Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Then why did Democrats contest the election? Why did all the supposed “fair and accurate polls” show Hillary winning...when the opposite was so obviously true? $$$ and Democratic lies. “Keep Trump voters home...build perception that race is already over.” But the American people stood strong. No Democrats...you cannot steal an election.Real Question: “Involved in What?” Hillary lost. Give it up. Russian’s had nothing to do with it. Gay pride parades, and BLM burning down legit businesses...That had everything to do with it. The Left has no leadership capabilities.
This isn't about overturning an election. That won't happen. People voted. The votes are not disputed. Hillary lost.
This is about insuring our electoral integrity in future elections.
Opposition to the investigation is not obstruction of justice.Actually...that statement is inaccurately framed.
Nunes talking to Trump isn't a crime.
Lynch talking to Clinton isn't a crime.
But if Nunes was talking to Trump about obstructing the Russia investigation...that could be a crime.
And if Lynch was talking with Clinton about suppressing the Clinton investigation...that could be a crime.
No it isn't.
But actively attempting to obstruct/derail it...is. Things like pressuring officials to stop, demands of personal loyalty...lying to the FBI...those are concerns.
There is to date no evidence that the Trump campaign, transition team or administration committed any crime in collusion with the Russian government or that it supported any cover up of any crime committed by anyone associated with it, and since there never was a legitimate legal reason to begin the investigation, if justice were the goal, there never would have been an investigation.
All of that is part of an ongoing active investigation so we aren't going to be privy to much evidence. To be honest, I strongly suspect that the investigation will reveal some interesting things. Like money laundering. The sanctions effected the Russian oligarchs and government quite a bit, and it wouldn't surprise me - given the lack of transparency into his finances - if Trump and some of his campaign members were involved. But that is just guessing. There was a powerful legal reason to begin the investigation - I can't believe you wouldn't acknowledge it - and that is the Russian attempt to influence our election in Trump's favor. This has been by now, well documented. That doesn't mean Trump colluded but it very surely means it needs to be looked at if our electoral process is to retain any integrity in the future. Mueller's mandate is to oversee the investigation into Russian tampering in the 2016 presidential election. And that includes looking at the various campaigns.
Justice comes later - when people are indicted, tried and convicted or exonerated. Justice is preceded by investigation.
The major crime committed was by the FBI when it committed perjury to obtain a surveillance warrant and
Specifically - what perjury? Do you have access to the FISA warrent because as of this point, it has not been released and if it has not been you have no way of knowing what evidence was given to obtain it.
On the other hand - we DO know that:
Michael Flynn has pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI (that is a crime).
George Papadopoulous has pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI (that is a crime).
Paul Manafort has been indicted on multiple charges which including money laundering, conspiracy and tax fraud. (all serious crimes).
Since there never was a reasonable basis for suspecting that the Trump campaign, transition team or administration had committed a crime in collusion with the Russian government, the investigation, itself, is a violation of the Constitution and is a crime.
I would say there is a reasonable basis - more than reasonable. In fact - if it were Clinton and not Trump, I'm sure you'd be all in.
Why is that you people ignore that fact that the crimes Manfort is accused of happened long before he ever even met Donald Trump? He shouldn't even be in the discussion!
He's in the discussion because he was a significant person on Trump's campaign team and he was involved with Russia. It's reasonable to include him based on that alone if you are going to examine everyone who might possibly be involved.
He was a campaign manager recommended to Trump by others. When his background was discovered, he was removed post haste!
Why can't you be honest for once in your miserable, liberalism-infested life?
I can never understand why liberals are such pathological liars. Did your parents dribble your tiny little heads on the floor and render you incapable of any intelligence and sense of honesty?
People are not going to risk death to take my stuff.Because somebody will eventually show up to take your stuff, and you're going to want some backup.if justice is not served what are the implications?
Why should I follow any of their laws as long as I’m not causing any harm to person or property?
