Mueller Investigation

Literally every Democrat and a handful of Republicans are too

By all means. it won't show what you and Alex Jones fantasize about so its all good with me.

All of this constitutes perfectly legit reasons for investigation, although as far as anyone can tell it was mostly ignored until Pap ggot drunk and ran his mouth:
https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2018/07/10/trump-russia-jonathan-chait-218966
It's almost a year old but all the broad-daylight connections are still a part of the historical record.

Maybe we should take another look at Whitewater while we're about it!

No.
For starters, it was never a "get Trump!" conspiracy. The IC established pretty unequivocally that the elections were attacked and it was necessary to know the details of that with an eye towards holding those responsible to account. Which he did, in terms of already on the books charges and convictions, to an extent not seen since Watergate (consider for comparison Iran Contra in which basically everyone got away with everything). That's real and necessary work apart from what the "political classes" were and are obsessed with.

Finding him innocent because he is innocent is a wonderful thing.
Finding him innocent in spite of guilt by parsing the language is the worst possible outcome.

and that idea is rank bullshit of the most reprehensible sort.

What sort of colossal moron wants a known murderer to sit in the office for 4 years just because venal partisans in his own party refuse to remove him?

The "policy" is horseshit.

You didn't read Dayton3's post, either that or you didn't understand it.

Nova lives in a fantasy world where she thinks that a political party, in particular the GOP, would stand by and let a known murderer be President. Because of her mental derangement when it comes to politics she literally expects that Trump could murder someone and the GOP would clap.

Nova doesn't understand that if Trump murdered someone while president he'd be out of office in less than a month. No one would support him. In fact you could even make a case that the 25th Amendment in this situation would be faster than regular impeachment since the VP and the cabinet would want nothing to do with Trump. They would claim he's nutty and the proof is he murdered someone and that would be that. Congress would meet because POTUS might fight it but that would just be more proof he's bat-shit crazy and they'd vote to keep him out of office.

Nova also doesn't understand why you can't indict a sitting President. It's not because they are above the law but because they are the head of the executive branch and if they are dealing with a criminal trial what are they not dealing with? Their job as POTUS.

In the legislative branch you have 435 representatives and 100 senators. One of them is charged with a crime? No big deal. You still have 534 other people to run that branch of government. In the judicial branch you have almost a 1000 judges from circuit court judges all the way up to SCOTUS. One of them is charged with a crime? No big deal. You still have almost 999 other judges to run that branch of government.

In the executive branch? You only have one person. The President. Not even the VP or cabinet members can do the presidents job. There are things under the law that only POTUS can do. So if POTUS is tied up in a criminal trial POTUS is not concentrating on being POTUS but on being a criminal defendant. Than of course there is the chance a president in such a situation might do something recklessly stupid that endangers the country.

Charging POTUS with a crime and forcing them into a criminal trial would bring the country to a halt. Nothing would get done.

If they truly have committed a crime they would be booted out. The party of POTUS would have no problem doing it if only to save their own necks in the election.

Edit: And Nova refuses to understand that old cliche "you reap what you sow" applies to politics a lot. Charge Trump with a crime? Okay. We'll see what happens when a Democrat becomes President. Better be ready for it.

Re the "obstruction" theories being thrown around, the Barr letter specifically said:

"Our determination was made without regard to, and is not based on, the constitutional considerations that surround the indictment and criminal prosecution of a sitting president." [So Mueller/Barr did not rely on the oft cited internal memo in making their determination.]

Also keep in mind it's made greatly difficult to establish any kind of case of "obstruction" when the underlying basis of the "justice" being obstructed turns out to be a myth not based on any facts or evidence or even reality as it turned out. Real life and common sense pragmatism has a funny way of creeping into the practice of law in contrast to the strictly literal perspective often imputed by partisan laymen. And anyway things like repeated tweets scorning the mueller probe as fraudulent or mocking disparagement of government investigators as witchhunters and charlatans simply doesn't come close to forming basis for a charge of 'obstruction.'

