(04-19-2019, 09:02 AM)jj82284 Wrote: And a shrinking trade deficit

Shrinking when compared to the last few months.   The total trade deficits we have run up under Trump are the biggest of all time.

---

(04-19-2019, 10:17 AM)MalabarJag Wrote:

(04-19-2019, 09:49 AM)TJBender Wrote: Reasonable suspicion. n. That thing that's created when senior members of your campaign quietly have a meeting with members of a foreign power that's in the process of illegally influencing an election. Also, that thing that happens when your campaign somehow knows of damaging information about another candidate before it's released by an organization considered criminal by the US government.

Did the whole thing start as a partisan investigation? Yes, I don't think anyone doubts that. But let's presume that a Bugatti Veyron is stolen from a dealership down the street. There are suspects in custody, none of whom is me, and it appears I purchased the car legally from them. Then someone finds out that I had met with the suspects at Starbucks a couple of weeks before the car was stolen. A crime was committed, no one doubts that, and no one doubts that the end result of the crime is me getting a Bugatti Veyron. In the case of the Presidency, that might not be enough given how many different factors are at play, but the revelation that I met with the guys who stole the Veyron before it was stolen creates reasonable suspicion to start investigating me.

The difference is that anyone investigating me is never getting that Veyron back. As soon as I hear I'm a person of interest, I'm taking that thing out to US 90 east of Pensacola and flooring it. I'll either be dead from wrecking the car at 225, under arrest for going 225, or some combination of both. Either way, I highly doubt the dealership will ever see their Veyron again.

That's a huge leap. Trump Jr. (not Trump) did not meet with a Russian official, he met with a Russian lawyer who was not part of their government. She claimed to have some dirt on Hillary, but no dirt was actually given. Receiving dirt on a political opponent is not even illegal, as long as there is no quid pro quo action in response. What Hillary did in buying the "dossier" wasn't illegal either, and she actually paid for it. So bringing up that meeting is a red herring.

It's illegal to purchase stolen property so you would be charged whether or not you met with the thieves, and Trump never received stolen property, so your long-winded example is nonsense.

And whether or not Russia influenced the election is debatable. Their Facebook posts were an attempt, but I doubt if that was illegal, and I doubt they made a difference. But if you or someone you know was influenced to vote for Trump rather than Hillary because of a Facebook post, we'd love to hear about it. The DNC hack was only claimed to have been done by Russia, no proof exists. Assange claimed it wasn't Russia (and had no reason to lie about that), and the fact that the DNC refused to let the FBI investigate the server hints of a coverup.

Slightly off topic, but I read where the Russians were using social media to support the NFL players kneeling, AND to support the calls for a boycott of the NFL in response to the players kneeling down.  Pretty funny.   Really, no one denies that the Russkies have been stirring the pot, and they're doing so all over the world.

---