Сделаем Америку снова великой! Trump - Russia megathread

[UNI88]

Wait. For a second there I thought you said 2016 was a worse transfer of power than 2020.

I’m sure every admin takes some departing shots but what made Obama’s worse than the rest? Serious question.

At the end, 2020 was a whimper. Sure, J6 was a big deal, a really big deal, but it was one day. Maybe Trump thought it was going to be a bigger deal, but in the end it was like 1,000 of some of his most yahoo-sycophants fighting with the Capitol building cops and then walking around the building with no clue what to do. There was no chance of the election being overturned, not even the slimmest of it. And after J6, Trump just sulked away. He should've been impeached (he was) and removed from office (he wasn't) and barred from holding office again (he wasn't), but Republicans then didn't have the backbone and Democrats were just looking forward to opening up the government spending spigots to test out their new economic theory to care.

As for the 2016 transfer of power, show me an administration that, on the way out, accused the incoming administration of basically treason by means of saying they were controlled by a foreign government? Clinton's followers stole vandalized thousands of dollars of computer equipment by removing "W"'s before Bush Jr took office - Obama's passed around the results of a tainted and rushed investigation with the sole purpose of smearing the incoming administration and setting up the groundwork from it for an impeachment. John Quincy Adams hated Andrew Jackson but even they managed to pass the baton of power without threatening to bring down the Republic.

I agree with much of what you're saying by I think you're downplaying the 2020 election too much. It was more than January 6. His obstruction was significant, he:

• called state officials begging them to "find" votes or not certify results.
• created slates of fraudulent electors.
• has been caterwauling about it being stolen since November 3, 2020. He's still hasn't stopped!

2024 was a charlie foxtrot worthy of the history books because everyone knew biden was in a state of mental decline but wasn't dropping out until he finally did. When he did, it put the Democratic Party is a position where harris was the only real option and she wasn't a good candidate. What might have happened if biden had never been a candidate and there had been an open primary? It's a fascinating what if.

trump's first impeachment shouldn't have happened. If it hadn't, his second impeachment likely would have succeeded and he wouldn't be POTUS today. Thank you nancy pelosi.

[GannonFan]

At the end, 2020 was a whimper. Sure, J6 was a big deal, a really big deal, but it was one day. Maybe Trump thought it was going to be a bigger deal, but in the end it was like 1,000 of some of his most yahoo-sycophants fighting with the Capitol building cops and then walking around the building with no clue what to do. There was no chance of the election being overturned, not even the slimmest of it. And after J6, Trump just sulked away. He should've been impeached (he was) and removed from office (he wasn't) and barred from holding office again (he wasn't), but Republicans then didn't have the backbone and Democrats were just looking forward to opening up the government spending spigots to test out their new economic theory to care.

As for the 2016 transfer of power, show me an administration that, on the way out, accused the incoming administration of basically treason by means of saying they were controlled by a foreign government? Clinton's followers stole vandalized thousands of dollars of computer equipment by removing "W"'s before Bush Jr took office - Obama's passed around the results of a tainted and rushed investigation with the sole purpose of smearing the incoming administration and setting up the groundwork from it for an impeachment. John Quincy Adams hated Andrew Jackson but even they managed to pass the baton of power without threatening to bring down the Republic.

I agree with much of what you're saying by I think you're downplaying the 2020 election too much. It was more than January 6. His obstruction was significant, he:

• called state officials begging them to "find" votes or not certify results.
• created slates of fraudulent electors.
• has been caterwauling about it being stolen since November 3, 2020. He's still hasn't stopped!

2024 was a charlie foxtrot worthy of the history books because everyone knew biden was in a state of mental decline but wasn't dropping out until he finally did. When he did, it put the Democratic Party is a position where harris was the only real option and she wasn't a good candidate. What might have happened if biden had never been a candidate and there had been an open primary? It's a fascinating what if.

trump's first impeachment shouldn't have happened. If it hadn't, his second impeachment likely would have succeeded and he wouldn't be POTUS today. Thank you nancy pelosi.

Eh, with Trump, almost all of it is bluster. Sure, he called the Georgia guy and asked him to find votes. But what of it? You can't just create votes out of thin air and they of course didn't, as there was no way to do that. He could be on TV every night, begging every state to find more votes and it still wouldn't create votes. It looks despicable, sure, but it doesn't and didn't do anything material.