Then why did Democrats contest the election? Why did all the supposed “fair and accurate polls” show Hillary winning...when the opposite was so obviously true? $$$ and Democratic lies. “Keep Trump voters home...build perception that race is already over.” But the American people stood strong. No Democrats...you cannot steal an election.Real Question: “Involved in What?” Hillary lost. Give it up. Russian’s had nothing to do with it. Gay pride parades, and BLM burning down legit businesses...That had everything to do with it. The Left has no leadership capabilities.
This isn't about overturning an election. That won't happen. People voted. The votes are not disputed. Hillary lost.
This is about insuring our electoral integrity in future elections.
It’s exactly the point. Democrats can’t accept democracy in action.Grasping at straws. The Russians turned how many votes? Zero. Clinton’s were out of touch with mainstream Americans...and they lost. That’s it. Nothing more.Opposition to the investigation is not obstruction of justice.
No it isn't.
But actively attempting to obstruct/derail it...is. Things like pressuring officials to stop, demands of personal loyalty...lying to the FBI...those are concerns.
There is to date no evidence that the Trump campaign, transition team or administration committed any crime in collusion with the Russian government or that it supported any cover up of any crime committed by anyone associated with it, and since there never was a legitimate legal reason to begin the investigation, if justice were the goal, there never would have been an investigation.
All of that is part of an ongoing active investigation so we aren't going to be privy to much evidence. To be honest, I strongly suspect that the investigation will reveal some interesting things. Like money laundering. The sanctions effected the Russian oligarchs and government quite a bit, and it wouldn't surprise me - given the lack of transparency into his finances - if Trump and some of his campaign members were involved. But that is just guessing. There was a powerful legal reason to begin the investigation - I can't believe you wouldn't acknowledge it - and that is the Russian attempt to influence our election in Trump's favor. This has been by now, well documented. That doesn't mean Trump colluded but it very surely means it needs to be looked at if our electoral process is to retain any integrity in the future. Mueller's mandate is to oversee the investigation into Russian tampering in the 2016 presidential election. And that includes looking at the various campaigns.
Justice comes later - when people are indicted, tried and convicted or exonerated. Justice is preceded by investigation.
The major crime committed was by the FBI when it committed perjury to obtain a surveillance warrant and
Specifically - what perjury? Do you have access to the FISA warrent because as of this point, it has not been released and if it has not been you have no way of knowing what evidence was given to obtain it.
On the other hand - we DO know that:
Michael Flynn has pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI (that is a crime).
George Papadopoulous has pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI (that is a crime).
Paul Manafort has been indicted on multiple charges which including money laundering, conspiracy and tax fraud. (all serious crimes).
Since there never was a reasonable basis for suspecting that the Trump campaign, transition team or administration had committed a crime in collusion with the Russian government, the investigation, itself, is a violation of the Constitution and is a crime.
I would say there is a reasonable basis - more than reasonable. In fact - if it were Clinton and not Trump, I'm sure you'd be all in.
Why is that you people ignore that fact that the crimes Manfort is accused of happened long before he ever even met Donald Trump? He shouldn't even be in the discussion!
He's in the discussion because he was a significant person on Trump's campaign team and he was involved with Russia. It's reasonable to include him based on that alone if you are going to examine everyone who might possibly be involved.
That is not the point dude. The election is OVER (which reminds me isn't it time you guys got over blaming everything on Hillary?). She lost. Get over it. Trump won fair and square.
It’s exactly the point. Democrats can’t accept democracy in action.Grasping at straws. The Russians turned how many votes? Zero. Clinton’s were out of touch with mainstream Americans...and they lost. That’s it. Nothing more.No it isn't.
But actively attempting to obstruct/derail it...is. Things like pressuring officials to stop, demands of personal loyalty...lying to the FBI...those are concerns.
