Mueller's Sinking Reputation

[Foxfyre]

Those who have tried to be unbiased and objective in their analysis of current events re Trump, Russia, obstruction and all the extraneous stories that have come from that, have been particularly interested in Special Counsel Mueller's methods and motives. And the possible abuses of the FISA warrant system that seems to have triggered Mueller's investigation.

Mueller concluded no Americans were culpable in any way with the very real Russian effort to interfere with our elections. That would include that the President was not culpable in any way in that.

But it seems obvious to a lot of us now that Mueller fully intended to nail President Trump with a crime. When he failed to do that he has resorted to most unprofessional obfusication and blatant suggestive innuendo which most likely would be to give the Democrats ammo to continue their efforts to take down a sitting President of the United States.

Note: having said that please spare us the whataboutisms re Clinton, Obama, etc. Let us focus on one issue at a time on the theory that two wrongs don't make a right or whatever.

One of the most insidious possible charges that may be true: Mueller knew a year ago that there was no evidence identifying President Trump or anybody else with the Russians. That should have been made public before the 2018 midterms. It was unconscionable that it was not.

In an essay in today's Real Clear Politics:

. . . Mueller should have known at least a year ago, and perhaps earlier, that Trump and his senior aides never cooperated with the Russians. He had a duty, Republicans say, to disclose that in a timely way to the American public. He failed in that duty, leaving an unnecessary cloud over Trump and impeding his presidency. Why? And why didn’t Rod Rosenstein, who was supervising the investigation for the Department of Justice, step in and resolve these issues?. . .

. . .Perhaps the worst self-inflicted damage was Mueller’s “not not guilty” statement about Trump. His exact quote: “If we had had confidence that the president clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so.” That statement is a frontal assault on the oldest, deepest principles of Western law:

• No one has to prove their innocence; everyone is presumed innocent until proven guilty, and that includes the president, Supreme Court nominees, and anyone else; and
• Prosecutors should never pronounce guilt before a verdict or assert someone committed crimes or “bad acts” without charging them. Either charge a crime or shut up. Mueller missed an excellent opportunity to shut up.

In violating these fundamental legal principles, Mueller mirrored the infamous 2016 press conference by then-FBI Director James Comey, where he detailed Hillary Clinton’s (alleged) misdeeds and then declined to charge her. The charging decision should have been made by the DoJ, not the FBI, and the allegations should never have been mentioned unless they were charged. Comey’s press conference is an act that will live in infamy.
Mueller's Sinking Reputation | RealClearPolitics​

Currently there are two investigations in progress re all this:

--misuse/abuse of the FISA court and warrants conducted by I.G. Michael Horowitz which will determine if key players instigating the investigation of the Trump campaign did that
and
--investigation of the origination of the Russia hoax investigation by Special Prosecutor John Durham that many hope will reveal political motivation, corruption, and malfeasance in the Russia investigation.

For sure those who are publicly accused and are innocent should be publicly exonerated. And those who are guilty should be exposed. I have become jaded and skeptical that those who misuse and abuse government powers for their own self interests will ever be brought to justice. But I hold out a glimmer of hope maybe?

Time will tell.

Anybody want to speculate on what the results will be? The poll is designed for multiple choice and for any who want to change their vote to do so.

 

[the other mike]

I like Jimmy Dore's take on it.

 

[BlackFlag]

Those who have tried to be unbiased and objective in their analysis of current events re Trump, Russia, obstruction and all the extraneous stories that have come from that, have been particularly interested in Special Counsel Mueller's methods and motives.

So he concluded no Americans were culpable in any way with the real Russian effort to interfere with our elections. That would include the President.

But it seems obvious to a lot of us now that Mueller fully intended to nail President Trump with a crime. When he failed to do that he has resorted to most unprofessional obfusication and blatant suggestive innuendo which most likely would be to give the Democrats ammo to continue their efforts to take down a sitting President of the United States.

Note: having said that please spare us the whataboutisms re Clinton, Obama, etc. Let us focus on one issue at a time on the theory that two wrongs don't make a right or whatever.

One of the most insidious possible charges that may be true: Mueller knew a year ago that there was no evidence identifying President Trump or anybody else with the Russians. That should have been made public before the 2018 midterms. It was unconscionable that it was not.

