Jump to content

sheeeit

Legacy Members
  • Posts

    701
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by sheeeit

  1. Avenatti is kind of the poster boy for those that have temporarily (hopefully) lost their minds because of trump. He is everything that most people on here claim they hate: 1) He lies constantly 2) He is financially corrupt including 1) bankrupting the coffee chain he owned and then lied that he owned, 2) failed to pay millions in taxes on the the chain, 3) hired lawyers to help resolve the issue and then stiffed them on their bills and they sued him, 4) failed to honor an agreement with a former law partner that sued him and that he settled with and then failed to honor the settlement 5) failed to pay his personal income taxes, 6) withheld payroll taxes from employees but never sent them to the IRS resulting in a $900K lien against his personal property, 7) recently filed for bankruptcy for his current law firm, 8) lied to the court, and admitted it, to try and get additional money from a judgement he won for his clients even though he had already been paid his entire fee 3) Recently tried to get wealthy dems to fund his attack on trump but was turned down 4) Is twice divorced and both wives claimed abuse in court proceedings but later denied them after the settlements 5) Bought a house and reneged on the terms and had to be forcibly evicted by the owner and is being sued All that from just a few minutes of searching. He is a total slime ball. He lies about everything he is involved with and owes millions to creditors and the IRS and his ex partners and wives. Again, he represents everything people on here say they hate. But he went after trump so he is a star apparently. He claims to be handling the recent immigration cases pro bono but I bet he makes some sort of claim for payment. Might even be a go fund me or similar type situation.
  2. Jesus, tweedledum and tweedledumber (pods is the dumber) at it again. I know you both believe that anything printed in the media or tweeted by people we have never heard of is fact, but at some point you are going to have to try and at least pretend to have brains. You actually think that the CURRENT head of the house intel committee doesn't have a security clearance? That a guy who is a member of the "gang of eight" that get regular classified briefings doesnt have a security clearance? Maybe you two should alert our intelligence community because they keep giving Nunes briefings on all things intelligence related for our country. The combined credibility of you two is laughable. I especially like pods hot take that Nunes doesnt have a clearance so he has his staff get intel for him. It is hard to even comprehend this level of stupidity. I mean that is a perfect secure style right? Deny someone a security clearance but let his staff have one so they can relay the intel to him. Were you guys this dumb before trump?
  3. Your last sentence is the correct answer. If I make $100K/yr and have $200K in debt I am probably just fine to keep paying that debt. If I increase my debt to $400K and also increase my income to $200K I am still ok. The problem is when our debt increases much more rapidly than income. Historically, it really has not been a dem vs repub issue. Reagan gets a lot of shit for increasing the debt by a large percentage (some of it deserved) but he increased gdp equally well and his debt to gdp ratio was pretty flat during his presidency. The problem is that when we have downturns like 2008, the govt just pumps money into the system to keep things from getting really ugly. It can be debated either way if that is sound financial policy or not but it is what we do. The key today is whether or not our current growth is sustainable and, if so, if we will take steps to curb our deficit. I do not think I have ever endorsed/supported anything Trump has said or done from a policy standpoint (all I have ever really said about trump is that i do not think he colluded with russia and for that I have been labelled a trumpkin asshole which is funny). But, it is absolutely impossible as a country to grow when we have massive trade deficits. Impossible like 1+1=3 is also impossible. It is undebatable. Very few people do not agree that Trump is an amoral, narcissistic, unsophisticated blow hard much of the time. But he is absolutely right on trade policy. The US govt basically sold out the country over the last 40 years. Our trade deals are ridiculously bad for the US. The very short answer is that the we elect people has caused our politicinas to make continued short sighted economic decisions. In short, they decided that if Johnny was earning $100 and was spending $70 that is was better for Johnny to continue and make $100 and try and get cheaper goods so that he would only have to spend $65. What they should have done is get Johnny to make $150 and let his spending go to $85. But that is hard and requires patience and discipline. Unless we change our trade practices, we will never ever get our debt situation in check. People rail on here about tariffs yet they really have no idea what they are talking about. Trump proposed a zero tariff on anyone anywhere idea to the world. Guess what happened? Not one single country wanted that. Why do you think that is? They know they can not compete with the US on a level playing field. On trade, Trump is right. The manner he uses to try and change things will absolutely be criticized in the short term, but, imo, in the long term it will be very beneficial to the country.