All of that is part of an ongoing active investigation so we aren't going to be privy to much evidence. To be honest, I strongly suspect that the investigation will reveal some interesting things. Like money laundering. The sanctions effected the Russian oligarchs and government quite a bit, and it wouldn't surprise me - given the lack of transparency into his finances - if Trump and some of his campaign members were involved. But that is just guessing. There was a powerful legal reason to begin the investigation - I can't believe you wouldn't acknowledge it - and that is the Russian attempt to influence our election in Trump's favor. This has been by now, well documented. That doesn't mean Trump colluded but it very surely means it needs to be looked at if our electoral process is to retain any integrity in the future. Mueller's mandate is to oversee the investigation into Russian tampering in the 2016 presidential election. And that includes looking at the various campaigns.
Justice comes later - when people are indicted, tried and convicted or exonerated. Justice is preceded by investigation.
Specifically - what perjury? Do you have access to the FISA warrent because as of this point, it has not been released and if it has not been you have no way of knowing what evidence was given to obtain it.
On the other hand - we DO know that:
Michael Flynn has pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI (that is a crime).
George Papadopoulous has pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI (that is a crime).
Paul Manafort has been indicted on multiple charges which including money laundering, conspiracy and tax fraud. (all serious crimes).
I would say there is a reasonable basis - more than reasonable. In fact - if it were Clinton and not Trump, I'm sure you'd be all in.
Why is that you people ignore that fact that the crimes Manfort is accused of happened long before he ever even met Donald Trump? He shouldn't even be in the discussion!
He's in the discussion because he was a significant person on Trump's campaign team and he was involved with Russia. It's reasonable to include him based on that alone if you are going to examine everyone who might possibly be involved.
That is not the point dude. The election is OVER (which reminds me isn't it time you guys got over blaming everything on Hillary?). She lost. Get over it. Trump won fair and square.
Opposition to the investigation is not obstruction of justice.
No it isn't.
But actively attempting to obstruct/derail it...is. Things like pressuring officials to stop, demands of personal loyalty...lying to the FBI...those are concerns.
There is to date no evidence that the Trump campaign, transition team or administration committed any crime in collusion with the Russian government or that it supported any cover up of any crime committed by anyone associated with it, and since there never was a legitimate legal reason to begin the investigation, if justice were the goal, there never would have been an investigation.
All of that is part of an ongoing active investigation so we aren't going to be privy to much evidence. To be honest, I strongly suspect that the investigation will reveal some interesting things. Like money laundering. The sanctions effected the Russian oligarchs and government quite a bit, and it wouldn't surprise me - given the lack of transparency into his finances - if Trump and some of his campaign members were involved. But that is just guessing. There was a powerful legal reason to begin the investigation - I can't believe you wouldn't acknowledge it - and that is the Russian attempt to influence our election in Trump's favor. This has been by now, well documented. That doesn't mean Trump colluded but it very surely means it needs to be looked at if our electoral process is to retain any integrity in the future. Mueller's mandate is to oversee the investigation into Russian tampering in the 2016 presidential election. And that includes looking at the various campaigns.
Justice comes later - when people are indicted, tried and convicted or exonerated. Justice is preceded by investigation.
The major crime committed was by the FBI when it committed perjury to obtain a surveillance warrant and
Specifically - what perjury? Do you have access to the FISA warrent because as of this point, it has not been released and if it has not been you have no way of knowing what evidence was given to obtain it.
On the other hand - we DO know that:
Michael Flynn has pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI (that is a crime).
George Papadopoulous has pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI (that is a crime).
Paul Manafort has been indicted on multiple charges which including money laundering, conspiracy and tax fraud. (all serious crimes).
Since there never was a reasonable basis for suspecting that the Trump campaign, transition team or administration had committed a crime in collusion with the Russian government, the investigation, itself, is a violation of the Constitution and is a crime.
I would say there is a reasonable basis - more than reasonable. In fact - if it were Clinton and not Trump, I'm sure you'd be all in.
Why is that you people ignore that fact that the crimes Manfort is accused of happened long before he ever even met Donald Trump? He shouldn't even be in the discussion!
He's in the discussion because he was a significant person on Trump's campaign team and he was involved with Russia. It's reasonable to include him based on that alone if you are going to examine everyone who might possibly be involved.