In an essay in today's Real Clear Politics:

. . . Mueller should have known at least a year ago, and perhaps earlier, that Trump and his senior aides never cooperated with the Russians. He had a duty, Republicans say, to disclose that in a timely way to the American public. He failed in that duty, leaving an unnecessary cloud over Trump and impeding his presidency. Why? And why didn’t Rod Rosenstein, who was supervising the investigation for the Department of Justice, step in and resolve these issues?. . .

. . .Perhaps the worst self-inflicted damage was Mueller’s “not not guilty” statement about Trump. His exact quote: “If we had had confidence that the president clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so.” That statement is a frontal assault on the oldest, deepest principles of Western law:

• No one has to prove their innocence; everyone is presumed innocent until proven guilty, and that includes the president, Supreme Court nominees, and anyone else; and
• Prosecutors should never pronounce guilt before a verdict or assert someone committed crimes or “bad acts” without charging them. Either charge a crime or shut up. Mueller missed an excellent opportunity to shut up.

In violating these fundamental legal principles, Mueller mirrored the infamous 2016 press conference by then-FBI Director James Comey, where he detailed Hillary Clinton’s (alleged) misdeeds and then declined to charge her. The charging decision should have been made by the DoJ, not the FBI, and the allegations should never have been mentioned unless they were charged. Comey’s press conference is an act that will live in infamy.​

Currently there are two investigations in progress re all this:

--misuse/abuse of the FISA court and warrants conducted by I.G. Michael Horowitz which will determine if key players instigating the investigation of the Trump campaign did that
and
--investigation of the origination of the Russia hoax investigation by Special Prosecutor John Durham that many hope will reveal political motivation, corruption, and malfeasance in the Russia investigation.

For sure those who are publicly accused and are innocent should be publicly exonerated. And those who are guilty should be exposed. I have become jaded and skeptical that those who misuse and abuse government powers for their own self interests will ever be brought to justice. But I hold at a glimmer of hope maybe?

Time will tell.

Anybody want to speculate on what the results will be? The poll is designed for multiple choice and for any who want to change their vote to do so.

^ wildly speculative, partisan opinion

 

[Foxfyre]

I like Jimmy Dore's take on it.

I don't want to take the time to watch a whole long segment. Can you summarize it?

 

[basquebromance]

Mueller needs to send a letter of apology to Trump, he needs to apologize to The Big Kahuna, & all the American people for wasting their time & money.

Hey Bob, where's my f*cking letter?!

 

[Foxfyre]

Those who have tried to be unbiased and objective in their analysis of current events re Trump, Russia, obstruction and all the extraneous stories that have come from that, have been particularly interested in Special Counsel Mueller's methods and motives.

So he concluded no Americans were culpable in any way with the real Russian effort to interfere with our elections. That would include the President.

But it seems obvious to a lot of us now that Mueller fully intended to nail President Trump with a crime. When he failed to do that he has resorted to most unprofessional obfusication and blatant suggestive innuendo which most likely would be to give the Democrats ammo to continue their efforts to take down a sitting President of the United States.

Note: having said that please spare us the whataboutisms re Clinton, Obama, etc. Let us focus on one issue at a time on the theory that two wrongs don't make a right or whatever.

One of the most insidious possible charges that may be true: Mueller knew a year ago that there was no evidence identifying President Trump or anybody else with the Russians. That should have been made public before the 2018 midterms. It was unconscionable that it was not.

In an essay in today's Real Clear Politics:

. . . Mueller should have known at least a year ago, and perhaps earlier, that Trump and his senior aides never cooperated with the Russians. He had a duty, Republicans say, to disclose that in a timely way to the American public. He failed in that duty, leaving an unnecessary cloud over Trump and impeding his presidency. Why? And why didn’t Rod Rosenstein, who was supervising the investigation for the Department of Justice, step in and resolve these issues?. . .

. . .Perhaps the worst self-inflicted damage was Mueller’s “not not guilty” statement about Trump. His exact quote: “If we had had confidence that the president clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so.” That statement is a frontal assault on the oldest, deepest principles of Western law:

• No one has to prove their innocence; everyone is presumed innocent until proven guilty, and that includes the president, Supreme Court nominees, and anyone else; and
• Prosecutors should never pronounce guilt before a verdict or assert someone committed crimes or “bad acts” without charging them. Either charge a crime or shut up. Mueller missed an excellent opportunity to shut up.