  4. Bates- You need to do a little research. The statement "FERS is a fully funded system" does not mean that it is currently fully funded. It is describing the TYPE of system in place. All that statement means is that the employer, in this case the federal govt, is legally obligated to pay for it. Currently the combined un-funded liabilities of the two plans is approximately $1.7 Trillion. The reserves, for lack of a better term, for the money in the CSRDF is nothing more than promises from the govt to pay them. The money is, in no way, sitting in the bank. Our govt (and we the tax payers) are on the hook for $1.7Trillion in payments and there is no reserve to pay it.
  5. Wait. You graduated business school and posted this: "That's just the bullshit pricing book hospitals use. It's a fucking price scam. They "charge' that upfront to show the insurance companies that they're getting a "discount"rate so that insurance companies can pay only 500 for the aspirin on their books. Meanwhile, the insurance company draws that amount out of their funds in payment, but then recovered the discount in their own books, passing the "savings" onto the premiums the customers pay, since there are "rules" as to how much they can collect. The actual margin doesn't see the light of day. It's a scam called "middling"" Was it Trump's business school? I mean this line "Meanwhile, the insurance company draws that amount out of their funds in payment, but then recovered the discount in their own books" is practically gibberish. Perhaps you can enlighten us on the accounting method that allows an insurance company to "recovered their discount on their own books".
  6. I will do this but I am quite certain you will not get it. Lets be clear on what I claimed- I claimed that a person can work for a service like uber, very part time, and work during peak hours and earn a net of $20/hr. This is a supplement to their base income. Some things to consider in your retort: 1) Cost of car ownership- The payments for the car do not change if you happen to drive for uber. Obviously this scenario does not work if we are describing a hypothetical person that already has a day job but has no car. I am assuming someone that already has a car. Like 90% or more of people with regular day jobs. 2) Maintenance- Not sure what extra maintenance you would need for 70-80 more miles a week on your car. Maybe an extra oil change a year? $25/year. 3) Extensive Repairs- This is supposed to be Uber not demolition derby. 4) Gas- OK 5) Insurance- My understanding is that uber covers the driver while in route to a pick up or while a passenger is in the car. I did a quick search and it appears you can supplement your current insurance to pick up any gaps that may exist for about $50/month. So my guy is going to work on the night of a concert at the AA in Dallas and will work for one hour. he will have 2 rides that take people from the AA to Preston Hollow. Each ride is about 6 miles and should take about 15 minutes. The cost for the rides according to Uber is $18.50 per ride assuming no surge pricing (i would assume concerts have surge pricing but i do not know). So my guy grosses $37/hr. Take out 25% for Uber and he is left with $27.75. Most estimates I have seen say to account for about 20% in expenses like gas, extra insurance etc. So after that my guy is left with $22.20. That is without any tips or any surge pricing. No one ever suggested that someone could average $20/hr all the time or for an equivalent 40 hour work week. But it is absolutely reasonable to expect to average at least a net of $20/hr in spot driving.
  7. Some of this housing talk really misses the point on the original intent of the thread. I realize it may sound crazy to some, but in the example I provided earlier about a single mom with 2 kids using govt assistance to get a nursing degree, guess what- she might not be able to do it as easily in Austin. Austin has obviously exploded and that comes with a ton of consequences for those starting out. But nurses get paid great in every community. And virtually every major health system will pay for relocation costs.
  8. I have never worked for a company like uber but I am quite familiar with what a driver can earn. If you are willing to work weekends, at events and during price surges and you can not net $20/hr then you suck at uber.
  9. Not really true. In virtually every community, there are subdivisions going in that are smaller starter homes. Granted they are not in the most desirable locations, but they never will be for long. There are a number of developments in Austin alone where the houses are priced from $85K to $125K. Same with Dallas, Houston, Ft Worth etc.