He was a campaign manager recommended to Trump by others. When his background was discovered, he was removed post haste!
Why can't you be honest for once in your miserable, liberalism-infested life?
I can never understand why liberals are such pathological liars. Did your parents dribble your tiny little heads on the floor and render you incapable of any intelligence and sense of honesty?
You just don't get it.
Every connection has to be examined.
And please, spare me the faux outrage, tuck your overly abused dicks back in your pants and use your god given brains. For someone who chucks guilt by association at others like rice in a wedding, you come off as blatently dishonest.
Opposition to the investigation is not obstruction of justice.
No it isn't.
But actively attempting to obstruct/derail it...is. Things like pressuring officials to stop, demands of personal loyalty...lying to the FBI...those are concerns.
There is to date no evidence that the Trump campaign, transition team or administration committed any crime in collusion with the Russian government or that it supported any cover up of any crime committed by anyone associated with it, and since there never was a legitimate legal reason to begin the investigation, if justice were the goal, there never would have been an investigation.
All of that is part of an ongoing active investigation so we aren't going to be privy to much evidence. To be honest, I strongly suspect that the investigation will reveal some interesting things. Like money laundering. The sanctions effected the Russian oligarchs and government quite a bit, and it wouldn't surprise me - given the lack of transparency into his finances - if Trump and some of his campaign members were involved. But that is just guessing. There was a powerful legal reason to begin the investigation - I can't believe you wouldn't acknowledge it - and that is the Russian attempt to influence our election in Trump's favor. This has been by now, well documented. That doesn't mean Trump colluded but it very surely means it needs to be looked at if our electoral process is to retain any integrity in the future. Mueller's mandate is to oversee the investigation into Russian tampering in the 2016 presidential election. And that includes looking at the various campaigns.
Justice comes later - when people are indicted, tried and convicted or exonerated. Justice is preceded by investigation.
The major crime committed was by the FBI when it committed perjury to obtain a surveillance warrant and
Specifically - what perjury? Do you have access to the FISA warrent because as of this point, it has not been released and if it has not been you have no way of knowing what evidence was given to obtain it.
On the other hand - we DO know that:
Michael Flynn has pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI (that is a crime).
George Papadopoulous has pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI (that is a crime).
Paul Manafort has been indicted on multiple charges which including money laundering, conspiracy and tax fraud. (all serious crimes).
Since there never was a reasonable basis for suspecting that the Trump campaign, transition team or administration had committed a crime in collusion with the Russian government, the investigation, itself, is a violation of the Constitution and is a crime.
I would say there is a reasonable basis - more than reasonable. In fact - if it were Clinton and not Trump, I'm sure you'd be all in.
Why is that you people ignore that fact that the crimes Manfort is accused of happened long before he ever even met Donald Trump? He shouldn't even be in the discussion!
He's in the discussion because he was a significant person on Trump's campaign team and he was involved with Russia. It's reasonable to include him based on that alone if you are going to examine everyone who might possibly be involved.
He was a campaign manager recommended to Trump by others. When his background was discovered, he was removed post haste!
Why can't you be honest for once in your miserable, liberalism-infested life?
I can never understand why liberals are such pathological liars. Did your parents dribble your tiny little heads on the floor and render you incapable of any intelligence and sense of honesty?
Yes...like Stzroke was...but that doesn't hinder you guys in your relentless quest for alternate facts.
Once again you sound like Beria telling Stalin, show me the man and I'll show you the crime. The investigation was supposed to investigate whether the Trump campaign, transition team or administration colluded with the Russian government to commit any crimes, and there has never been a single piece of evidence to suggest this was true. When you say Trump is the subject of the investigation, you are essentially agreeing with me that this investigation is a way of using the FBI/Justice as a way of taking down a political opponent and you approve of this.That's a nice list of all your suspicions and biases, but since there never was a legitimate legal reason to open the investigation and the FBI/Justice cannot investigate everything about everyone without a reasonable suspicion a crime has been committed, ending the investigation cannot reasonable be called obstruction of Justice. It is more reasonably called obstructing a miscarriage of Justice. The US Justice Department cannot legally operate on the, show me the man and I'll show you the crime, basis you seem to be advocating.Opposition to the investigation is not obstruction of justice.What we know is that Nunes didn't commit a crime by talking to Trump, but if Lynch and Clinton were talking about suppressing the investigation into the Clinton campaign to influence the campaign that is a crime.
