Trump Needs Sorkin

Trump Needs Sorkin

Rhetorical question to follow:

Why can't Trump figure out that if he and the administration are investigated by his closest friends and they don't find anything no one will be satisfied? However, if they're investigated by Trump haters and they find nothing, then we'll know for sure.

Sorkin had it right:

Oliver Babish: Then, order the attorney general to appoint a special prosecutor. Not just any special prosecutor, the most blood-spitting, Bartlet-hating Republican in the Bar. He's gonna have an unlimited budget and a staff like an army. The new slogan around here is gonna be "Bring it on!" He's gonna have access to every piece of paper you ever touched. If you invoke executive privilege one time, I'm gone. An assistant D.A in Ducksworth wants to take your deposition, you're on the next plane. A freshman Congressman wants your testimony, you'll sit in his kitchen. They wanna drag you to The Hague and charge you with war crimes, what'll we say?
President Josiah Bartlet: Bring it on.

If he gets rid of Mueller, game over.

SCCRENDO | June 23, 2017

@JT. That would only apply if he was innocent???

J.T. | June 23, 2017

@SCCRENDO Of course he's innocent and how do I know? Because he hasn't been proven guilty!!!

Just like Hillary!!

But, point taken.

Goose | June 23, 2017

@JT ... to be precise, Hillary was one of the most investigated public figures in history and she was found not to be worthy of indictments. Trump is currently being investigated for far more serious crap and the proverbial jury is out on how that plays out.

SUN 2 DRV | June 23, 2017

SCCRENDO: +10 LOL............excellent point!

J.T. No, a person is to be PRESUMED innocent until proven guilty. That's totally different than, as Sccrendo says, "That would only apply if he WAS innocent"...

Being actually innocent and being presumed innocent are two totally different things.

Should_I | June 23, 2017

Goose are you ignoring Lynch's obstruction of Justice is far more blatant than what Trump is accused of and even Dems have given up on collusion.

Anyone not blindly partisan can see both sides have done wrong but Hillary actually has Russian connections, heck Hillary and crews retention of the emails alone not even the classified was illegal. Comey told us Lynch had the fix in. You didn't hear that though because you are not interested in a big picture, just blindly anti-Trump.

The only current accusation Trump is seriously accused of is obstruction, and he picked his words carefully so as to avoid anything prosecutable. I think we all believe he wanted Comey to back off, but he didn't say it outright or threaten Comey's job directly.
Sort of like Hillary claiming the server was for convenience when we all know it was to mask pay to play.

If you want to let Hillary have the benefit of the doubt you should do the same for Trump, otherwise let's prosecute both, may I remind you the statue says nothing of proving intent so Comey's letting her off on that won't stick with a real prosecutor.

The system doesn't work because too many people blindly defend their side and attack the other without objectivity.

Hillary's crimes run much deeper than what Trump is accused of.
Far as Russia trying to meddle, are you ok with Obama using your tax dollars to campaign against our Netanyahu?

Goose | June 23, 2017

@should ... thanks for your insight

SCCRENDO | June 23, 2017

@Should_I. Wearing those Trump blinkers again??? Nobody here is accusing Mr. Honesty in chief of any wrongdoing. @JT made the recommendation that he should welcome a stringent open investigation as he obviously has nothing to hide and could put the matter to rest. He could then go on to acting like a President. I added the comment that it would be the best way to prove his innocence, particularly if he is.

RedShift | June 23, 2017

Should_I's strategy is to appear neutral and unbiased emphasis on 'appear'.

Remnant | June 23, 2017

@SCCRENDO (June 23, 2017)

<< He could then go on to acting like a President. >>

With your permission, right?

Your haughty manner is really hard to treat as civil.

ALLCAPS, do you realize you come across as a grandiose lunatic?

You now want to approve of the behavior of Presidents, don't you?

Go take a walk and cool you disorderly brains, man!

SCCRENDO | June 23, 2017

@Remnant. I have had my run and swim today. I'm cool. Your turn to cool down.

Should_I | June 24, 2017

What would you say if Melania got twice her normal modelling fee from Russia while Trump is in office? Those of you who would freak are the same ones fine with Bill getting half a million for a speech while Hillary was overseeing the State Department, and they were buying into our Uranium production.................

I want accountability on both sides but since Democrats don't have to answer for their crimes why should Republicans?

Every questionable act carried out but Trump Obama and Clintons have worse, but the media runs protection so the public doesn't demand answers.

Do we have Trump on tape saying I will have more freedom after the election to the Russians?

RedShift | June 24, 2017


Your arguments would be taken seriously (I do mean it, because I believe that no one should be above the law) if you didn't display the proclivity for minimizing Trump's issues and solely focusing on Hillary who has been investigated many times before to no effect.

Trump is being investigated now. Nothing is proven yet. But his supporters seem to act like they themselves believe Trump has a lot of skeletons in the closet.

That's enough for the rest of us to conclude we must continue investigating. :-)

bigd | June 24, 2017

"Hillary who has been investigated many times before to no effect." Of course not - refer to Lynch :-)

SCCRENDO | June 24, 2017

Hillary is not running foreign policy but Trump is. Spend our money investigating Hillary if it makes you sleep better at night. But wouldn't you want to know if Kushner getting bailed out by Russian banks to help his business and if Trump has ties to Russia that makes him go soft on them. I guess Hillary is more important.

J.T. | June 24, 2017

No one was Softer on Russia than Obama. Since August he knew about the tampering and he asked Putin to please stop it. Wimp!