  10. Hayden- Your overall point is understood but you should really research Henry Ford if you want to use him as an example because it is not the point you think it is. Ford is a fascinating man and company. I did huge paper on him back in college. Ford had a horrible employee issue when he first started. It would cost him a lot to train people to be able to work in his factories. Your line of building a car is about like flipping a burger is just incredibly naive and ignorant. It MIGHT be close to that 2017 but it most certainly was not in 1908. Ford really made his mark by improving the manufacturing process for cars. The cost to train an employee in 1908 was extremely high. Ford would spend lots of money to train an employee and then that employee would bolt to another auto manufacturer for more money than Ford was paying at the time. I can not remember the exact number but, at the time of the wage increase, Ford was having to hire 3 workers every year to fill 1 spot. As a result, Ford increased wages for SKILLED laborers on his assembly line. He did it for retention. The best mechanics in the area then flocked to Ford and his net cost to build a car actually went DOWN (for perspective the net cost to produce a hamburger is not going to go down if they double the wages of their employees). It had the nice byproduct of also allowing him to talk publicly about increased wages, but the market dictated what he had to pay his people to keep them and he paid that rate and nothing more. Ford also instituted what I think was called the "Social Unit" or something similar and he actually had private investigators watch his employees and would weed out people based on lifestyles he did not like (the biggies were gambling and child support). It was highly controversial as you can imagine. Further, Ford was notorious for paying his UNSKILLED labor as little as possible, even to the point that he tried to get his SKILLED folks to cover other duties but they refused. And he was adamantly opposed to labor unions. Ford is a classic example of letting the market dictate wages coupled with increasing efficiencies. Further, a lot of you guys love to rail on how corporations and ceos make so much money. What Ford earned compared to his employees was greater than today. In the early 1920s, Ford was earning around $90M annually. That is equivalent to about $2.5B today.
  11. That is why I said this is unscientific. In Austin, very few people make $9.15/hr including cashiers. I absolutely guarantee you that if someone works for HEB and shows up every day they are scheduled and is conscientious about their job that they will make a lot more than $9.15/hr within a matter of months. I found multiple apartments in a 30 second search for about $680/month. No doubt rent is higher today but that is a factor of a lot of things. Home ownership cost, on the low end, is actually cheaper proportionately. You can buy new construction 1600' 3 bed 2 bath in Austin through an FHA loan for about $500/month. There are certainly things that are proportionately more expensive now and others that are not. You also did not have the ability to drive around in your own car for a few hours a few nights a week and net $20/hr with services like Uber. Similarly, no one spent $80/month for a phone in 1980. I personally thought it was interesting that most staples are pretty close, proportionately, to what they were in 1980. The point was to Brisket's comment about a cashier in 1980 versus now. A person can live pretty close to proportionately the same IF they are willing to live like we did in 1980. Small house, one car, basic food and clothing, 4-5 free channels of tv, free radio, lots of trips to the park etc. I am not, however, arguing that people should live that way or in any way think it is realistic to do so. I am just saying it is possible.
  12. I agree with this and, I think my proposal would achieve what you are looking for. For those that are truly disabled (either physically or mentally) we need to support them for life. For the able bodied that were born into bad situations, we need to make every effort to support them long enough for them to succeed. The really hard answers are for those people who are clearly able bodied but continue to make bad decisions (often drug related) and wind up unemployable. Right now most of them end up in prison. We will never get 100% but we can certainly set a goal of getting say 50% of people that are currently able bodied but on govt help off of it within 3 years.
  13. I was curious about this so did a little checking. The results surprised me. Of course this is only a snapshot and lots of the info was given in averages but interesting. Cashier average hourly 1980- $5.15, milk $1.89 (.37 of wage), gas $1.25 (.24), rent $310 (60.2), levis $26 (5) Cashier average hourly 2017- $9.15, milk $3.22 (.35), gas $2.60 (.28), rent $840 (91), levis $38 (4.1) This is certainly not scientific at all but for the price of most basic goods, the cost today is very equivalent to the price in 1980. I would suspect that medical care is higher proportionately now but it is damned hard to get true numbers.
