GOP congressman Issa calls for special counsel on Trump and Russia

"They came to us, they approached us for putting that story out there," said White House spokeswoman Sarah Sanders, speaking on ABC's This Week. "I think the American people deserve to know the truth. And that's exactly what it is, that there's nothing here. Just because reporters say something over and over and over again doesn't start to make it true."

Congressional Democrats have long called for an outside investigation.

House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., speaking on ABC's This Week, said there should be at least an "independent commission" designed "to study the personal, political, and financial relationship between President Trump and the Russians."

New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, R-N.J., an ally of Trump, told CNN's State of the Union that the Justice Department has plenty of career, non-partisan professionals to conduct this type of investigation. He also said that past independent counsel investigations have generated problems of their own.

"When a special prosecutor gets involved," Christie said, things could get "completely out of control."

>>115703
Yeah when one of the most notable people defending you against claims of corruption ends up being Chris Christie, you gotta be in for some shit.

Honestly I'm surprised that nobody has told him to shut the fuck up yet. The "problems" he's trying illuminate were the result of him actually using his power like a spoiled idiot.

>>115745
It works both ways. As long the GOP can point to Congressional ideologues like Pelosi and say only they are the ones calling for an independent investigation, then there will never be one.

>>115702
>One of Nixon's advisers on the Watergate counsel is saying it's a cover up
>Even George W Bush is asking for an investigation now
Dude. How can they keep getting away with this lmao.

You'd think they are just digging themselves a deeper whole and are ending up putting themselves in the crossfires. But of course somehow they are all going to get off scot free just like when the housing market bubble crashed and wrecked our economy, and somehow not one major company was called out on their shit and the American people had to pay out to bail their "bankrupt" corrupt asses.

What's to bet it will be a huge scandal but all Trump administration and GOP will get is a slap on the wrist, while still autisticly chanting muh Benghazi.

the real story is Trump and friends want Dood-Frank repealed. Yes lets repeal regulation that was put in place to help prevent market crashes....GG capitalism.

>>116221
>But of course somehow they are all going to get off scot free just like when the housing market bubble crashed and wrecked our economy, and somehow not one major company was called out on their shit and the American people had to pay out to bail their "bankrupt" corrupt asses.

They got off scot free because they were promised to be absolved of blame in the original text of the Affordable Housing Act. The bailout too, was a promise made by the government, also in the AHA, to cover any losses it knew said companies were going to take engaging in the risky behavior the government wanted it to engage in so that "everyone could own a home."

You stupid fucking lemmings keep giving power to these people to perpetuate this shit and you act horrified and outraged when they don't punish each other for it.

short of a constitutional convention I don't see anyway to fix the current system. Don't get me wrong I love my country as much as the next mullet wearing Walmart loving redneck but the money is so deep rooted there is no fixing it. Its like asking the people that already won the game to change the rules of that very game.

>>116237
>Yes lets repeal regulation that was put in place to help larger banks profit while screwing over smaller banks and credit unions

Yes, lets.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/carriesheffield/2015/02/09/dodd-frank-is-killing-community-banks/#532a77673a72
https://www.cato.org/publications/research-briefs-economic-policy/how-are-small-banks-faring-under-dodd-frank

Best part: articles discussing Dodd-Frank's negative impact on smaller/community banks were also up on NYTimes and Politico, but both links found on google seem to be broken. Somehow.

http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2016/04/14/has-dodd-frank-eliminated-the-dangers-in-the-banking-system/dodd-frank-is-hurting-community-banks
http://www.politico.com/agenda/story/2016/09/community-banks-dodd-frank-000197
Google both of these URLs. You'll find results for corresponding articles, which are, again somehow, broken.

don't try to frame Dodd-Frank as targeting small business. How bout all the red tape that small businesses have to get through to even market their product or services, meanwhile in the same breath big massive corporations can wholesale buy sell and by pass said regulations through lobbyist that will support legislations meant to help those corporations. Also fun fact the min wage in 1980 has the same buying power of 16$ today but yes lets tax break the rich.

>>116242
Both those links work for me. I'm not sure what you're trying to imply.

>>116245

>Also fun fact the min wage in 1980 has the same buying power of 16$
>minimum wage in 1980 was $3.10 [https://www.dol.gov/whd/minwage/chart.htm]
>$3.10 in 1980 is worth $9.08-9.14 today depending on which calculator you use

So first of all it's barely worth half of what you say it is. That's better than the current minimum wage of $7.25, and 1980 wasn't even the highest inflation-adjusted minimum either in 1968 ($1.60, or $10.58 inflation-adjusted).

Second, the tax for the highest bracket in 1980 was 70%, which is higher than the sub-50% of the time after. In fact, since the institution of these lower rates, the inflation-adjusted value of the minimum wage steadily decreased until it evened out in 1990, where it has roughly held steady until a relatively recent spike. Again going back to 1968's record high, the top tax bracket then was over 70%. So if your argument was "wages were better when the taxes on the rich were lower," you'd be dead wrong, since the best wages were actually when top-bracket taxes were higher, though not at their highest which was during the 40's and 50's (a whopping 90% on average), during which the minimum wage went from it's worst (1948, ~$3.81 adjusted) to steadily increasing until peaking a few years after the top bracket was dropped to the 70-80% region.

>>116437

Links work for for me too.

>I'm not sure what you're trying to imply.

What else but "it's a conspiracy!"

>>116439
Not that guy, but:
>"wages were better when the taxes on the rich were lower"
I don't think that's what he was trying to say. I read it as getting at the (perceived, at least) fact that republicans tend to talk a lot about slashing regulations to "help businesses" but when given the chance mostly slash rules that were intended to keep huge corporations in check. Personally I have no doubt that there's a whole host of regulations that make conducting business harder mainly for small companies while helping few people if anyone, yet it seems like there is little political will to tackle those things.

>>116445

Aw fuck apparently I can't fucking read because I missed the "break" in his last sentence. This completely changes what he was saying, and suddenly his last sentence jives with the rest of his post.

Well I wrote up all that shit anyway, I hope people have a fun time learning about changes in the value of the minimum wage.