could we do a call first thing next week when I am back?" We know he told him that because DON JR. LITERALLY TWEETED OUT THE ENTIRE EMAIL THREAD!! But that doesn't count to you?
1
@chancelewis6674 It wasn't a collusion investigation. Collusion has no specific legal meaning in criminal law. The Mueller report even said as much. No, that was a conspiracy investigation. And even if the Mueller report said there was undeniable proof of conspiracy between the Trump campaign and Russia, Trump would still go "NO COLLUSION!" As for its relevance, no, it didn't have anything to do with Russia. I will concede that much. But you can't tell me it's a stretch for someone to learn about Trump doing shady shit and then think a Trump-Russia conspiracy would be beneath him.
1
Casey Cowley [Citation needed]
1
@theakh4238 [Citation needed]
1
Casey Cowley There are only so many times I can type "[citation needed]," but while I'm at it, learn to construct a fucking sentence properly.
1
Casey Cowley Project much, dipshit?
1
@SonoftheAllfather Are you just going to ignore everything I say? I'm not so stupid as to believe Hillary never did anything wrong, but if we're holding her accountable, then the same should be true of Trump. And for you to say Trump was cleared on collusion is a bigger case of indoctrination than CNN could ever commit. Not only does collusion have no specific legal meaning in criminal law, it's not even in Mueller's appointment letter. The report even has a section explaining the definition of collusion, which, by the way, ISN'T IN THE FUCKING TITLE OF THE REPORT EITHER. You're claiming Trump was vindicated because it didn't find him guilty of something the report was never attempting to find. And don't condescend to me about double standards. They're all Mitch McConnell has. But I digress. What Hillary did shouldn't be condoned, but hang on. Your excuse for Trump is "eh, everyone does it." So why are you upset that Hillary does it? Either politicians should be held accountable or not. You can't just pick and choose, or else you're as guilty of selective outrage as the left.
1
@dustyl170 As opposed to using the antiquated electoral college?
1
@stephenfenlon9906 Suppose Trump did directly conspire with the Russians and Mueller was able to prove that. Convincing people to remove him from office would be relatively easy. But if Trump can claim to not have directly conspired with the Russians, wouldn't that potentially affect the public's ability to trust federal agencies? You know, the kind of thing that someone who would commit election interference would want to have happen?
1
Casey Cowley Wow, that is so wrong, I'm surprised Trump didn't pay you to write it. "You can't put together a sentence longer than five words"? If you had graduated from any grade level higher than kindergarten, you'd know that you're categorically wrong about that. So if you can't even count correctly, why should I believe you when you say "at least I'm honest"? That one is laughably wrong, just like Trump is about everything. Anything else you'd like to get embarrassingly wrong?
1
@SonoftheAllfather "You and all the rest of the anti-Trump retards don't like the results of the report, so now you're just trying to twist and manipulate the interpretation of the report and moan about whatever you can conjure up." Who said we didn't? The report said the Russians committed election interference to help Trump win and that he and his team lied about damn near everything. If Clinton can be impeached for lying about an affair, how is lying about a foreign government committing election interference excusable?
1
@DeathlordSlavik If I could take you seriously, I might agree with you. But I can't. Your mom isn't reading these comments. You can spell out "bullshit" like an adult.
1
@theakh4238 I'll go read them, but it feels more than a little unreasonable for the people who talk to me in this comments section to ignore and dismiss every source I cite and then expect me to show them more courtesy than they give me.
1
@rlionheart8657 Trump not corrupt? 3,000+ lawsuits against him, including a class action lawsuit for a fraudulent, unlicensed university bearing his name, and you think he's clean?
1
@EnhancedCognition I did some research, and unfortunately I can't find anything to back up that 4,200 lawsuits claim. I found that Trump was sued 134 times in the first three months of his presidency. By comparison, Obama was sued 26 times three months into his presidency, Bush 43 was sued 7 times, and Clinton was sued 15 times. As for special interest groups, Trump and his businesses were involved in at least 3,500 lawsuits over three decades. Tell me, what kind of "special interest groups" would sue a single person that much before he ran for president?
1
@EnhancedCognition From the information I could find about Trump's lawsuits, most of them (or at least the higher profile ones) were settled out of court. Which is hilarious because Trump once said "If you settle suits, you get sued more. It's true. I don't settle anything. I don't settle." Here are just a few lawsuits he settled: a $25 million lawsuit with Palm Beach in 2006, a $40 million lawsuit with Deutsche Bank in 2008, and a lawsuit in the late 1990s in which a rival casino owner accused Trump of spying and conspiracy (but still, "no collusion," right?). Oh, and there was that time he was sued by the Justice Department for housing discrimination. And this was during the Nixon administration. Yes, even the Nixon administration thought Trump was too unethical. But look, I totally get why people would want to vote for a political outsider who can shake up the system. I really do. What I don't get is why anyone ever thought Trump should be that. There was a headline during the election about Ted Cruz's college roommate saying something to the effect of "He could agree with me on everything and I would hate him 1% less because everything I hate about him stems from his personality." That's how I see Trump. I'm sure some people like him specifically because of his brash personality, but oh my God, does it get really annoying really quickly. If you want someone to send a message to Washington, why would it be the guy whose history with lawsuits reads like everyone else's in Washington?
1
@chancelewis6674 Believe me, Trump still has plenty of things he did that are worth judging.
1
@chancelewis6674 In 2006, when a judge ordered Donald Trump's casino operation to hand over several years' worth of emails, it was discovered that the Trump Organization routinely erased emails and had no records from 1996 to 2001. The defendants in a case that Trump brought said this amounted to destruction of evidence, a charge never resolved. Maybe don't accuse me of Trump Derangement Syndrome when Hillary and Trump have been guilty of the exact same shit.
1
Vinnie Provolone I'm kind of sick of "everyone does it" being an excuse for politicians' actions. Either we start giving a shit about every time someone breaks the law, or we just keep going with our selective outrage. And if we're going with the latter, then that means you're no better than liberals.
1