  14. Well this thread really went off on a tangent. One of the biggest issues with these types of discussions is that people, on both sides, let emotion cloud their judgement and they replace reality with emotion. The following are some real world examples of how things work. There are very few absolutes but the following is one and no matter how much we might want it to be different it can never be different. Unless we are willing to put caps on what businesses can charge for their services and combine that with closing all outside trade completely, the lowest skilled/earners will never make a living wage. It is economically impossible in a capitalistic system. Impossible. If we decide that today a living wage needs to be $15/hr then everyone in the system is going to get an effective raise. Obviously if Widget company is currently paying someone $12/hr for one job and another $15/hr for another, then when the $12 guy gets bumped to $15 then the guy at $15 is going to get bumped to $18. That is reality. So when everyone gets a raise guess what happens? The price of milk goes up. Rent goes up. Pizza goes up. Inflation is inevitable when wages are rising. It does not happen overnight, but happens within 2-3 years. So, in 2-3 years, the guys who needed $15/hr to make a living wage are no longer making a living wage and we are right back where we started from. Some argue, ignorantly, that we should then have the living wage increase proportionately with inflation. All this does is keep driving up costs for everyone in the system. That is why I said earlier that unless we cap prices on goods AND eliminate imports the system will not work. When the US keeps artificially (by artificially I mean govt mandating a higher than market wage) raising costs in our system we are, obviously, becoming less competitive on the global scale and business and jobs and wages will start to decrease. The illustration to this point can be seen by using an outrageous example that is not really outrageous. Why set the living wage at $15? Why not make it $100? Why not $1000? The answer is because it doesn't matter. No matter what we set it to, it will not be enough in a few years time due to inflation. The solution to this problem is not easy but it is not overly difficult either. There is an absolute role for the govt and our tax dollars to play in this. There is zero question that people start out with different luck when born. It is massively harder for the child of a single/low income parent to break out of the cycle. That is just reality and bitching about it or complaining about it or blaming someone else for it has never and will never do anyone any good other than making themselves feel better. It isnt going to change the situation one bit. The US is absolutely rich enough to provide assistance. But, where most of us seem to differ is on how that assistance should be provided. If we all agree that our various starting points in life are different and some have built in advantages, then the govt's role should be to provide services and avenues that allow the less fortunate to improve on their situations. Th reality is that there are many, many such services and avenues available to lower income people but they are massively under used. A few examples. Lets say there is a single mom with 2 kids and support from the dad (i am going to make another post about this situation). very, very hard for that mom to earn a living wage for her family without govt help. So the govt should help. That single mom, can have her kids at school and after school care or in daycare right now for free. She can take nursing classes at a local community college or even online for the bulk of it and the govt will, and should, pay for it. While taking the courses the govt will, and should, provide welfare for her and her family to keep them going. They are not going to get to take a disney vacation, but they will be fed and housed and clothed. if the single mom does this, in 2 years she can get a job earning more than double the living wage people talk about. Starting nursing salaries are about $67K. Virtually every medical entity will actually hire this mom before she completes her degree if she wants the job and pay her more than $15/hr. The caveat is that she has to keep making progress on her degree. But, in 2 short years she can change the trajectory of her family immensely. I realize that it sounds easy in theory but there is abundant anecdotal evidence that it is not only possible but actively happens everyday. Where I see the biggest need in all of this is making those in need aware of the services that are out there. The govt should set up non-profits (or better let private businesses do the work for a commission) that serve no purpose except to educate people on the programs that are available and help walk them through all of the paper work and qualifications and everything else necessary to get approved. I would make it completely separate from existing govt services. Call it career enhancement agency. But staff it with folks that know how to make the services work. There are 1000s of programs out there right now. There are tens of thousands of open jobs that pay well over a living wage that are available with a little training. Education, welding, nursing, trucking, construction, plumbing, electrician, software, electronics, landscape, classroom, grants, loans, etc. Spend govt money to market and advertise the facilities and what they provide. Provide transportation vouchers to people coming in. Make it so that no one can claim they were not aware of the facilites or that it was just too hard to get there. And to complete the circle, while mom or dad is working to get ahead with a new career with lots and lots of help from the govt, then let the teenagers of these moms and dads work at the fast food places and similar for spending money. Let them acquire the skills that people have mentioned on here before, responsibility, dealing with customers, limited accounting etc. And let them get paid a minimum wage to do it. Then they can transition to college and beyond or their own trade.
