Trump is gonna let the Mueller investigation end all on it's own. It's obvious. All the hysteria of the past 2 weeks about his supposed impending firing of Mueller was a distraction. He was never going to fire Mueller and he's not going to

Mueller's officially end his investigation all on his own and he's gonna say he found no evidence of Trump campaign/Russian collusion during the 2016 election.

Democrats & DNC Media are going to LITERALLY have nothing coherent to say in response to that.
Mueller's team was 100% partisan.

That's why it's brilliant. NOBODY will be able to claim this team of partisan Democrats didn't go the EXTRA 20 MILES looking for ANY evidence they could find of Trump campaign/Russian collusion during the 2016 election
They looked high.

They looked low.

They looked underneath every rock, behind every tree, into every bush.

And they found...NOTHING.
Those saying Mueller will file obstruction charges against Trump: laughable.

What documents did Trump tell the Mueller team it couldn't have? What witnesses were withheld and never interviewed?

THERE WEREN'T ANY.

Mueller got full 100% cooperation as the record will show.
Not 1 indictment the Mueller team issued had anything to do with Russian collusion with the Trump campaign in 2016.

Manafort was known to be 1 of the most corrupt people in DC, doing all kinds of illegal shady stuff. No surprise he got nailed on illegal lobbying/bank fraud
EVERY OTHER INDICTMENT IS A PROCESS VIOLATION.

Perjury during questioning by FBI agents/Mueller investigators.

It's over a year since Flynn pleaded guilty to 'lying' to Peter Strzok & Joseph Pientka during an interview about phone calls to the Russian ambassador.
Flynn's sentencing is now set for Dec. 18. Unless it's changed again, as Mueller's team desperately plays 'hide the ball' on the Strzok issue, the lead agent in the case against Flynn getting his ass FIRED from the FBI for violating all kinds of rules and protocols.
Papadopoulos was entrapped the same way. Like Flynn, NEVER charged with conspiracy or collusion but instead for giving several non-truthful answers during an interview. For this serious crime a judge sentenced PapaD to....14 days in jail.
Manafort: bank fraud/money laundering/tax evasion/illegal lobbying
Flynn: process perjury
PapaD: process perjury
Some lawyer who's name I don't recall at the moment: process perjury
2 dozen Russians running a troll farm: no effect on the election.
Meanwhile guess who's still out there in the weeds, getting ready to unleash hell? EVERYBODY has forgotten about him. As intended.

FISC/FUSION/STEELE/PERKINS COIE/DNC/HILLARY CAMPAIGN

He hasn't gone anywhere and he's got it all. All the fully uredacted SpyGate docs.
Reminder: Horowitz is the guy who EXPOSED the entire SpyGate plot. When he surfaced in Oct '17 after digging for more than 10 months into the evidence, he passed some on to Congress.

So people forgot about Horowitz & focused on the Congressional investigations.
Good. GOOD. That's great. Don't change a thing.

Everything you know came through Horowitz first. He's WHY Trump knows how this is going to go down when the bell is rung and the Pandora's Box gets the lid ripped off the top of it.

This is why Trump isn't worried a bit.
Trump has SEEN all the unredacted SpyGate docs. He knows exactly what they'll show. Not only was there no Russian collusion, but corrupt gov't officials in LEO/Intel agencies conspired to FAKE Russian collusion to help Hillary win the election.

Then to try to impeach him.
Trump's holding all the aces and the Democrats/SpyGate plotters are holding a shit hand.

Watch it play out.

/end

More from Brian Cates

Yes, Trump and his team had seen this stunt before. THIS time they have the Mexican gov't on our side to protect the new trade agreement.


How many got through the last time they pulled this stunt? Did they get the huge photo op of the kids being separated from their parents that they wanted?

Would people STOP PRETENDING they don't know Trump is ready for this?

Sheer panic in my mentions. 'OMG THEY GOT THROUGH A FENCE NOTHING'S GONNA STOP THEM NOW ARGLE BARGLE BARF!"

Grow the hell up.

Some of them are still coming, you say? Well my goodness, I guess that means there's nothing Trump can do now.

