Comments by "Daniel Smith" (@danielsmit11) on "What Mueller’s Investigation Could Mean for President Trump | NYT News" video.

Anton Resurreccion sure-question is who's China going to sell their cheap crap to then since their own citizens don't make enough to buy it.
3
Glenn V Don't expect alt left wing nuts to understand that-its beyond their ability to comprehend as proven by their posts!
2
Anton Resurreccion you're actually making my point which is China needs US markets a lot more than the US needs China's markets. With the average disposable annual income in China only amounting to the equivalent of $4,000 US dollars and Chinese tariffs on US goods being so high that things like a new Ford mustang costs over $68,000 in China it makes little to no sense to continue an obviously flawed, one-sided trade agreement which is mainly beneficial to the Chinese government.
2
polifatts regardless of wether they do or not mueller has zero authority to indict since he was appointed by the DOJ and even if the Dems manage to win the House they have to win at least 67 seats in the senate to confirm an article of impeachment. it's HIGHLY unlikely they'll reach 67 and more likely they'll lose a seat or two-especially the Missouri Seat.
2
Paul Eblin Mueller, Comey and gang had better hope they aren't the ones getting indicted for illegal spying, illegaly presenting a faked dossier to a fisa court to obtain illegal search warrants, illegaly leaking classified information, illegaly prosecuting people on trumped up charges and a host of other illegal activities.
2
Paul Eblin oh and btw HIGHLY unlikely the dems are going to take back anything this election cycle.
2
Paul Eblin I wouldn't be counting on trends. as the last presidential election proved trends don't always mean anything plus it looks like at least once house seat the dems were counting on taking in California there won't even be a Dem candidate in the top two-looks like that seat could very well pit two republicans against each other. And even if they take the House it's still highly unlikely they're going to take the Senate-they certainly won't get a super majority which is what they would need.
2
MichaelWilliamH you've obviously never did any research on the Clinton's crooked dealings going back to the 70s. oh and btw the Obama administration planting fbi spies in a political party's campaign is also HIGHLY ILLEGAL!
2
JJSC those charges are for other crimes which stemmed from the investigation itself- an illegal investigation started by falsified documents presented before a fisa court which in itself was illegal. Now if you'd like to get into Russia collusion, well the only proof of any collusion with Russia is the Clinton camp. other than that I'll refer to Obama's own statements before the election which was "there's no possible way for the election to be tampered with". Since Russia couldn't possibly tamper with the election collusion couldn't happen.
2
JJSC oh and btw your moronic rant at the end of your post just proved that you have nothing worthwhile to contribute to the conversation! go find your cry towel and safe space in your mom's basement now while the adults discuss the issues!
2
JJSC well if we're going to prosecute every President elect or people in their campaign for meeting foreign diplomats/leaders then pretty much every President in the past 50 years would have to be prosecuted. thanks for making my point though that the charges they pled to were charges stemming from the investigation itself and not actual criminal activity prior to the investigation.
2
JJSC btw that would also include Obama and his staff since he made a trip to Afghanistan and met with world leaders before the 08 election!
2
JJSC but I suppose you're ok with that which would just prove your hypocrisy. I'm ok with it because it's simply how the system works-both sides do it. But you can't say it's good for one side to do it then say it's ok to attempt an illegal coup when the other side does the same thing. Which is why you're a hypocrite!
2
JJSC Something I noticed was that you overlooked the Federal Judge's condemnation over Mueller, Comey and gang's illegal search warrant relating to the investigation!
2
JJSC for your long winded rant the only thing you certified was the fact that you're indeed a hypocrite since you think it was perfectly ok for other presidential nominees (nominees not president-elect) to meet with foreign leaders which is indeed an illegal act. There's an actual law that private citizens cannot meet foreign leaders to discuss Government policy. As President elect Trump nor his team were private citizens. As a presidential candidate Obama was still bound to that law-which he ignored. As for Comey, he admitted on numerous occasions that Trump was never the target of the investigation. He used a falsified document paid for by an opposing presidential candidate in order to illegaly obtain a fisa warrant and then broke more laws by spying on a presidential campaign which is nearly exactly the same thing the Nixon campaign did. Anyway you've proven your hypocrisy so there's really no need to attempt to have an intellectual conversation about it any longer.
2
JJSC oh btw did you miss the part where Obama stated multiple times before the election that it was impossible to tamper with the outcome? Just wondering because apparently you did. During the presidential debates (when they were certain the fix was in to get Hillary elected) they made it a point to ask both candidates if they were willing to accept the results of the election because they thought Trump would say something about not if the election was rigged. Dems were all over news networks stating that the election couldn't be rigged and if Trump failed to accept the results then it would be a dangerous attack on our democracy. After Trump won then they started screaming Russian collusion and Russia stole the election a bit ironic huh?
2
JJSC the only thing we've heard any solid proof of so far is that the Hillary campaign colluded with the DNC with Obama's help to rig the Democrat primary-that we know for a fact so where's the outrage about that?
2
JJSC As far as Comey's firing, Trump actually stated that it was due to Comey losing the public's trust and jeapordising the legitimacy of the fbi which Comey had done. Let's also not forget that democrats were clamouring for Comey's head also weeks before the election.
2
JJSC I'd suggest you read a commentary from the Chicago Tribune titled The double standard of the Mueller investigation. But you're probably so hypocritical you'll refuse to!
2
JJSC Good lord man, you're the one that continues going off track with your illogical and incoherent rants. The illegal activity which set the whole investigation in motion is wholly on track to the issue at hand. Just because you wish to put on blinders and deny it doesn't alter the facts. But once again you've proven your hypocrisy.
2
JJSC Anyhow it's obvious from your last post that you refused to even bother reading the Chicago tribune article i mentioned as I suspected you would do.