The fraudulent elector thing was much of the same. Even the MAGA folks considered it a fringe theory, as it clearly violated the Electoral Count Act. And it got as far as them creating slates, but it went no farther than that because it wasn't going to work. The Vice President slapped it down, if he hadn't then Congress would've slapped it down, and if they didn't SCOTUS would've slapped it down. The system worked, as it always has.

I don't disagree that Trump wanted to subvert the will of the electorate, of course he did. But that didn't all of a sudden sour the electorate on the government and the electoral process, as kalm claims it did, and have it reverberate for decades to come. Heck, after all the shenanigans in 2020, the electorate came out in large numbers and dutifully cast ballots in the 2024 election. For people so disillusioned with government and elections, we sure seem perfectly willing to participate in them.

If the Democrats were so worried about the state of the Republic and the belief of the electorate in our system of government, they should've proceeded with charges against Trump right away. J6 was on TV and was easy to see. Instead, trying to make sure Trump was still relevant and the opponent in the 2024 election (where they thought he was a weaker candidate) they slow-walked the J6 commission out for almost two full years, and then took almost another full year to bring charges, all in an attempt to weaken him as close to the election as possible. Funny how things work out despite all the planning otherwise. On the bright side, come January 2029, Trump will truly be out of years left to be in the office.

[UNI88]

I agree with much of what you're saying by I think you're downplaying the 2020 election too much. It was more than January 6. His obstruction was significant, he:

• called state officials begging them to "find" votes or not certify results.
• created slates of fraudulent electors.
• has been caterwauling about it being stolen since November 3, 2020. He's still hasn't stopped!

2024 was a charlie foxtrot worthy of the history books because everyone knew biden was in a state of mental decline but wasn't dropping out until he finally did. When he did, it put the Democratic Party is a position where harris was the only real option and she wasn't a good candidate. What might have happened if biden had never been a candidate and there had been an open primary? It's a fascinating what if.

trump's first impeachment shouldn't have happened. If it hadn't, his second impeachment likely would have succeeded and he wouldn't be POTUS today. Thank you nancy pelosi.

Eh, with Trump, almost all of it is bluster. Sure, he called the Georgia guy and asked him to find votes. But what of it? You can't just create votes out of thin air and they of course didn't, as there was no way to do that. He could be on TV every night, begging every state to find more votes and it still wouldn't create votes. It looks despicable, sure, but it doesn't and didn't do anything material.

The fraudulent elector thing was much of the same. Even the MAGA folks considered it a fringe theory, as it clearly violated the Electoral Count Act. And it got as far as them creating slates, but it went no farther than that because it wasn't going to work. The Vice President slapped it down, if he hadn't then Congress would've slapped it down, and if they didn't SCOTUS would've slapped it down. The system worked, as it always has.

I don't disagree that Trump wanted to subvert the will of the electorate, of course he did. But that didn't all of a sudden sour the electorate on the government and the electoral process, as kalm claims it did, and have it reverberate for decades to come. Heck, after all the shenanigans in 2020, the electorate came out in large numbers and dutifully cast ballots in the 2024 election. For people so disillusioned with government and elections, we sure seem perfectly willing to participate in them.

If the Democrats were so worried about the state of the Republic and the belief of the electorate in our system of government, they should've proceeded with charges against Trump right away. J6 was on TV and was easy to see. Instead, trying to make sure Trump was still relevant and the opponent in the 2024 election (where they thought he was a weaker candidate) they slow-walked the J6 commission out for almost two full years, and then took almost another full year to bring charges, all in an attempt to weaken him as close to the election as possible. Funny how things work out despite all the planning otherwise. On the bright side, come January 2029, Trump will truly be out of years left to be in the office.

I'm not arguing about the 2020 election souring the electorate on government and the electoral process. I agree with you that Covid did more to damage people's trust in government than January 6.

I also agree with you that the Democrats overplayed their hand with the indictments against trump. They should have been brought much earlier.

I disagree on the relevance of the "bluster". You could argue that the brennan report ended up being "bluster". That the first impeachment was just "bluster". They all led to nothing so they were "bluster".

Why is trump's "bluster" irrelevant but not the bluster of Obama and government bureaucrats? That's what MAQA yahoos are constantly arguing - he's just trolling - and then they lose their shit over something his opponents say or do. He has normalized his behavior but wants to hold his opponents to old standards. He and his followers shouldn't get to have it both ways.