In violating these fundamental legal principles, Mueller mirrored the infamous 2016 press conference by then-FBI Director James Comey, where he detailed Hillary Clinton’s (alleged) misdeeds and then declined to charge her. The charging decision should have been made by the DoJ, not the FBI, and the allegations should never have been mentioned unless they were charged. Comey’s press conference is an act that will live in infamy.​

Currently there are two investigations in progress re all this:

--misuse/abuse of the FISA court and warrants conducted by I.G. Michael Horowitz which will determine if key players instigating the investigation of the Trump campaign did that
and
--investigation of the origination of the Russia hoax investigation by Special Prosecutor John Durham that many hope will reveal political motivation, corruption, and malfeasance in the Russia investigation.

For sure those who are publicly accused and are innocent should be publicly exonerated. And those who are guilty should be exposed. I have become jaded and skeptical that those who misuse and abuse government powers for their own self interests will ever be brought to justice. But I hold at a glimmer of hope maybe?

Time will tell.

Anybody want to speculate on what the results will be? The poll is designed for multiple choice and for any who want to change their vote to do so.

^ wildly speculative, partisan opinion

What is wildly speculative, partisan opinion?

 

[Dick Foster]

This poll should have allowed multiple choices as in there were FISA abuses and it most definitely was politically motivated.
Hang that bastard!

 

[Foxfyre]

Mueller needs to send a letter of apology to Trump, he needs to apologize to The Big Kahuna, & all the American people for wasting their time & money.

Hey Bob, where's my f*cking letter?!

The worst accusations I have seen leveled against Mueller is his participation in what amounted to a bloodless coup of the government by attempting to illegally and maliciously destroy a lawfully elected and installed President of the United States.

If that is true, would a letter of apology be enough?

 

[Foxfyre]

This poll should have allowed multiple choices as in there were FISA abuses and it most definitely was politically motivated.
Hang that bastard!

Alas, the thread posted itself before I had completed the poll. But if there were abuses, it will be pretty obvious that they were politically motivated I think.

 

[gipper]

Those who have tried to be unbiased and objective in their analysis of current events re Trump, Russia, obstruction and all the extraneous stories that have come from that, have been particularly interested in Special Counsel Mueller's methods and motives.

So he concluded no Americans were culpable in any way with the real Russian effort to interfere with our elections. That would include the President.

But it seems obvious to a lot of us now that Mueller fully intended to nail President Trump with a crime. When he failed to do that he has resorted to most unprofessional obfusication and blatant suggestive innuendo which most likely would be to give the Democrats ammo to continue their efforts to take down a sitting President of the United States.

Note: having said that please spare us the whataboutisms re Clinton, Obama, etc. Let us focus on one issue at a time on the theory that two wrongs don't make a right or whatever.

One of the most insidious possible charges that may be true: Mueller knew a year ago that there was no evidence identifying President Trump or anybody else with the Russians. That should have been made public before the 2018 midterms. It was unconscionable that it was not.

In an essay in today's Real Clear Politics:

. . . Mueller should have known at least a year ago, and perhaps earlier, that Trump and his senior aides never cooperated with the Russians. He had a duty, Republicans say, to disclose that in a timely way to the American public. He failed in that duty, leaving an unnecessary cloud over Trump and impeding his presidency. Why? And why didn’t Rod Rosenstein, who was supervising the investigation for the Department of Justice, step in and resolve these issues?. . .

. . .Perhaps the worst self-inflicted damage was Mueller’s “not not guilty” statement about Trump. His exact quote: “If we had had confidence that the president clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so.” That statement is a frontal assault on the oldest, deepest principles of Western law:

• No one has to prove their innocence; everyone is presumed innocent until proven guilty, and that includes the president, Supreme Court nominees, and anyone else; and
• Prosecutors should never pronounce guilt before a verdict or assert someone committed crimes or “bad acts” without charging them. Either charge a crime or shut up. Mueller missed an excellent opportunity to shut up.

In violating these fundamental legal principles, Mueller mirrored the infamous 2016 press conference by then-FBI Director James Comey, where he detailed Hillary Clinton’s (alleged) misdeeds and then declined to charge her. The charging decision should have been made by the DoJ, not the FBI, and the allegations should never have been mentioned unless they were charged. Comey’s press conference is an act that will live in infamy.​

Currently there are two investigations in progress re all this:

--misuse/abuse of the FISA court and warrants conducted by I.G. Michael Horowitz which will determine if key players instigating the investigation of the Trump campaign did that
and
--investigation of the origination of the Russia hoax investigation by Special Prosecutor John Durham that many hope will reveal political motivation, corruption, and malfeasance in the Russia investigation.