  15. Heard some talking heads going on about obstruction sunday morning and it seems to be a renewed theme on here. I just do not see how this goes anywhere. Lets address the flynn stuff first. Comey testified under oath that when Trump asked him to (paraphrasing) "let it go" with Flynn, that Comy believed the only thing Trump was asking him to let go was the apparent discrepancy in Flynn's transition conversation with Kislyak and what they discussed and how he, flynn, may have misled investigators about the conversations. Not anything at all related to the broader russian investigation. In fact, Comey further testified that Trump asked him to continue investigating anyone on his, Trump's, staff that may have colluded with russia. From the transcript: "SEN. MARCO RUBIO: Director Comey, the meeting in the oval office where he made the request about Mike Flynn, was that only time he asked you to hopefully let it go? COMEY: Yes. RUBIO: And in that meeting, as you understood it, he was asking not about the general Russia investigation, he was asking specifically about the jeopardy that Flynn was in himself? COMEY: That's how I understood it. Yes, sir." And, the fbi folks who have reviewed the transcripts of the call with Kislyak, have all said that there is no mention of anything illegal in the call, that Flynn was not acting on orders from anyone above him and that the topic of sanctions was "speaking more in general 'maybe we'll take a look at this going forward' terms." Nothing even remotely connected to collusion or a quid pro quo or anything like that. So we have a phone call between the incoming NSA and the ambassador from Russia that contained nothing illegal, had no relation to anyone higher up the political chain than Flynn himself and that just generally spoke about sanctions (which of course was one of Kislyak's highest orders from his boss). For some reason, it appears Flynn may have mislead investigators about that call and, as a result, he was fired and faced charges of lying and Trump asked comey to let that go because flynn had already been fired. I see no possible way that mueller or anyone else is going to be able to make a case of obstruction out of that. On the comey firing, comey, again under oath, testified that trump told him, comey, to keep investigating anyone on trump's team that may have colluded. That really should end the issue of obstruction. Further, after he fired mueller, he told rosenstein, according to rosenstein himself, to continue investigating anyone in trumps team that may have colluded with russia. I suppose you could make the argument that Trump did not tell them to investigate him personally, but comey, again under oath, told trump he was not under investigation personally. Comey ""I replied that he should give that careful thought because it might create a narrative that we were investigating him personally, which we weren't, and because it was very difficult to prove a negative," Comey wrote. I am also not sure that mueller is really even actively investigating the obstruction angle. He certainly could be but he might not be. If we take as truth that Rosenstein told Trumps lawyers recently that trump was not a target of any investigation, then what do we make of obstruction? Only trump could be the target of obstruction right? We have heard nothing at all about anyone else potentially trying to obstruct. I am not sure how you can have an investigation into obstruction by trump without trump being the target of the investigation. I also do not see how any additional information about the obstruction could be upcoming. The scope of the obstruction is very small and it has to have already been investigated thoroughly by now. I do believe that one of the reasons that mueller wants to interview trump is to ask him about the comey firing and see if trump is dumb enough to admit something he shouldnt. I cant see trump being that dumb and I certainly cant see his lawyers letting him say anything close to obstruction. He will have his narrative down solidly and there really is not any way to prove what was in his heart.
  16. Good god this is some ignorant posting. I would love to here an explanation for how a company "recovered the discount in their own books". Would be fascinating to hear. Equally fascinating would be how this "middling" practice actually has an impact on margins.
  17. Fucking perfect. You said we KNOW something and said there are emails to prove it. You then provide an article based on, shocking, anonymous sources. And the article makes exactly zero mentions of any emails by prince acknowledging anything. I am starting to feel like Brisket and his unending notion that no one in the country will ever do the right thing. I keep waiting for someone, anyone to call out the continual lies and misrepresentations but none of you have. I am ever hopeful though. Do any of you want to comment on this? Anyone willing to go on record that an anonymous source that mentions nothing about any emails from Erik Prince is definitive proof that Prince lied about his testimony and we have emails before and after the meeting to prove it? Anyone?
  18. This is a perfect microcosm of all things trump and all things Pods. You continually accuse me of lying or ignoring stuff, which I have never done and if you can find an example I will be happy to respond. But this statement above is just a full on made up lie. Please show us a source that proves that prince had emails before and after the Seychelles meeting that contradict his testimony. Total bullshit.