It's also fair to ask how is how what Obama, Clapper, brennan, hillary clinton, etc. did or might have done is different from what trump is doing now with the DoJ and intelligence communities? He's weaponized them against his opponents and anyone he holds a grudge against - the media, universities, law firms, etc. - and he isn't even trying to hide it. If what happened in 2016/2017 was a big deal then so is what is happening in 2025.

[SeattleGriz]

Eh, with Trump, almost all of it is bluster. Sure, he called the Georgia guy and asked him to find votes. But what of it? You can't just create votes out of thin air and they of course didn't, as there was no way to do that. He could be on TV every night, begging every state to find more votes and it still wouldn't create votes. It looks despicable, sure, but it doesn't and didn't do anything material.

The fraudulent elector thing was much of the same. Even the MAGA folks considered it a fringe theory, as it clearly violated the Electoral Count Act. And it got as far as them creating slates, but it went no farther than that because it wasn't going to work. The Vice President slapped it down, if he hadn't then Congress would've slapped it down, and if they didn't SCOTUS would've slapped it down. The system worked, as it always has.

I don't disagree that Trump wanted to subvert the will of the electorate, of course he did. But that didn't all of a sudden sour the electorate on the government and the electoral process, as kalm claims it did, and have it reverberate for decades to come. Heck, after all the shenanigans in 2020, the electorate came out in large numbers and dutifully cast ballots in the 2024 election. For people so disillusioned with government and elections, we sure seem perfectly willing to participate in them.

If the Democrats were so worried about the state of the Republic and the belief of the electorate in our system of government, they should've proceeded with charges against Trump right away. J6 was on TV and was easy to see. Instead, trying to make sure Trump was still relevant and the opponent in the 2024 election (where they thought he was a weaker candidate) they slow-walked the J6 commission out for almost two full years, and then took almost another full year to bring charges, all in an attempt to weaken him as close to the election as possible. Funny how things work out despite all the planning otherwise. On the bright side, come January 2029, Trump will truly be out of years left to be in the office.

I'm not arguing about the 2020 election souring the electorate on government and the electoral process. I agree with you that Covid did more to damage people's trust in government than January 6.

I also agree with you that the Democrats overplayed their hand with the indictments against trump. They should have been brought much earlier.

I disagree on the relevance of the "bluster". You could argue that the brennan report ended up being "bluster". That the first impeachment was just "bluster". They all led to nothing so they were "bluster".

Why is trump's "bluster" irrelevant but not the bluster of Obama and government bureaucrats? That's what MAQA yahoos are constantly arguing - he's just trolling - and then they lose their shit over something his opponents say or do. He has normalized his behavior but wants to hold his opponents to old standards. He and his followers shouldn't get to have it both ways.

It's also fair to ask how is how what Obama, Clapper, brennan, hillary clinton, etc. did or might have done is different from what trump is doing now with the DoJ and intelligence communities? He's weaponized them against his opponents and anyone he holds a grudge against - the media, universities, law firms, etc. - and he isn't even trying to hide it. If what happened in 2016/2017 was a big deal then so is what is happening in 2025.

No one is above the law. You saw it happen last term and now you care? Sorry. Nope.

[BDKJMU]

Eh, with Trump, almost all of it is bluster. Sure, he called the Georgia guy and asked him to find votes. But what of it? You can't just create votes out of thin air and they of course didn't, as there was no way to do that. He could be on TV every night, begging every state to find more votes and it still wouldn't create votes. It looks despicable, sure, but it doesn't and didn't do anything material.

The fraudulent elector thing was much of the same. Even the MAGA folks considered it a fringe theory, as it clearly violated the Electoral Count Act. And it got as far as them creating slates, but it went no farther than that because it wasn't going to work. The Vice President slapped it down, if he hadn't then Congress would've slapped it down, and if they didn't SCOTUS would've slapped it down. The system worked, as it always has.

I don't disagree that Trump wanted to subvert the will of the electorate, of course he did. But that didn't all of a sudden sour the electorate on the government and the electoral process, as kalm claims it did, and have it reverberate for decades to come. Heck, after all the shenanigans in 2020, the electorate came out in large numbers and dutifully cast ballots in the 2024 election. For people so disillusioned with government and elections, we sure seem perfectly willing to participate in them.