For sure those who are publicly accused and are innocent should be publicly exonerated. And those who are guilty should be exposed. I have become jaded and skeptical that those who misuse and abuse government powers for their own self interests will ever be brought to justice. But I hold at a glimmer of hope maybe?

Time will tell.

Anybody want to speculate on what the results will be? The poll is designed for multiple choice and for any who want to change their vote to do so.

^ wildly speculative, partisan opinion

What is wildly speculative, partisan opinion?

For him its anything that doesn’t nail Trump.

 

[BlackFlag]

Those who have tried to be unbiased and objective in their analysis of current events re Trump, Russia, obstruction and all the extraneous stories that have come from that, have been particularly interested in Special Counsel Mueller's methods and motives.

So he concluded no Americans were culpable in any way with the real Russian effort to interfere with our elections. That would include the President.

But it seems obvious to a lot of us now that Mueller fully intended to nail President Trump with a crime. When he failed to do that he has resorted to most unprofessional obfusication and blatant suggestive innuendo which most likely would be to give the Democrats ammo to continue their efforts to take down a sitting President of the United States.

Note: having said that please spare us the whataboutisms re Clinton, Obama, etc. Let us focus on one issue at a time on the theory that two wrongs don't make a right or whatever.

One of the most insidious possible charges that may be true: Mueller knew a year ago that there was no evidence identifying President Trump or anybody else with the Russians. That should have been made public before the 2018 midterms. It was unconscionable that it was not.

In an essay in today's Real Clear Politics:

. . . Mueller should have known at least a year ago, and perhaps earlier, that Trump and his senior aides never cooperated with the Russians. He had a duty, Republicans say, to disclose that in a timely way to the American public. He failed in that duty, leaving an unnecessary cloud over Trump and impeding his presidency. Why? And why didn’t Rod Rosenstein, who was supervising the investigation for the Department of Justice, step in and resolve these issues?. . .

. . .Perhaps the worst self-inflicted damage was Mueller’s “not not guilty” statement about Trump. His exact quote: “If we had had confidence that the president clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so.” That statement is a frontal assault on the oldest, deepest principles of Western law:

• No one has to prove their innocence; everyone is presumed innocent until proven guilty, and that includes the president, Supreme Court nominees, and anyone else; and
• Prosecutors should never pronounce guilt before a verdict or assert someone committed crimes or “bad acts” without charging them. Either charge a crime or shut up. Mueller missed an excellent opportunity to shut up.

In violating these fundamental legal principles, Mueller mirrored the infamous 2016 press conference by then-FBI Director James Comey, where he detailed Hillary Clinton’s (alleged) misdeeds and then declined to charge her. The charging decision should have been made by the DoJ, not the FBI, and the allegations should never have been mentioned unless they were charged. Comey’s press conference is an act that will live in infamy.​

Currently there are two investigations in progress re all this:

--misuse/abuse of the FISA court and warrants conducted by I.G. Michael Horowitz which will determine if key players instigating the investigation of the Trump campaign did that
and
--investigation of the origination of the Russia hoax investigation by Special Prosecutor John Durham that many hope will reveal political motivation, corruption, and malfeasance in the Russia investigation.

For sure those who are publicly accused and are innocent should be publicly exonerated. And those who are guilty should be exposed. I have become jaded and skeptical that those who misuse and abuse government powers for their own self interests will ever be brought to justice. But I hold at a glimmer of hope maybe?

Time will tell.

Anybody want to speculate on what the results will be? The poll is designed for multiple choice and for any who want to change their vote to do so.

^ wildly speculative, partisan opinion

What is wildly speculative, partisan opinion?

Your post and the entire foundation behind it. You presented your post and the referenced article as being otherwise.

 

[Foxfyre]

Those who have tried to be unbiased and objective in their analysis of current events re Trump, Russia, obstruction and all the extraneous stories that have come from that, have been particularly interested in Special Counsel Mueller's methods and motives.

So he concluded no Americans were culpable in any way with the real Russian effort to interfere with our elections. That would include the President.