Actually...that statement is inaccurately framed.
Nunes talking to Trump isn't a crime.
Lynch talking to Clinton isn't a crime.
But if Nunes was talking to Trump about obstructing the Russia investigation...that could be a crime.
And if Lynch was talking with Clinton about suppressing the Clinton investigation...that could be a crime.
No it isn't.
But actively attempting to obstruct/derail it...is. Things like pressuring officials to stop, demands of personal loyalty...lying to the FBI...those are concerns.
There is to date no evidence that the Trump campaign, transition team or administration committed any crime in collusion with the Russian government or that it supported any cover up of any crime committed by anyone associated with it, and since there never was a legitimate legal reason to begin the investigation, if justice were the goal, there never would have been an investigation.
All of that is part of an ongoing active investigation so we aren't going to be privy to much evidence. To be honest, I strongly suspect that the investigation will reveal some interesting things. Like money laundering. The sanctions effected the Russian oligarchs and government quite a bit, and it wouldn't surprise me - given the lack of transparency into his finances - if Trump and some of his campaign members were involved. But that is just guessing. There was a powerful legal reason to begin the investigation - I can't believe you wouldn't acknowledge it - and that is the Russian attempt to influence our election in Trump's favor. This has been by now, well documented. That doesn't mean Trump colluded but it very surely means it needs to be looked at if our electoral process is to retain any integrity in the future. Mueller's mandate is to oversee the investigation into Russian tampering in the 2016 presidential election. And that includes looking at the various campaigns.
Justice comes later - when people are indicted, tried and convicted or exonerated. Justice is preceded by investigation.
The major crime committed was by the FBI when it committed perjury to obtain a surveillance warrant and
Specifically - what perjury? Do you have access to the FISA warrent because as of this point, it has not been released and if it has not been you have no way of knowing what evidence was given to obtain it.
On the other hand - we DO know that:
Michael Flynn has pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI (that is a crime).
George Papadopoulous has pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI (that is a crime).
Paul Manafort has been indicted on multiple charges which including money laundering, conspiracy and tax fraud. (all serious crimes).
Since there never was a reasonable basis for suspecting that the Trump campaign, transition team or administration had committed a crime in collusion with the Russian government, the investigation, itself, is a violation of the Constitution and is a crime.
I would say there is a reasonable basis - more than reasonable. In fact - if it were Clinton and not Trump, I'm sure you'd be all in.
No. It's a list of actual crimes. Lying to the FBI is a crime. Nothing to do with suspicions and bias'. It is either a lie or the truth. That one is pretty clear cut. And, you seem to forget Carter Page was on the radar since 2013. Again, not my bias but a fact.
When the subject of the investigation uses his power to prematurely end it it can be reasonably called obstruction. Did Clinton, in Whitewater investigation (lasting several years) attempt this? How about Clinton with Benghazi?
All this raises a bigger questions - why do you guys, who dragged Benghazi out for 17 months, want to end this one? Don't you want the truth to be known? Whether it's good or bad?
I'm arguing this: follow the evidence - be thorough - be professional. Mueller certainly is. And to add to the lopsided situation he happens to be Republican as was Comey which makes it harder to discredit them with bias.