If the Democrats were so worried about the state of the Republic and the belief of the electorate in our system of government, they should've proceeded with charges against Trump right away. J6 was on TV and was easy to see. Instead, trying to make sure Trump was still relevant and the opponent in the 2024 election (where they thought he was a weaker candidate) they slow-walked the J6 commission out for almost two full years, and then took almost another full year to bring charges, all in an attempt to weaken him as close to the election as possible. Funny how things work out despite all the planning otherwise. On the bright side, come January 2029, Trump will truly be out of years left to be in the office.

I'm not arguing about the 2020 election souring the electorate on government and the electoral process. I agree with you that Covid did more to damage people's trust in government than January 6.

I also agree with you that the Democrats overplayed their hand with the indictments against trump. They should have been brought much earlier.

I disagree on the relevance of the "bluster". You could argue that the brennan report ended up being "bluster". That the first impeachment was just "bluster". They all led to nothing so they were "bluster".

Why is trump's "bluster" irrelevant but not the bluster of Obama and government bureaucrats? That's what MAQA yahoos are constantly arguing - he's just trolling - and then they lose their shit over something his opponents say or do. He has normalized his behavior but wants to hold his opponents to old standards. He and his followers shouldn't get to have it both ways.

It's also fair to ask how is how what Obama, Clapper, brennan, hillary clinton, etc. did or might have done is different from what trump is doing now with the DoJ and intelligence communities? He's weaponized them against his opponents and anyone he holds a grudge against - the media, universities, law firms, etc. - and he isn't even trying to hide it. If what happened in 2016/2017 was a big deal then so is what is happening in 2025.

Then so is what happened in 2023/2024.

[BDKJMU]

I'm not arguing about the 2020 election souring the electorate on government and the electoral process. I agree with you that Covid did more to damage people's trust in government than January 6.

I also agree with you that the Democrats overplayed their hand with the indictments against trump. They should have been brought much earlier.

I disagree on the relevance of the "bluster". You could argue that the brennan report ended up being "bluster". That the first impeachment was just "bluster". They all led to nothing so they were "bluster".

Why is trump's "bluster" irrelevant but not the bluster of Obama and government bureaucrats? That's what MAQA yahoos are constantly arguing - he's just trolling - and then they lose their shit over something his opponents say or do. He has normalized his behavior but wants to hold his opponents to old standards. He and his followers shouldn't get to have it both ways.

It's also fair to ask how is how what Obama, Clapper, brennan, hillary clinton, etc. did or might have done is different from what trump is doing now with the DoJ and intelligence communities? He's weaponized them against his opponents and anyone he holds a grudge against - the media, universities, law firms, etc. - and he isn't even trying to hide it. If what happened in 2016/2017 was a big deal then so is what is happening in 2025.

No one is above the law. You saw it happen last term and now you care? Sorry. Nope.

Exactly.

[UNI88]

I'm not arguing about the 2020 election souring the electorate on government and the electoral process. I agree with you that Covid did more to damage people's trust in government than January 6.

I also agree with you that the Democrats overplayed their hand with the indictments against trump. They should have been brought much earlier.

I disagree on the relevance of the "bluster". You could argue that the brennan report ended up being "bluster". That the first impeachment was just "bluster". They all led to nothing so they were "bluster".

Why is trump's "bluster" irrelevant but not the bluster of Obama and government bureaucrats? That's what MAQA yahoos are constantly arguing - he's just trolling - and then they lose their shit over something his opponents say or do. He has normalized his behavior but wants to hold his opponents to old standards. He and his followers shouldn't get to have it both ways.

It's also fair to ask how is how what Obama, Clapper, brennan, hillary clinton, etc. did or might have done is different from what trump is doing now with the DoJ and intelligence communities? He's weaponized them against his opponents and anyone he holds a grudge against - the media, universities, law firms, etc. - and he isn't even trying to hide it. If what happened in 2016/2017 was a big deal then so is what is happening in 2025.

Then so is what happened in 2023/2024.

Wrong - there is significantly more evidence supporting the 2023/2024 federal indictments against trump then there is the gabbard russia HOAX allegations against Obama.

[SeattleGriz]

Then so is what happened in 2023/2024.

