πŸ‘πŸ½πŸ‘πŸ½πŸ‘πŸ½πŸ‘πŸ½πŸ‘πŸ½πŸ‘πŸ½πŸ‘πŸ½πŸ‘πŸ½πŸ‘πŸ½πŸ‘πŸ½πŸ‘πŸ½πŸ‘πŸ½πŸ‘πŸ½πŸ‘πŸ½πŸ‘πŸ½πŸ‘πŸ½πŸ‘πŸ½

Bravo!! Much, much better! What was a flimsy analysis based on a flawed premise, has been reconstructed as a really in depth analysis based on facts, sprinkled with a few opinions, that should seem perfectly reasonable, but given the political climate you will definitely get some pushback from your Trump die hards.

Steve McGrath, reasonable Trump supporter that you are, how do you read this analysis of the current Trump Comey situation? Is it fair and balanced? (If he says it is, then I would say mission accomplished.) Steve doesn’t tolerate much hyperbole, without calling it out, but I think you have avoided most of that.

Steve is skilled at presenting reasonable arguments, on behalf of Trump. (Sometimes…the butterfly thing was just too over the top!!!) But my point is he doesn’t adopt any flawed premises, he works with the facts as they exist, he just does all of that on behalf of Trump, and I can respect that.

Larry Kelly claims to be reasonable and objective, but to me he always goes back to Trump getting a pass for everything. I can’t respect Trump getting a pass for everything. But I am curious as to how Larry would read your analysis.

In your initial analysis, you assumed both Comey and Trump were reasonable, straightforward actors in this political high drama. In this second analysis, I think you much more accurately captured who these players are, but in doing so, it seems that you are slightly biased against Trump and clearly in favor of Dems. (Which seems mildly reasonable to me, except the Dems are beside the point. They are in cahoots with the Pubs. We will not see them take any significant action on anything, especially with all of their internal problems.)

But, given your slight bias, I’m curious as to how a clear thinking Trump supporter would react to this.

Any thoughts Steve? Do you find yourself refuting parts of his analysis? And if so, is it a lawyers refutation? (Which is to say you are simply obligated to make it, or a genuine one?)

Estwald also thinks clearly and objectively in support of Trump. And is ever authentic. Is this a fair analysis Estwald? I know we can get a true and honest reaction from you, you never provide anything other.

John Hopkins is not a Trump supporter, but he thinks all of this Russia stuff is a bunch of shenanigans and a waste of time. Can you read Neville’s analysis and still think that John? I’m curious.

Working with the Light!

Get the Medium app

A button that says 'Download on the App Store', and if clicked it will lead you to the iOS App store
A button that says 'Get it on, Google Play', and if clicked it will lead you to the Google Play store