SCCRENDO | June 24, 2017

He could have been more definitive. But he did set up a cyber attack mechanism. He didn't want to influence the election and like most of us never believed Trump would win anyway. Most of us here think that being in position to be bribed by Russia or needing financial favors would turn out to be far more damaging to our country. But I guess it's just us.

bigd | June 24, 2017

ALLCAPSGUY "Hillary is not running foreign policy" O sorry, I thought she was Sec of state. My bad. "The Secretary carries out the President's foreign policies through the State Department and the Foreign Service of the United States".

Tropopause | June 24, 2017

They're all innocent because they are above the law. Long live Nixon! The favored US President of the Chinese! Or should I say, RIP Nixon!

J.T. | June 24, 2017

Is it really worse to be bribed by Russia over Congress being bribed by Exxon/Mobil or Big Pharma or Wall Street?

NKYTA | June 24, 2017

I'd say yes, but I take your point JT.

SCCRENDO | June 25, 2017

All bribes are not good. However I would suggest that being managed by Russia is far more consequential than being controlled by Big Pharma for example. Many love to revert to the past and what ifs but our present problem is our foreign policy, big Pharma and the big banks and I am not confident that Trump is handling any of it. All three would be far less of a problem under Hillary or the Dems.

J.T. | June 25, 2017

@SCCRENDO Riddle me this. If you could trade Russian control of the US for 100% acceptance of Climate Change protocols, across the globe, what do you choose?

NKYTA | June 25, 2017

Hobson's choice. The first shouldn't be on the table.

J.T. | June 25, 2017

@NKYTA Perhaps, but I like playing ridiculous hyperbole with SCCRENDO. :-)

SCCRENDO | June 25, 2017

JT. Would you prefer I amputate your left leg or your right leg? However I believe Russia is the more immediate short to medium term threat. So left with that choice I would say Russia. However I believe we can get of both by getting rid of Trump, Pence and the Republican congress

J.T. | June 25, 2017

@SCCRENDO Let's not quibble, get rid of Trump, Pence and the entire Congress. :-)

J.T. | June 25, 2017

And I had no idea you were a surgeon. :-) | June 25, 2017

@J.T. - +100 ..."get rid of...."

SCCRENDO | June 25, 2017

Not the entire congress. Just the Republicans. | June 25, 2017

@J.T. - +1000.

Remnant | June 25, 2017

@SCCRENDO (June 25, 2017)

<< ... our present problem is our foreign policy, big Pharma and the big banks and I am not confident that Trump is handling any of [them]. All three would be far less of a problem under Hillary or the [Dimms]. >>

The problems you've listed are not of the same nature or magnitude. Hillary had her turn with foreign policy and, beside mishandling or betraying the American interests, she demonstrated no talents. The complexity of the Middle East conundrum and the enormity of the North Korean nuclear danger, nursed by the previous administration incompetent inaction, do not seem to have diplomatic or military solutions at this time either.

The Big Pharma issues are not of the competence of any government planners. Drugs prices would drop dramatically if pharmacies and patients could purchase them abroad, in other words, if their importation was deregulated, except for a simple safety (NOT efficacy) certification. Competition is the well known cure of monopoly "prices" (we should not even call them "prices", but "fees").

Big banks could also compete on the the open market to some extent, although the existence of the Fed and the Federal Credit Corporations (FDIC, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, CCC) has created monopolistic abuses that are not easily amenable to competition. Yet, the repeal of the mammoth Dodd-Frank Act would help nudge banking in the right direction.

Finally, you don't mention the "Health Care" Bill difficulties which are dramatic, as Obamacare is not sustainable and its GOP replacement suffers from the spectacular lack of the promised market elements, now deferred to a later phase of this incredibly clumsy tinkering.

SCCRENDO | June 25, 2017

@remnant. Hillary was Secretary of State not President. Time will tell but Trumps policies seem inflammatory rather than helpful.
Some of the pharma costs are related to research. If profits are cut innovative research won't happen. However prices do need to be regulated on "me too" medications. High marketing costs and advertising should be eliminated. Importing medications would be helpful but the quality needs to be regulated. Unfortunately many of the agents imported are truly US products that are sold more cheaply overseas. And it would be a good idea if other countries shared the research costs. Generic medications should be priced cheaper.
I would agree that Obamacare needs fixing. However the Republican plans are not solutions but giant steps backwards

rxlawdude | June 25, 2017

The scrap once again wanders into areas he clearly is clueless about.

Allowing importation of drugs from countries that pharma sells to for lower prices will simply result in pharma not selling at discounted prices to developing countries or those with single payer and price controls.

Simplistic spew from simpletons .. sounds like the WH incumbent.

RanjitC | June 25, 2017

Simple solution to Pharma. Don't allow them to charge more than the average price for the same drug as they charge in Europe Canada and Japan.

RanjitC | June 25, 2017

Why should we shoulder all the cost for research and the rest of the world benefit, or . are they just ripping us off?

rxlawdude | June 25, 2017

@Ranjit, that is brilliant! Then the drug companies raise the prices for the poorest. Awesome!

I guess from your name that your country of ancestry benefits from subsidized drug pricing. If I misspoke please forgive me.

There are no simple solutions, but the "free market" certainly is not appropriate for special goods and services. Teaching graduate bioethics to future clinicians, biotech execs and researchers does give me some insight on the topic. Your qualifications?