billingle, I couldn't agree with you more. I don't understand why the DOJ hasn't indicted Trump yet. There seems to be a hell of a lot of evidence to support charges on a world of criminality. The worst of which includes sedition and insurrection. Of course fraud is a biggie as is sexual harassment that includes two cases of rape. There are many, many other charges associated with trying to overthrow the legitimate Presidential election, and others. There is no doubt in my mind that Trump is the worst President in my lifetime.. Modern historians, authors, and statesmen place him at number two.

You are still trying to defend criminal one.


FBI agent — or Russian agent? What does Charlie McGonigal know about 2016?
Joe Conason
January 29, 2023

FBI agent — or Russian agent? What does Charlie McGonigal know about 2016?

The arrest of Charles McGonigal, chief of the FBI counterintelligence division in New York from October 2016 until his retirement in 2018, reopens festering questions about the troubled election that put Donald Trump in the White House. Among the crimes charged against McGonigal in two lengthy federal indictments is a secret financial relationship with Oleg Deripaska — a Russian oligarch close to dictator Vladimir Putin and associated with Paul Manafort, Trump's campaign manager, himself convicted of crimes and pardoned.



During his FBI career, McGonigal oversaw investigations of Deripaska and other oligarchs suspected of various crimes, including espionage. Now the exposure of his illegal connection with Deripaska may provide fresh insights into Trump's tainted victory.

On October 4, 2016, a month before Election Day, FBI director James Comey appointed McGonigal as special agent in charge of the FBI counterintelligence division in New York City, an exceptionally influential job that he took over at an extraordinarily sensitive moment. The bureau already had open investigations of both Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton and her Republican adversary Trump. The Clinton investigation concerned "her emails," of course, and the Trump investigation involved his campaign's Russian connections.

What followed McGonigal's sudden ascent to power in the New York FBI office were two seemingly separate incidents, occurring days before the election, that had a fateful impact. On October 28, Comey sent a letter to the Congress publicly announcing that the bureau had resumed its investigation of Clinton due to the discovery of a laptop owned by former Rep. Anthony Weiner, whose spouse Huma Abedin was a top Clinton aide.

Months earlier the Justice Department months had cleared Clinton of any crime, but Comey violated Justice Department guidelines in accusing her of being neglectful about classified information, though it was later revealed that her emails contained no classified documents. (That means zero, zilch, nada, none, nothing.) But then Comey was driven to examine Clinton emails on the Weiner laptop.


Comey's announcement stopped the Clinton campaign's forward momentum and almost certainly cost her the election — even though the FBI director acknowledged on November 2, days before the election, that nearly all of the data on the Weiner laptop duplicated emails the FBI already had seen. None contained any damaging information. Just as Clinton was severely damaged among swing suburban voters, Trump's base voters were galvanized.

While Comey's broadside against Clinton stunned the nation, perhaps nobody should have been shocked. Trump crony Rudolph Giuliani —who for decades maintained a close relationship with Republican-leaning officials in the New York FBI office as the former U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York — had repeatedly hinted on Fox News in the weeks before the election that the bureau was sitting on a "big surprise" that would vault his candidate to victory.


Meanwhile, on October 31, 2016, the New York Times published a front-page story on that other FBI investigation, known internally as "Crossfire Hurricane," which unlike her emails had gotten no public attention (and inspired no leaks). The headline was declarative and conclusive: "Investigating Donald Trump, F.B.I. Sees No Clear Link to Russia." That false story, exonerating Trump of Kremlin connections that we now know were extensive and incriminating, was pushed by Trump operatives and agents and clearly originated in the New York FBI counterintelligence division — which had played a key role in the beginning of Crossfire Hurricane. It quoted anonymous "law enforcement sources," which did not mean a local police lieutenant.

Before he moved on to other positions at FBI headquarters, McGonigal's career had begun in New York, where he worked closely with James Kallstrom — the right-wing ideologue who headed the New York office for decades. A bosom buddy of Giuliani and Trump, Kallstrom is suspected of leading the pressure campaign that induced Comey to reopen the Clinton investigation. The explicit threat of leaks by agents and former agents like Kallstrom, who reportedly hated Clinton, spurred Comey's disastrous decision and his public announcement, which again violated department policy against election interference.


Damning as those facts may seem, they only get us so far. There is much more to learn before we can understand the full story of 2016. The scrupulously nonpartisan presidential historian Michael Beschloss asked this week whether McGonigal's indictment will lead us closer to the truth. Will the prosecution of McGonigal reveal the details of his relationship with Deripaska, whom he had once investigated before becoming his corrupt stooge? Will Comey provide a full and honest accounting of what happened in the New York FBI office before the election? Will the New York Times examine — and disclose — how that misleading story about Trump and Russia appeared on its front page? Who briefed the Times for that bogus story?

With Trump seeking to return to the White House, the answers to those questions do not merely reckon with the past but are critical to democracy's future. The malign conspirators who first brought that would-be tyrant to power, both foreign and domestic, are sti

Not quite. There ARE worthwhile things that are best done, for various reasons, by society as a group. Those must be paid for by society, and taxes are probably the least damaging way to do so.
However, what I would like to see, and I believe this was the intention of the founders when they wrote the Constitution, is for the federal government to be limited to ONLY the activities that are EXPRESSLY given to them in WRITING within the Constitution, or amendments. And none of this 'implied' garbage the lunatic left likes to come up with.
For example, the government should be able to tax in order to pay for national defense, the postal service, border security, and the few other things written in the Constitution. EVERYTHING ELSE that Congress wants to spend money on 'for the good of society', must be paid for with voluntary contributions by the citizens. Examples would be a national highway system, space exploration, funding for medical research, etc. Anything deemed important enough to justify taxation funding would REQUIRE an amendment!
This would mean that Congress would have to CONVINCE Americans to donate money to the general fund in order pay for their projects.
Imagine that. A flat tax could be as little as 3% of each person's income. That would cover the mandated necessities of the government. But each person could make donations either into the general treasury for Congress to spend as they deem wise, or they could make specific donations for a particular project. States could make donations for highway systems. Corporations could make donations for housing projects for public transportation. If the feds can't do it efficiently, the funding simply drys up. And the government would HAVE to pay attention to the voters in order to keep them happy enough to keep on donating.
This is just an idea, and as always the devil would be in the details, but just think of it! A political playground where the players are completely dependent of making their constituents satisfied with their work.