Mike, do you think I would wait to meet the guy before forming an opinion of him???

How else does one form an opinion in nearly all cases other then on what someone else wrote??

As it was, at the time I read the article in reader digest, I had never heard of him.

I never expected to hear of him again..He was simply emoting on how he should own all of Manhattan..

I cared no a bit. I did see him in real life. about 20 feet away at the final 4 basketball in Minneapolis..

He had some companions fawning over him and doing his "I am so great" act in the lobby of Target center..

Or maybe it was NBA playoff.. ???

It no doubt surprises you, but I consider all news slanted and I have from my U of MN days..

So while I do get a lot of input from CNN, i like the layout of their pages, I get no cable and also watch BBC, PBS and networks..

I try to see logic and hence truth in the news casts and have dismissed some from CNN.. They do not like trump and his demeaning them and trying to forbid them from gaining access did not help the relationship..

HA HA HA,,<< STUCK in the world of make believe... are you having fun yet? court rooms ahead, will the color them orange??

There's only one particularly prominent investigation going on in the US right now, and it's one that Trump is right in the middle of. Sadly for him, it can't really be considered partisan: traditionally, an investigation with a Republican administration involved would be run by a Democrat. Instead, a Republican President appointed a Republican AG, who in turn appointed an Assistant AG who thereby empowered a Republican Special Investigator to look into the possibility of foreign interference in a Presidential election, and to follow any leads, direct or otherwise, that might stem from that investigation.

Partisan? No: what we have now is a Republican President as a subject of a Republican-led investigation.

Bear in mind that this is the same man who (still) often leads his supporters in chants of "Lock her up!" at his political rallies, and who has often used suggestion of criminal misconduct by those who disagree with him as a means of slander. He has attacked President Obama, Hilary Clinton, even James Comey, all suggesting that they have engaged in high levels of criminal activity, yet without providing any evidence of this that would trigger the DOJ to act on it. For someone who is apparently against 'partisan investigations', he sure seems quick to point the finger - particularly for a man who has many close allies and colleagues currently under indictment, and for a man who has even been implicated in several criminal activities himself. Funny, that.

Trump is well aware that his actions both before and during his time as President have not been particularly above-board. He also knows that the priority of the Democrats in the House is now to reassert the oversight prerogatives that the Republicans have largely been ignoring (in their complicity of Trump's actions) over the past two years. If any President had done half of what Trump has done, you could guarantee that hearings and impeachments would have been the result - hell, look at what was done to Bill Clinton. The restoration of the Democrats to congressional authority was largely on the basis of trying to regulate the President's overreach of authority, and ensure that he is held responsible for his actions - and the Democrats would be failing in their duty to the electorate not to follow through.