Nonsense, we both know it is a miscarriage of justice but you approve of it and I don't.It is not a crime for Nunes to consult with the WH and it is not a crime to end an investigation that is, itself, a miscarriage of justice.Deciding to end the investigation does not constitute obstruction of justice. If it were, every police chief or district attorney who ever ended an investigation would be guilty of obstruction of justice. Clearly, there are times when some investigations should be ended, and this is certainly one of those times. In fact, since there was never a legitimate legal reason for beginning it, the investigation, itself is a miscarriage of justice.Once again, it is not a crime. Misrepresenting the Steele dossier to a court to obtain a warrant is a crime, perjury, and it is a violation of the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution. Committing this crime in such a politically charged case, raises serious questions about the integrity of the FBI/Justice and its ability to abide by its duty to protect the Constitution of the US. Questions like, how high up in the Justice Department did the decision to commit perjury go? Did persons, such as Rosenstein learn about the perjury and try to cover it up? These questions can only be properly answered by a special commission empowered to investigate and prosecute all crimes connected with this original crime of perjury that holds public hearings.
Obstruction of justice IS a crime.
Consulting the White House in order to try and create a fake smokescreen to try to get support to end the investigation... when he had no place to be consulting the White House in the first place.
Which is not fact, but your opinion.
Who might be involved in what? Exactly what crime might he be involved in that also involves the Trump campaign.Opposition to the investigation is not obstruction of justice.What we know is that Nunes didn't commit a crime by talking to Trump, but if Lynch and Clinton were talking about suppressing the investigation into the Clinton campaign to influence the campaign that is a crime.
Actually...that statement is inaccurately framed.
Nunes talking to Trump isn't a crime.
Lynch talking to Clinton isn't a crime.
But if Nunes was talking to Trump about obstructing the Russia investigation...that could be a crime.
And if Lynch was talking with Clinton about suppressing the Clinton investigation...that could be a crime.
No it isn't.
But actively attempting to obstruct/derail it...is. Things like pressuring officials to stop, demands of personal loyalty...lying to the FBI...those are concerns.
There is to date no evidence that the Trump campaign, transition team or administration committed any crime in collusion with the Russian government or that it supported any cover up of any crime committed by anyone associated with it, and since there never was a legitimate legal reason to begin the investigation, if justice were the goal, there never would have been an investigation.
All of that is part of an ongoing active investigation so we aren't going to be privy to much evidence. To be honest, I strongly suspect that the investigation will reveal some interesting things. Like money laundering. The sanctions effected the Russian oligarchs and government quite a bit, and it wouldn't surprise me - given the lack of transparency into his finances - if Trump and some of his campaign members were involved. But that is just guessing. There was a powerful legal reason to begin the investigation - I can't believe you wouldn't acknowledge it - and that is the Russian attempt to influence our election in Trump's favor. This has been by now, well documented. That doesn't mean Trump colluded but it very surely means it needs to be looked at if our electoral process is to retain any integrity in the future. Mueller's mandate is to oversee the investigation into Russian tampering in the 2016 presidential election. And that includes looking at the various campaigns.
Justice comes later - when people are indicted, tried and convicted or exonerated. Justice is preceded by investigation.
The major crime committed was by the FBI when it committed perjury to obtain a surveillance warrant and
Specifically - what perjury? Do you have access to the FISA warrent because as of this point, it has not been released and if it has not been you have no way of knowing what evidence was given to obtain it.
On the other hand - we DO know that:
Michael Flynn has pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI (that is a crime).
George Papadopoulous has pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI (that is a crime).
Paul Manafort has been indicted on multiple charges which including money laundering, conspiracy and tax fraud. (all serious crimes).
Since there never was a reasonable basis for suspecting that the Trump campaign, transition team or administration had committed a crime in collusion with the Russian government, the investigation, itself, is a violation of the Constitution and is a crime.
I would say there is a reasonable basis - more than reasonable. In fact - if it were Clinton and not Trump, I'm sure you'd be all in.
Why is that you people ignore that fact that the crimes Manfort is accused of happened long before he ever even met Donald Trump? He shouldn't even be in the discussion!
He's in the discussion because he was a significant person on Trump's campaign team and he was involved with Russia. It's reasonable to include him based on that alone if you are going to examine everyone who might possibly be involved.