2
JJSC this is all a moot point anyway since Mueller was appointed by the Justice Department he is bound by Justice Department rules which doesn't grant him the authority to indict a sitting President. The most he can do is charge Trump as an unindicted co-conspirator then use Trump's testimony to go after family or colleagues. The most likely option for Mueller though is to hand his final report over to Congress which is the only Body given authority to remove a sitting President through impeachment. To pass that smell test there will have to be a whole lot more evidence than what Mueller has been unable to find so far since it takes at least a 67 vote approval in the Senate to convict on an article of impeachment.
2
JJSC btw you over use, and are incorrectly using ad hominem. I've never once based my arguments by attacking you, pointing out the fact that you've taken hypocritical stances isn't now, and never was the basis of my arguments. On the other hand, your first post to me was an actual personal attack on me in an attempt to make your argument, albeit erroneous. Fyi, you WAY over use ad hominem in the same manner John Denver way overused the phrase far out! Just a friendly observation-i'm sure it annoys pretty much everyone around you. In other words, just because you learned a new word in language class doesn't necessarily mean you should practice using it on a consistent basis-especially when you're using it incorrectly and have, yourself, committed the very act you're ascribing to others!
2
CaneFu if Clinton did nothing illegal then why did Comey give her immunity from prosecution well before he even interviewed her? hmm.....
1
Jules Dash all related to charges stemming from the actual illegal investigation but don't expect someone as brain dead as you to understand That! Read up on all the various illegal activities committed by the Obama administration, Comey, Hillary Clinton regarding faked documents from Russian spies presented illegaly to a fisa court to obtain illegal search warrants and illegal espionage on an opposing political candidate which is exactly what got Nixon impeached and members of his campaign imprisoned!
1
Jules Dash Anyhow, get your cry towel and safe space ready because you're going to absolutely flip out when you come to the realization that Mueller has zero authority to indict a sitting President-none, notta, zilch!
1
Ken Smith incorrect- Star actually came up with a whole lot more and clinton was indeed impeached for those crimes but the Senate refused to uphold the impeachment because no one, including democrats, wanted gore as potus!
1
MichaelWilliamH that's funny. why is it always liberal democrats you see calling law enforcement pigs and why is it always liberal leaning groups you see shooting cops? hmmm.
1
Anton Resurreccion I don't know why either. The US has allowed it to go on for nearly 6 decades now though. Possibly do to politicians who have a globalist agenda and volume purchasers who want to buy Chinese goods for cheap then turn around and sell it in America for a large profit.
1
CaneFu highly unlikely dems are going to take anything back this cycle-they've proven themselves to be way to far left field for most Americans.
1
CaneFu even far leftwingers like Pelosi admit the Russia collusion thing didn't happen except for maybe Hillary colluding with Russia to obtain a faked dossier and then the Obama administration illegally presenting it in front of a fisa court to illegaly spy on a political campaign.
1
CaneFu I find it hilarious when people make uninformed comments about the economy when they don't even know the basic facts! It's pretty much a widely known fact that the economic downturn in late 07 was a direct result of the Clinton administration forcing Fannie mae/Freddie Mac to give home loans to unqualified/underqualified borrowers when he changed the laws governing the Community Reinvest Act in the early 90s and repealing the Glass-Steagall Act in the late 90s (with the help of republicans on that one). It is also well known that the upturn in the economy was due to tarp1 passed by Bush (which Obama threw a temper tantrum about being shamed off the campaign trail to vote on). Tarp2 which was passed by Obama was nothing more than a political payout to Democrat party cronies like solyndra and unions which accomplished absolutely nothing in creating those shovel ready jobs he was always spouting about. Obama was the only President in history to never see an increase of 3%+ in GDP growth and barely managed a 1% GDP increase each year to which his uneducated response was "that's the new norm and people should get used to it". Do try to do a little research next time before just posting some nonsense you are uneducated about!
1
polifatts leftwing nuts forget that since Mueller was appointed by the doj he is limited in his powers which specifically forbids him to indict a sitting President. That was affirmed during Watergate and then re-affirmed during the Clinton special counsel investigation! Although Star was actually appointed by Congress then and wasn't held to that constraint he still, reluctantly abidded by it in the end!
1
cheese1234b thought I mentioned that. maybe it was on another video though.
1
cheese1234b well don't see my original post on the subject any longer but I was pretty sure I mentioned the republicans as co-conspirators in repealing glass-steagall. as I said though that may have been on another thread and I just overlooked mentioning it on this thread. if so it was a simple oversight on my part and not intentionally attempting to be intellectually dishonest on the matter.
1
cheese1234b my old post just popped back up and as I thought I did mention the Republicans did help repeal glass-steagall.
1
cheese1234b however the housing act (community reinvestment act) had nothing to do with repealing glass-steagall. the CRI act was changed in 93, the repeal of glass-steagall was in the very late 90s, around 99 I believe.
1
MichaelWilliamH I'm pretty sure it's liberals and groups of Democrat voters you see shooting cops or other law enforcement agents on the news all the time or belittling them by calling them pigs, etc. but hey think what you like even if it's wrong headed!
1
The Prisoner actually his argument was on point-yours, not so much!
1
Jules Dash Get a grip. It's called using an extreme position to point out the extreme, and inaccurate position of the original post.
1
Paul Eblin Actually since Mueller was appointed by the DOJ he has zero authority to indict a sitting President. Most he's allowed to do under doj guidelines is finish his report then pass it on to congress.
1
herein mygarage more likely Comey and gang are going to the pokey!
1
JJSC actually Mueller will be lucky if he comes out of this without facing criminal charges himself.
1
JJSC at least in John Denver's case he was correctly using the saying "far out" to describe something he found fascinating, I'm sure people close to him still found it annoying though.
1