Wrong - there is significantly more evidence supporting the 2023/2024 federal indictments against trump then there is the gabbard russia HOAX allegations against Obama.

Could you tell us what specific evidence supports the 23/24 indictments? I'd like to get these claims out in the open and compare.

[UNI88]

Wrong - there is significantly more evidence supporting the 2023/2024 federal indictments against trump then there is the gabbard russia HOAX allegations against Obama.

Could you tell us what specific evidence supports the 23/24 indictments? I'd like to get these claims out in the open and compare.

We've done this dance before. This is how it will likely go:

1. I'll bring up the evidence in the indictments
2. You will dismiss that evidence because it was produced by the untrustworthy biden DoJ which was on a "witch hunt" and had been "weaponized" against trump and because MAQA yahoos require a confession and video evidence for any accusations against trump.
3. I'll request proof that Obama was actually a driving force in making a mountain out of a molehill of evidence in gabbard's russia HOAX.
4. You will cite rumors and innuendo provided by the DNI and DoJ who have suddenly become trustworthy and expect me to believe them and ignore that trump has weaponized the DoJ and intelligence communities against Obama and other opponents in an attempt to distract people from his epstein files fiasco.

Why I should bother?

[SeattleGriz]

Could you tell us what specific evidence supports the 23/24 indictments? I'd like to get these claims out in the open and compare.

This how it would likely go:

1. I'll bring up the evidence in the indictments
2. You will dismiss that evidence because it was produced by the untrustworthy biden DoJ which was on a "witch hunt" and had been "weaponized" against trump and because MAQA yahoos require a confession and video evidence for any accusations against trump.
3. I'll request proof that Obama was actually a driving force in making a mountain our of a molehill of evidence in gabbard's russia HOAX.
4. You will cite rumors and innuendo provided by the DNI and DoJ who have suddenly become trustworthy and expect me to believe them and ignore that trump has weaponized the DoJ and intelligence communities against Obama and other opponents in an attempt to distract people from his epstein fiasco.

Why I should bother?

1) Make unsupported claims
2) Claim umbrage at being asked to support
3) Fold over and backtrack


That was record time in that backtrack. Must be a slow day on The View for you

[UNI88]

This how it would likely go:

1. I'll bring up the evidence in the indictments
2. You will dismiss that evidence because it was produced by the untrustworthy biden DoJ which was on a "witch hunt" and had been "weaponized" against trump and because MAQA yahoos require a confession and video evidence for any accusations against trump.
3. I'll request proof that Obama was actually a driving force in making a mountain our of a molehill of evidence in gabbard's russia HOAX.
4. You will cite rumors and innuendo provided by the DNI and DoJ who have suddenly become trustworthy and expect me to believe them and ignore that trump has weaponized the DoJ and intelligence communities against Obama and other opponents in an attempt to distract people from his epstein fiasco.

Why I should bother?

1) Make unsupported claims
2) Claim umbrage at being asked to support
3) Fold over and backtrack

That was record time in that backtrack. Must be a slow day on The View for you

Actual federal indictments are "unsupported claims" but what gabbard said is supported? That's

Prove I'm wrong. Tell us what specific evidence supports gabbard's claims? Let's get this "evidence out in the open.

Shoe's on the other foot.

[SeattleGriz]

1) Make unsupported claims
2) Claim umbrage at being asked to support
3) Fold over and backtrack

That was record time in that backtrack. Must be a slow day on The View for you

Actual federal indictments are "unsupported claims" but what gabbard said is supported? That's

Prove I'm wrong. Tell us what specific evidence supports gabbard's claims? Let's get this "evidence out in the open.

You made the unsupported claims. You need to back up your big claims chief.

[UNI88]

Actual federal indictments are "unsupported claims" but what gabbard said is supported? That's

Prove I'm wrong. Tell us what specific evidence supports gabbard's claims? Let's get this "evidence out in the open.

You made the unsupported claims. You need to back up your big claims chief.

You're an empty suit.

[BDKJMU]

Then so is what happened in 2023/2024.

Wrong - there is significantly more evidence supporting the 2023/2024 federal indictments against trump then there is the gabbard russia HOAX allegations against Obama.

LoL at you just limiting the Trump Russia collusion/election interference HOAX to just Obama. Hillary/Obama/Brennan/Clapper/Comey/Strok/McCabe/Crossfire Hurricane, etc, etc.