But it seems obvious to a lot of us now that Mueller fully intended to nail President Trump with a crime. When he failed to do that he has resorted to most unprofessional obfusication and blatant suggestive innuendo which most likely would be to give the Democrats ammo to continue their efforts to take down a sitting President of the United States.

Note: having said that please spare us the whataboutisms re Clinton, Obama, etc. Let us focus on one issue at a time on the theory that two wrongs don't make a right or whatever.

One of the most insidious possible charges that may be true: Mueller knew a year ago that there was no evidence identifying President Trump or anybody else with the Russians. That should have been made public before the 2018 midterms. It was unconscionable that it was not.

In an essay in today's Real Clear Politics:

. . . Mueller should have known at least a year ago, and perhaps earlier, that Trump and his senior aides never cooperated with the Russians. He had a duty, Republicans say, to disclose that in a timely way to the American public. He failed in that duty, leaving an unnecessary cloud over Trump and impeding his presidency. Why? And why didn’t Rod Rosenstein, who was supervising the investigation for the Department of Justice, step in and resolve these issues?. . .

. . .Perhaps the worst self-inflicted damage was Mueller’s “not not guilty” statement about Trump. His exact quote: “If we had had confidence that the president clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so.” That statement is a frontal assault on the oldest, deepest principles of Western law:

• No one has to prove their innocence; everyone is presumed innocent until proven guilty, and that includes the president, Supreme Court nominees, and anyone else; and
• Prosecutors should never pronounce guilt before a verdict or assert someone committed crimes or “bad acts” without charging them. Either charge a crime or shut up. Mueller missed an excellent opportunity to shut up.

In violating these fundamental legal principles, Mueller mirrored the infamous 2016 press conference by then-FBI Director James Comey, where he detailed Hillary Clinton’s (alleged) misdeeds and then declined to charge her. The charging decision should have been made by the DoJ, not the FBI, and the allegations should never have been mentioned unless they were charged. Comey’s press conference is an act that will live in infamy.​

Currently there are two investigations in progress re all this:

--misuse/abuse of the FISA court and warrants conducted by I.G. Michael Horowitz which will determine if key players instigating the investigation of the Trump campaign did that
and
--investigation of the origination of the Russia hoax investigation by Special Prosecutor John Durham that many hope will reveal political motivation, corruption, and malfeasance in the Russia investigation.

For sure those who are publicly accused and are innocent should be publicly exonerated. And those who are guilty should be exposed. I have become jaded and skeptical that those who misuse and abuse government powers for their own self interests will ever be brought to justice. But I hold at a glimmer of hope maybe?

Time will tell.

Anybody want to speculate on what the results will be? The poll is designed for multiple choice and for any who want to change their vote to do so.

^ wildly speculative, partisan opinion

What is wildly speculative, partisan opinion?

Your post and the entire foundation behind it. You presented your post and the referenced article as being otherwise.

Perhaps you can point out the speculative points that I did not indicate were speculative? And what is partisan?

 

[BlackFlag]

Those who have tried to be unbiased and objective in their analysis of current events re Trump, Russia, obstruction and all the extraneous stories that have come from that, have been particularly interested in Special Counsel Mueller's methods and motives.

So he concluded no Americans were culpable in any way with the real Russian effort to interfere with our elections. That would include the President.

But it seems obvious to a lot of us now that Mueller fully intended to nail President Trump with a crime. When he failed to do that he has resorted to most unprofessional obfusication and blatant suggestive innuendo which most likely would be to give the Democrats ammo to continue their efforts to take down a sitting President of the United States.

Note: having said that please spare us the whataboutisms re Clinton, Obama, etc. Let us focus on one issue at a time on the theory that two wrongs don't make a right or whatever.

One of the most insidious possible charges that may be true: Mueller knew a year ago that there was no evidence identifying President Trump or anybody else with the Russians. That should have been made public before the 2018 midterms. It was unconscionable that it was not.

In an essay in today's Real Clear Politics:

. . . Mueller should have known at least a year ago, and perhaps earlier, that Trump and his senior aides never cooperated with the Russians. He had a duty, Republicans say, to disclose that in a timely way to the American public. He failed in that duty, leaving an unnecessary cloud over Trump and impeding his presidency. Why? And why didn’t Rod Rosenstein, who was supervising the investigation for the Department of Justice, step in and resolve these issues?. . .