He's finished, isn't he? 🤔

I'm reminded again why Thomas Wictor had to frequently tell people DON'T BRING ME YOUR FEAR, I'm not interested in it. Take it somewhere else.

If this caravan actually DOES make it our border, Trump will have measures ready to deal with it.

Stop the hysteria.

More from Politics

39.1% of Democrats think that it's wrong to negatively stereotype people based on their place of birth... AND that Southerners are more racist. https://t.co/yp1hviLuBB


65.2% of Republicans think that people shouldn't be so easily offended... AND that Black Lives Matter is offensive.
https://t.co/znmVhqIaL8


64.6% of Democrats think that a woman has the right to do what she wants with her body... AND that selling organs should be illegal.

48.5% of Democrats think that a woman has the right to do what she wants with her body... AND that prostitution should be illegal.


57.9% of Republicans think that people should be free to express their opinions in the workplace... AND that athletes should not be allowed to sit or kneel during the national anthem. https://t.co/ds2ig1NJFr


Democrats: Men and women are equal in their talents and abilities. Also, women are superior. https://t.co/bEFSmqQguo
This idea - that elections should translate into policy - is not wrong at all. But political science can help explain why it's not working this way. There are three main explanations: 1. mandates are constructed, not automatic, 2. party asymmetry, 3. partisan conpetition 1/


First, party/policy mandates from elections are far from self-executing in our system. Work on mandates from Dahl to Ellis and Kirk on the history of the mandate to mine on its role in post-Nixon politics, to Peterson Grossback and Stimson all emphasize that this link is... 2/

Created deliberately and isn't always persuasive. Others have to convinced that the election meant a particular thing for it to work in a legislative context. I theorized in the immediate period of after the 2020 election that this was part of why Repubs signed on to ...3/

Trump's demonstrably false fraud nonsense - it derailed an emerging mandate news cycle. Winners of elections get what they get - institutional control - but can't expect much beyond that unless the perception of an election mandate takes hold. And it didn't. 4/

Let's turn to the legislation element of this. There's just an asymmetry in terms of passing a relief bill. Republicans are presumably less motivated to get some kind of deal passed. Democrats are more likely to want to do *something.* 5/

You May Also Like

A THREAD ON @SarangSood

Decoded his way of analysis/logics for everyone to easily understand.

Have covered:
1. Analysis of volatility, how to foresee/signs.
2. Workbook
3. When to sell options
4. Diff category of days
5. How movement of option prices tell us what will happen

1. Keeps following volatility super closely.

Makes 7-8 different strategies to give him a sense of what's going on.

Whichever gives highest profit he trades in.


2. Theta falls when market moves.
Falls where market is headed towards not on our original position.


3. If you're an options seller then sell only when volatility is dropping, there is a high probability of you making the right trade and getting profit as a result

He believes in a market operator, if market mover sells volatility Sarang Sir joins him.


4. Theta decay vs Fall in vega

Sell when Vega is falling rather than for theta decay. You won't be trapped and higher probability of making profit.
1/“What would need to be true for you to….X”

Why is this the most powerful question you can ask when attempting to reach an agreement with another human being or organization?

A thread, co-written by @deanmbrody:


2/ First, “X” could be lots of things. Examples: What would need to be true for you to

- “Feel it's in our best interest for me to be CMO"
- “Feel that we’re in a good place as a company”
- “Feel that we’re on the same page”
- “Feel that we both got what we wanted from this deal

3/ Normally, we aren’t that direct. Example from startup/VC land:

Founders leave VC meetings thinking that every VC will invest, but they rarely do.

Worse over, the founders don’t know what they need to do in order to be fundable.

4/ So why should you ask the magic Q?

To get clarity.

You want to know where you stand, and what it takes to get what you want in a way that also gets them what they want.

It also holds them (mentally) accountable once the thing they need becomes true.

5/ Staying in the context of soliciting investors, the question is “what would need to be true for you to want to invest (or partner with us on this journey, etc)?”

Multiple responses to this question are likely to deliver a positive result.