[BDKJMU]

Could you tell us what specific evidence supports the 23/24 indictments? I'd like to get these claims out in the open and compare.

We've done this dance before. This is how it will likely go:

1. I'll bring up the evidence in the indictments
2. You will dismiss that evidence because it was produced by the untrustworthy biden DoJ which was on a "witch hunt" and had been "weaponized" against trump and because MAQA yahoos require a confession and video evidence for any accusations against trump.
3. I'll request proof that Obama was actually a driving force in making a mountain out of a molehill of evidence in gabbard's russia HOAX.
4. You will cite rumors and innuendo provided by the DNI and DoJ who have suddenly become trustworthy and expect me to believe them and ignore that trump has weaponized the DoJ and intelligence communities against Obama and other opponents in an attempt to distract people from his epstein files fiasco.

Why I should bother?

Good. Obama, Biden, Garland et al started it. It’s now all out political warfare. GAME ON.

[SeattleGriz]

You made the unsupported claims. You need to back up your big claims chief.

You're an empty suit.

Okay, check another Uni St Behar unsupported lie off the list.

The "politicized" DOJ you refer to was the Biden DOJ. The Durham investigation started and ended under Pedo Joe.

Of course you didn't know

[Skjellyfetti]

Barr (head of Trump's DOJ) appointed Durham on 10/19/2020.
https://www.justice.gov/archives/media/1126521/dl

[kalm]

Barr (head of Trump's DOJ) appointed Durham on 10/19/2020.
https://www.justice.gov/archives/media/1126521/dl

Oops!

[SeattleGriz]

Barr (head of Trump's DOJ) appointed Durham on 10/19/2020.
https://www.justice.gov/archives/media/1126521/dl

Oops!

Big Fucking deal. I talked about it then.

[UNI88]

Oops!

Big Fucking deal. I talked about it then.

The Durham investigation started under Pedo Rapist donny.

The "politicized" DOJ you refer to is the trump DOJ.

[kalm]

Big Fucking deal. I talked about it then.

The Durham investigation started under Pedo Rapist donny.

The "politicized" DOJ you refer to is the trump DOJ.

And what Donnie and the administration are arguing now is exactly the opposite of what Durham found. But they know that won’t matter to MAGA.

[SeattleGriz]

The Durham investigation started under Pedo Rapist donny.

The "politicized" DOJ you refer to is the trump DOJ.

And what Donnie and the administration are arguing now is exactly the opposite of what Durham found. But they know that won’t matter to MAGA.

Dude. You've proven over and over you have no clue about this whole ordeal. They are talking about a classified annex to the Durham report that is finally losing some of its redactions.

[SeattleGriz]

Big Fucking deal. I talked about it then.

The Durham investigation started under Pedo Rapist donny.

The "politicized" DOJ you refer to is the trump DOJ.

Barr authorized it, but he didn't have special counsel until the very end so Biden couldn't stop it. Durham then had to deal with Pedo Joe.

With all that being said, go back and read what I've been saying for years. Mueller was there to cover up the ICs malfeasance and Durham was never going to do anything.

I love how you keep saying our government is corrupt, but then believe the IC is squeaky clean. Interesting dichotomy.

[kalm]

And what Donnie and the administration are arguing now is exactly the opposite of what Durham found. But they know that won’t matter to MAGA.

Dude. You've proven over and over you have no clue about this whole ordeal. They are talking about a classified annex to the Durham report that is finally losing some of its redactions.

And that annex from the Durham report suggests the Clinton plan intel was likely Russian disinformation.

Nevermind the timing of the Obama and Clinton allegations. Anything to keep Epstein out of the news.

Now…you were mumbling something about having no clue. Please go on….

[SeattleGriz]

Dude. You've proven over and over you have no clue about this whole ordeal. They are talking about a classified annex to the Durham report that is finally losing some of its redactions.

And that annex from the Durham report suggests the Clinton plan intel was likely Russian disinformation.

Nevermind the timing of the Obama and Clinton allegations. Anything to keep Epstein out of the news.

Now…you were mumbling something about having no clue. Please go on….

No it doesn't. The fact you'd double down and try to say it was still the Rooskies shows you need new sources. You didn't read the annex did you?

Epstein Yes. The Dems had four years and didn't do anything and NOW it's because it was full of Trump! Are you actually reading what you are typing?