Mcabe admits plan to oust Trump

[_ajax18]

President Donald Trump blasted “disgraced” former Acting Director of the FBI, Andrew McCabe, who said this week that he ordered an investigation into Trump before his firing. McCabe, who was fired by former Attorney General Jeff Sessions last March, said in an interview for “60 Minutes” shared by CBS News on Thursday that he ordered an investigation into whether Trump had obstructed justice after the president fired former FBI Director James Comey.

"I was very concerned that I was able to put the Russia case on absolutely solid ground, in an indelible fashion," he said. "That were I removed quickly, or reassigned or fired, that the case could not be closed or vanish in the night without a trace."
Trump fired back at McCabe on Twitter Thursday morning:

“Disgraced FBI Acting Director Andrew McCabe pretends to be a “poor little Angel” when in fact he was a big part of the Crooked Hillary Scandal & the Russia Hoax - a puppet for Leakin’ James Comey. I.G. report on McCabe was devastating. Part of “insurance policy” in case I won...."
He added: “....Many of the top FBI brass were fired, forced to leave, or left. McCabe’s wife received BIG DOLLARS from Clinton people for her campaign - he gave Hillary a pass. McCabe is a disgrace to the FBI and a disgrace to our Country. MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!”

Read Newsmax: Trump Slams 'Disgraced' McCabe | Newsmax.com

Sometimes I wish we settled our differences like this. Long expensive courtroom arguments seem like such a waste. In my view anyone who obstructs efforts to enforce the border is guilty of treason. At the very least the country should be split between those who want a nation and those who just want to be citizens of the world. Is there anyone here who would not like to challenge me to a single combat? Which weapon would you choose? The sword or the axe?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qQUm-1UsVy8

[_EAllusion]

So, in your view, policy disagreements with you are "treason," and also investigating Trump for obstruction of justice on the basis of highly credible evidence he obstructed justice is an illicit plan to oust him. Is that it?

[_EAllusion]

The President of the United States is above the law. And who cares if he aided a hostile foreign power to subvert American democracy? Big whoop.

Also, failing to build a fence on the Southern Border is treason.

[_Maksutov]

Sounds like McCabe and Rosenstein were doing their jobs.

[_Themis]

Has there been other White houses since Nixon in which people in the white house have discussed ousting the president? It should make some think how bad does a president have to be for people in his own circle to consider this.

[_ajax18]

So, in your view, policy disagreements with you are "treason," and also investigating Trump for obstruction of justice on the basis of highly credible evidence he obstructed justice is an illicit plan to oust him. Is that it?

Importing poverty at the expense of the working American taxpayer is treason against legal taxpaying citizens of the US.

[_EAllusion]

So, in your view, policy disagreements with you are "treason," and also investigating Trump for obstruction of justice on the basis of highly credible evidence he obstructed justice is an illicit plan to oust him. Is that it?

Importing poverty at the expense of the working American taxpayer is treason against legal taxpaying citizens of the US.

Your understanding of the economics is incorrect and your use of the word “treason” is a wildly different meaning than that it means both colloquially and legally. You seem to take it as a a synonym for betrayal with the logic being that immigrantion of poor people is a form of betrayal because it makes citizens worse off. Ironically, because it’s opponention to immigrantion that does that according to virtually all economic research, you are guilty of treason by virtue of your own screwed up definition of it.

[_Dr. Shades]

Hi EAllusion,

Pardon my ignorance, but will you please dumb that last sentence down for me? It went way over my head.

[_EAllusion]

Of course, if you are going to define treason in terms of policy support that is relatively harmful to the American people, then you’ve collapsed all policy disagreement into accusations of treason. Further, because your alt-right views are hella harmful to the American people, you are guilty of all sorts of treason on this inappropriate broadening of the term. Voting for Trump becomes an act of treason.

Meanwhile, the technical definition of treason is so narrow that our likely traitor president isn’t guilty of it because we weren’t in a declared war with Russia.

[_EAllusion]

Hi EAllusion,

Pardon my ignorance, but will you please dumb that last sentence down for me? It went way over my head.

Ajax seems to be arguing that opposition to his preferred border security policy constitutes treason because it increases immigration of poor people and this makes citizens economically worse off. As it turns out, immigration of poor people makes citizens economically better off on average. Opposition to it therefore is what makes people relatively worse off. So if you are going to define treason in terms of policy that makes citizens economically worse off, which you shouldn’t, then Ajax is guilty of it on his own terms.