Once again you sound like Beria telling Stalin, show me the man and I'll show you the crime. The investigation was supposed to investigate whether the Trump campaign, transition team or administration colluded with the Russian government to commit any crimes, and there has never been a single piece of evidence to suggest this was true. When you say Trump is the subject of the investigation, you are essentially agreeing with me that this investigation is a way of using the FBI/Justice as a way of taking down a political opponent and you approve of this.That's a nice list of all your suspicions and biases, but since there never was a legitimate legal reason to open the investigation and the FBI/Justice cannot investigate everything about everyone without a reasonable suspicion a crime has been committed, ending the investigation cannot reasonable be called obstruction of Justice. It is more reasonably called obstructing a miscarriage of Justice. The US Justice Department cannot legally operate on the, show me the man and I'll show you the crime, basis you seem to be advocating.Opposition to the investigation is not obstruction of justice.Actually...that statement is inaccurately framed.
Nunes talking to Trump isn't a crime.
Lynch talking to Clinton isn't a crime.
But if Nunes was talking to Trump about obstructing the Russia investigation...that could be a crime.
And if Lynch was talking with Clinton about suppressing the Clinton investigation...that could be a crime.
No it isn't.
But actively attempting to obstruct/derail it...is. Things like pressuring officials to stop, demands of personal loyalty...lying to the FBI...those are concerns.
There is to date no evidence that the Trump campaign, transition team or administration committed any crime in collusion with the Russian government or that it supported any cover up of any crime committed by anyone associated with it, and since there never was a legitimate legal reason to begin the investigation, if justice were the goal, there never would have been an investigation.
All of that is part of an ongoing active investigation so we aren't going to be privy to much evidence. To be honest, I strongly suspect that the investigation will reveal some interesting things. Like money laundering. The sanctions effected the Russian oligarchs and government quite a bit, and it wouldn't surprise me - given the lack of transparency into his finances - if Trump and some of his campaign members were involved. But that is just guessing. There was a powerful legal reason to begin the investigation - I can't believe you wouldn't acknowledge it - and that is the Russian attempt to influence our election in Trump's favor. This has been by now, well documented. That doesn't mean Trump colluded but it very surely means it needs to be looked at if our electoral process is to retain any integrity in the future. Mueller's mandate is to oversee the investigation into Russian tampering in the 2016 presidential election. And that includes looking at the various campaigns.
Justice comes later - when people are indicted, tried and convicted or exonerated. Justice is preceded by investigation.
The major crime committed was by the FBI when it committed perjury to obtain a surveillance warrant and
Specifically - what perjury? Do you have access to the FISA warrent because as of this point, it has not been released and if it has not been you have no way of knowing what evidence was given to obtain it.
On the other hand - we DO know that:
Michael Flynn has pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI (that is a crime).
George Papadopoulous has pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI (that is a crime).
Paul Manafort has been indicted on multiple charges which including money laundering, conspiracy and tax fraud. (all serious crimes).
Since there never was a reasonable basis for suspecting that the Trump campaign, transition team or administration had committed a crime in collusion with the Russian government, the investigation, itself, is a violation of the Constitution and is a crime.
I would say there is a reasonable basis - more than reasonable. In fact - if it were Clinton and not Trump, I'm sure you'd be all in.
No. It's a list of actual crimes. Lying to the FBI is a crime. Nothing to do with suspicions and bias'. It is either a lie or the truth. That one is pretty clear cut. And, you seem to forget Carter Page was on the radar since 2013. Again, not my bias but a fact.
When the subject of the investigation uses his power to prematurely end it it can be reasonably called obstruction. Did Clinton, in Whitewater investigation (lasting several years) attempt this? How about Clinton with Benghazi?
All this raises a bigger questions - why do you guys, who dragged Benghazi out for 17 months, want to end this one? Don't you want the truth to be known? Whether it's good or bad?