Oh, and remember the Head of CIA Brennan who was responsible for US counter-intelligence during the entire time Russia tried to interfere with the election? Even that fathead pundit Brennan, who's lied to CNN viewers for years that there was evidence of collusion, recently said 'oops, boy was I dumb shithead for spouting theories without even a shred of proof or factual basis, or outright lying when it suited me.' [paraphrased to reduce brainhurt from doublespeak]

“I don't know if I received bad information, but I think I suspected there was more than there actually was,” Brennan told MSNBC’s “Morning Joe.”



This is one guy I really hope sees the inside of a prison cell before he dies of old age.

Perhaps that was Brennan's actual quote, but I prefer my paraphrasing.

It's one thing if he was recklessly speculating (or lying) about Venezuela or Honduras, or someplace small and relatively unimportant. Russia has nukes, and messing around with peace and truth with such grave stakes makes Brennan's reckless comments rise almost to the level of criminal stupidity, or more seriously sedition (short of treason since we're not at war with Russia, no thanks to that fathead Brennan). This was some very serious shit which I hope has consequences, and it's my error and weakness to crack wiseass about it, I wouldn't do that in RL.

Your claim was that Wikileaks knowingly acted as an agent of Russian intelligence. There is no claim in what you quoted that Wikileaks knew that the source was Russian intelligence, or that they were acting as their agent.

The did commie Rick, they absolutely did, so shut the fuck up and go back to sucking Putin’s cock.

Hell, if anything is established as simply a historical fact that is, so shut your cock holster.

Ok, I'm going to confess to being unsure here, I know we've established wikileaks was used by Russian intelligence, but to my mind that in itself isn't a big deal. I'd be more surprised if it wasn't, along Facebook and Twitter and in line with half the other intelligence agencies operating around the world, making use of underground media sources is a well established strategy in subterfuge.

The key difference is the question of whether wikileaks voluntarily and knowingly cooperated or were being misled, used or manipulated. @Elwood you as an ex law enforcement officer should be well aware the question of what people did or didn't know is of paramount importance in establishing guilt.

@RickDeckard is declaring they did not, @Dinner is declaring the opposite (in pretty unnecessary terms it would seem), but what, if anything in the report are we basing these assertions on?

The problem is that's a quite nuanced statement which is being read more simply as "no collusion".

By "Treason", I meant the collusion with Russia...not the obstruction of justice. As far as obstruction goes, it sounds a lot like your standard prosecutorial discression to me.

You're making the mistake of approaching this from a rational, intelligent perspective. Remember: at a minimum, 36% of Americans don't possess those qualities. (Source: Trump's latest approval ratings).

But there is evidence of collusion. See the Trump Tower meeting emails. At the very least, they were interested in colluding with Russia to get dirt on Hillary.

This thing is - that isn't really a crime and evidence of collusion doesn't mean there was enough evidence to charge a crime. Remember, most of the arrests in this are related to covering up the collusion, not the collusion itself.

I love how you lefties were all over Mueller as being your hero. He could do no wrong in your eyes.

Now that he found no collusion you are turning on him or outright ignoring him.

How can you ignore what you can't even read?

Lol

It's this kind of reaction that really exposes the political corruption for what it is. Once again, if Trump were an honest man, he would be eternally grateful to an investigation that exposed so many of his most trusted partners and advisers as criminals. If his supporters considered him honorable, they would expect him to act accordingly. Instead they cast the relationship between this President and the law as obviously antagonistic, considering Mueller an enemy for looking for the truth and -- according to Trump -- finding it.

like I always say - leave it to the Democrats to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. It's their election to lose if they play things smart, but they won't.

You're only saying that because it's been well established that you fuck rottweilers. I saw the report. Shame on you.

[plus I saw the bitch, she was fat and ugly, how could you?]