The links provided were to provide support of claims, however, the Politifact one I chose purposefully in that case because it is still incorrect; the same could be said for the wiretapping claims. Infamously, that same site is well known for purporting that "it was not bleach" Hillary Clinton's subordinates used but a webtool called BleachBit and had previously rated that claim as "Pants on fire." of a lie when it is now no secret that they had indeed attempted to destroy evidence. They are simply not reliable sites and must be taken with added salt on anything they post; they have a motive, which is to say they will tell the truth so long as it fits their narrative.

California chose not to adhere to the President's directive? It matters [i]nothing[/i] if they think his accusations are childish, the man is still President and has an authority to direct his powers. Furthermore, California is an excellent example of the "Resistance", in that even now they are pushing their sanctuary state and city status against federal law enforcement. Is it "childish" on behalf of the government to enforce its laws, such as investigating voter fraud or immigration law, or is that what the federal government is supposed to do? I will err on the latter and that it is California that is the problem in all these examples, not every other state in the union. 

Nevertheless, let us not forget that "Russia" somehow "hacked" the election to ensure that Donald Trump won the presidency, so why do they have a need to be so defensive about an investigation into the events of 2016? Strange, that.

[quote]I really don't understand why whenever I give a statement about Trump, people here either misread what I said, or they attack liberal/democratic candidates, when as I have repeated many times, I am neither a liberal or a democrat. [/quote]
The simplest and most effective example is the prior administration and its peers, of which were very liberal Democrats. This is the same avenue of approach used by the Obama administration and its supporters post Bush administration. This is how people tend to argue or make their point, comparing the two and citing which did what better. It falls under the category of recency, but is also subject to the fact that historically, we did not know nearly as much about their operations as we do today. Information was not every hour of the day at lightning fast speed.

Furthermore, when you make a claim that the President of the United States is making "baseless" and "childish" accusations or is "an idiot", do be prepared to receive return fire at a high volume. I would think that this should be obvious by now in the current political climate, yet a statement as above leaves that to question. Additionally, you stated you voted for his competition and supported them over his campaign - do not be surprised that people will judge [i]your[/i] personal values off of that decision, even if you are an independent. I am an independent myself and I wholeheartedly back the President, not just by obligation, but because I laid out my stand for him and his identity for America. No matter what I say or do, I will be judged by the fact alone I voted for Donald Trump despite the fact that I care nothing for political parties or allegiances and only care about the nation.

As for briefings, you do recognize and realize that the longer a meeting goes on and the more material it composes itself of, the less likely it is to be successful, no? There is a reason they use bullet formats, highlight subjects, refer to specific persons with their names and roles, provide written and slideshow or teleconference material, among many others. The fact that Donald Trump has seen himself [i]this[/i] far in life, to the seat of the President of the most powerful nation on Earth, indicates to me that this is part of his system and cycle of operations, something the corporate world does in many cases its own. It is neither unusual or strange to be in a meeting and have specific blocks of business dedicated [i]solely to you[/i] which are brought up in the agenda and overview with your name; repeating said name emphasizes it to the reader to better cement its role. Being brief, concise and to the point is critical. The only reason to be present throughout is to have an idea of tangential matters or details that might be brought up only in discussion, which is to knowingly also ignore that the briefings are not just for him alone.