  19. If you guys just want some big, bad trump circle jerk then so be it. I thought this was a place to exchange different ideas. I see no need to pile on the negative trump stuff does as there are already 50 or more folks that do so on a daily basis. I have posted, many many times, that I would have preferred a ton of people to him as potus but that hillary is not one of them. But if hillary had won, i would not support impeaching her on unproven things or supposition in the media. I never once suggested anything remotely like that when obama was potus and there were a ton of positions he took that i disagreed with. On incidents like behngazi, I made only one comment at the time which was that I felt Hillary was derelict in her duties as SOS since she told us that the attack was triggered by the movie release in Egypt and that, if that was the case and tensions were hot in the ME in the weeks leading up to the anniversary of 9/11, that we should have had all of our embassies and related facilities in the ME on high alert and extra security should have been in place. I have said, many many times, that i will fully support whatever mueller finds. If trump colluded then he should be impeached. If he obstructed justice then he should be impeached. If he has criminality in his business dealings then I think he should be impeached. But i will not support the impeachment of any potus because he is childish, thin skinned, dumb, orange or whatever. That is what elections are for. I have made my theory on events very public. I find the blind trust in media articles and twitter dorks that quote anonymous sources, to be beneath the intelligence of most of you. They COULD be accurate but when you do some digging they almost always do not hold up to scrutiny. But if you really just want a place to go where there is only one side of every story told then this may not be the place for you. It certainly would not be for me.
  20. Stupid is as stupid does. First, Flynn already had his security clearance from when Obama was in charge. It never even came up for renewal under trump. Had there been an exhaustive investigation of flynns dealing BEFORE his clearance review came up then I would think he might not have been provided clearance, but i do not know. Second, Kushners was a new request. Rosenstein was involved in the investigation (just google rosenstein kushner clearance). Rosenstein is obviously aware of the entirety of the mueller investigation to date. So, again, for any of your theories to be true, rosenstein would have had to either let a background check go to the wh that he, rosenstein, know is innacurate or it was clear enough to warrant top security clearance or the wh just ignored the report. I would think a guy like rosenstein would not allow a person that was on the verge of being indicted for conspiracy against the US to have an unlimited security clearance with access to all of the govt secrets including those related to foreign countries.
  21. Because the fbi did the security investigation on kushner and rosenstein was involved with it. You guys can not have it both ways. rosenstein is not going to release a "positive" background investigation on Kushner to the wh if he knows that kushner is in deep shit with mueller. That would be incredibly reckless and likely criminal on the part of rosenstein.
  22. Mostly because I have a hard time believing that John Kelly would ok a top secret security clearance to a person that was about to be indicted by the fbi for conspiracy against the US. Also, I have a very hard time believing that that the upper echelon of the doj and fbi would not speak up or leak or something similar if they are aware that a top secret security clearance was given to a person that was about to be indicted. Honestly, I think it would be criminal of those people to not speak up.
  23. The twisting is funny to watch. The fbi does the investigations for security clearances. The fbi did the security investigation for Kushner. According to multiple reports, in february, rosenstein called mcgahn or trump to alert them that kushner's application needed more time to investigate. Kushner granted clearance in May. So only one of 2 things could have happened. 1) the fbi's report was clean enough for Kushner to get a clearance or 2) the fbi's report recommended not giving clearance and the WH did it anyway. For the scenario that you and others want us to believe, the fbi told the wh that Kushner was currently under investigation by the fbi, was likely to be indicted by the fbi, had numerous ties to foreign govts and was a great candidate to be either blackmailed or bribed for influence and then, with that report, the wh gave kushner clearance anyway. I think that is an unlikely scenario.
  24. I do not really know anything about Stone and if he is corrupt then fuck him. But what did he do here that would be illegal? Why would he be indicted? I actually read the article. Both people involved say they never received any info direct from Assange and there is no record of any info. In fact, the go beteween said he never even requested the info from Assange. I honestly do not know the answer but is it illegal to ask if someone has hacked emails? If they do is it illegal to receive them?
  25. I have no idea if the Halper stuff is true or not. If we assume he did approach Page, Papa and Clovis then, imo, it is only a problem if he was either asked to approach them by someone in govt or if he told someone he was going to do it. If he approached them on his own then i do not see how it could be a problem for the fbi. If he did work with the fbi then there almost certainly has to be a paper trail. Also, it would be highly coincidental if the fbi based the start of their investigation on the actions of Page and Papa and Halper reached out to both of them out of the blue with little or no prior connection to them. The problem with comments like this relates to the timing. The fbi said it started an investigation in July 2016. All of the Halper contacts were before that. Of course the fbi can and does use informants but if they base part of the investigation on the role of the informants then they have to disclose their use of them. They can not ask an informant to try and get close to trump folks and not consider that the start of the investigation. There has to be a concrete reason to ask the informant to try and get close.
×
×
  • Create New...