. . .Perhaps the worst self-inflicted damage was Mueller’s “not not guilty” statement about Trump. His exact quote: “If we had had confidence that the president clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so.” That statement is a frontal assault on the oldest, deepest principles of Western law:

• No one has to prove their innocence; everyone is presumed innocent until proven guilty, and that includes the president, Supreme Court nominees, and anyone else; and
• Prosecutors should never pronounce guilt before a verdict or assert someone committed crimes or “bad acts” without charging them. Either charge a crime or shut up. Mueller missed an excellent opportunity to shut up.

In violating these fundamental legal principles, Mueller mirrored the infamous 2016 press conference by then-FBI Director James Comey, where he detailed Hillary Clinton’s (alleged) misdeeds and then declined to charge her. The charging decision should have been made by the DoJ, not the FBI, and the allegations should never have been mentioned unless they were charged. Comey’s press conference is an act that will live in infamy.​

Currently there are two investigations in progress re all this:

--misuse/abuse of the FISA court and warrants conducted by I.G. Michael Horowitz which will determine if key players instigating the investigation of the Trump campaign did that
and
--investigation of the origination of the Russia hoax investigation by Special Prosecutor John Durham that many hope will reveal political motivation, corruption, and malfeasance in the Russia investigation.

For sure those who are publicly accused and are innocent should be publicly exonerated. And those who are guilty should be exposed. I have become jaded and skeptical that those who misuse and abuse government powers for their own self interests will ever be brought to justice. But I hold at a glimmer of hope maybe?

Time will tell.

Anybody want to speculate on what the results will be? The poll is designed for multiple choice and for any who want to change their vote to do so.

^ wildly speculative, partisan opinion

What is wildly speculative, partisan opinion?

Your post and the entire foundation behind it. You presented your post and the referenced article as being otherwise.

Perhaps you can point out the speculative points that I did not indicate were speculative? And what is partisan?

If all your points are speculative, you shouldn’t care that I pointed that out. The partisan article you linked to is not speculative. It is accusatory.

 

[the other mike]

Former Intel Officer Tony Shaffer on Spying on Trump Campaign
18:00 to 24:00

 

[MACAULAY]

There must be indictments, handcuffs, perp walks very soon or this Republic is lost.

If you can corrupt the Justice Department, then you are one step away from tyranny---which is why they rode Nixon out of town on a rail for just trying.

Obama did it (with the help of the Race Card) the day he appointed Eric Holder---and 8 years of their criminality has filled the Justice Department and FBI up with their sycophants.

What happens in the next couple of months will determine if this Country can ever recover from those 8 years of rampant criminality by Obama/Holder/Lynch/Comey/Brennan/Clapper/Rice/Strzok/Page and quite a few others they appointed or promoted.

Lord help Trump and Barr as they try to save the country.

 

[basquebromance]

Mueller needs to send a letter of apology to Trump, he needs to apologize to The Big Kahuna, & all the American people for wasting their time & money.

Hey Bob, where's my f*cking letter?!

The worst accusations I have seen leveled against Mueller is his participation in what amounted to a bloodless coup of the government by attempting to illegally and maliciously destroy a lawfully elected and installed President of the United States.

If that is true, would a letter of apology be enough?

if he says "i apologize to the big kahuna" in his letter to trump then all is forgiven!

 

[Foxfyre]

Those who have tried to be unbiased and objective in their analysis of current events re Trump, Russia, obstruction and all the extraneous stories that have come from that, have been particularly interested in Special Counsel Mueller's methods and motives.

So he concluded no Americans were culpable in any way with the real Russian effort to interfere with our elections. That would include the President.

But it seems obvious to a lot of us now that Mueller fully intended to nail President Trump with a crime. When he failed to do that he has resorted to most unprofessional obfusication and blatant suggestive innuendo which most likely would be to give the Democrats ammo to continue their efforts to take down a sitting President of the United States.

Note: having said that please spare us the whataboutisms re Clinton, Obama, etc. Let us focus on one issue at a time on the theory that two wrongs don't make a right or whatever.

One of the most insidious possible charges that may be true: Mueller knew a year ago that there was no evidence identifying President Trump or anybody else with the Russians. That should have been made public before the 2018 midterms. It was unconscionable that it was not.

In an essay in today's Real Clear Politics:

. . . Mueller should have known at least a year ago, and perhaps earlier, that Trump and his senior aides never cooperated with the Russians. He had a duty, Republicans say, to disclose that in a timely way to the American public. He failed in that duty, leaving an unnecessary cloud over Trump and impeding his presidency. Why? And why didn’t Rod Rosenstein, who was supervising the investigation for the Department of Justice, step in and resolve these issues?. . .

. . .Perhaps the worst self-inflicted damage was Mueller’s “not not guilty” statement about Trump. His exact quote: “If we had had confidence that the president clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so.” That statement is a frontal assault on the oldest, deepest principles of Western law:

• No one has to prove their innocence; everyone is presumed innocent until proven guilty, and that includes the president, Supreme Court nominees, and anyone else; and
• Prosecutors should never pronounce guilt before a verdict or assert someone committed crimes or “bad acts” without charging them. Either charge a crime or shut up. Mueller missed an excellent opportunity to shut up.

In violating these fundamental legal principles, Mueller mirrored the infamous 2016 press conference by then-FBI Director James Comey, where he detailed Hillary Clinton’s (alleged) misdeeds and then declined to charge her. The charging decision should have been made by the DoJ, not the FBI, and the allegations should never have been mentioned unless they were charged. Comey’s press conference is an act that will live in infamy.​

Currently there are two investigations in progress re all this:

--misuse/abuse of the FISA court and warrants conducted by I.G. Michael Horowitz which will determine if key players instigating the investigation of the Trump campaign did that
and
--investigation of the origination of the Russia hoax investigation by Special Prosecutor John Durham that many hope will reveal political motivation, corruption, and malfeasance in the Russia investigation.

For sure those who are publicly accused and are innocent should be publicly exonerated. And those who are guilty should be exposed. I have become jaded and skeptical that those who misuse and abuse government powers for their own self interests will ever be brought to justice. But I hold at a glimmer of hope maybe?

Time will tell.

Anybody want to speculate on what the results will be? The poll is designed for multiple choice and for any who want to change their vote to do so.

^ wildly speculative, partisan opinion

What is wildly speculative, partisan opinion?

Your post and the entire foundation behind it. You presented your post and the referenced article as being otherwise.

Perhaps you can point out the speculative points that I did not indicate were speculative? And what is partisan?

If all your points are speculative, you shouldn’t care that I pointed that out. The partisan article you linked to is not speculative. It is accusatory.

I didn't say I cared because I don't. I don't know Professor Lipson's political affiliation but I think he was pretty accurate in his scholarship so far. He was not advocating for any political party but was simply outlining where the Democrats and especially the Republican are on all of this at this time.

Can you identify anything in his essay that is anyway untrue? That leaves out any mitigating or extenuating circumstances?

The investigations are being conducted. If Horowitz's investigation and Durham's investigation are politically motivated, then for sure Mueller's investigation was politically motivated. Would you disagree with that?

I personally do care and want malfeasance in our government on ALL sides exposed and eliminated as much as possible.

 

[Dick Foster]

I don't want to be too picky but I have another point regarding this thread.. It's the title this time. How can one be sinking if they're already on the bottom? What's lower than pond scum?

 

[Foxfyre]

There must be indictments, handcuffs, perp walks very soon or this Republic is lost.

If you can corrupt the Justice Department, then you are one step away from tyranny---which is why they rode Nixon out of town on a rail for just trying.

Obama did it (with the help of the Race Card) the day he appointed Eric Holder---and 8 years of their criminality has filled the Justice Department and FBI up with their sycophants.

What happens in the next couple of months will determine if this Country can ever recover from those 8 years of rampant criminality by Obama/Holder/Lynch/Comey/Brennan/Clapper/Rice/Strzok/Page and quite a few others they appointed or promoted.

Lord help Trump and Barr as they try to save the country.

I am praying for honesty, accuracy, and justice to be the ultimate result of all of this. I am not at all certain that the corruption stopped when President Trump was inaugurated though. The dismissal in disgrace of so many high level FBI and other Justice Dept. officials that were kept on and the probability that that particular pond of the swamp has not yet been fully cleaned, indicates that we have had a significant problem.

 

[Foxfyre]

I don't want to be too picky but I have another point regarding this thread.. It's the title this time. How can one be sinking if they're already on the bottom? What's lower than pond scum?

I don't think Mueller's reputation is anywhere near the bottom yet. But obviously many people who trusted him to be honorable have had their faith in him shaken.