I'm arguing this: follow the evidence - be thorough - be professional. Mueller certainly is. And to add to the lopsided situation he happens to be Republican as was Comey which makes it harder to discredit them with bias.
Who might be involved in what? Exactly what crime might he be involved in that also involves the Trump campaign.Opposition to the investigation is not obstruction of justice.Actually...that statement is inaccurately framed.
Nunes talking to Trump isn't a crime.
Lynch talking to Clinton isn't a crime.
But if Nunes was talking to Trump about obstructing the Russia investigation...that could be a crime.
And if Lynch was talking with Clinton about suppressing the Clinton investigation...that could be a crime.
No it isn't.
But actively attempting to obstruct/derail it...is. Things like pressuring officials to stop, demands of personal loyalty...lying to the FBI...those are concerns.
There is to date no evidence that the Trump campaign, transition team or administration committed any crime in collusion with the Russian government or that it supported any cover up of any crime committed by anyone associated with it, and since there never was a legitimate legal reason to begin the investigation, if justice were the goal, there never would have been an investigation.
All of that is part of an ongoing active investigation so we aren't going to be privy to much evidence. To be honest, I strongly suspect that the investigation will reveal some interesting things. Like money laundering. The sanctions effected the Russian oligarchs and government quite a bit, and it wouldn't surprise me - given the lack of transparency into his finances - if Trump and some of his campaign members were involved. But that is just guessing. There was a powerful legal reason to begin the investigation - I can't believe you wouldn't acknowledge it - and that is the Russian attempt to influence our election in Trump's favor. This has been by now, well documented. That doesn't mean Trump colluded but it very surely means it needs to be looked at if our electoral process is to retain any integrity in the future. Mueller's mandate is to oversee the investigation into Russian tampering in the 2016 presidential election. And that includes looking at the various campaigns.
Justice comes later - when people are indicted, tried and convicted or exonerated. Justice is preceded by investigation.
The major crime committed was by the FBI when it committed perjury to obtain a surveillance warrant and
Specifically - what perjury? Do you have access to the FISA warrent because as of this point, it has not been released and if it has not been you have no way of knowing what evidence was given to obtain it.
On the other hand - we DO know that:
Michael Flynn has pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI (that is a crime).
George Papadopoulous has pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI (that is a crime).
Paul Manafort has been indicted on multiple charges which including money laundering, conspiracy and tax fraud. (all serious crimes).
Since there never was a reasonable basis for suspecting that the Trump campaign, transition team or administration had committed a crime in collusion with the Russian government, the investigation, itself, is a violation of the Constitution and is a crime.
I would say there is a reasonable basis - more than reasonable. In fact - if it were Clinton and not Trump, I'm sure you'd be all in.
Why is that you people ignore that fact that the crimes Manfort is accused of happened long before he ever even met Donald Trump? He shouldn't even be in the discussion!
He's in the discussion because he was a significant person on Trump's campaign team and he was involved with Russia. It's reasonable to include him based on that alone if you are going to examine everyone who might possibly be involved.
Who might be involved in what? Exactly what crime might he be involved in that also involves the Trump campaign.Opposition to the investigation is not obstruction of justice.
No it isn't.
But actively attempting to obstruct/derail it...is. Things like pressuring officials to stop, demands of personal loyalty...lying to the FBI...those are concerns.
There is to date no evidence that the Trump campaign, transition team or administration committed any crime in collusion with the Russian government or that it supported any cover up of any crime committed by anyone associated with it, and since there never was a legitimate legal reason to begin the investigation, if justice were the goal, there never would have been an investigation.
All of that is part of an ongoing active investigation so we aren't going to be privy to much evidence. To be honest, I strongly suspect that the investigation will reveal some interesting things. Like money laundering. The sanctions effected the Russian oligarchs and government quite a bit, and it wouldn't surprise me - given the lack of transparency into his finances - if Trump and some of his campaign members were involved. But that is just guessing. There was a powerful legal reason to begin the investigation - I can't believe you wouldn't acknowledge it - and that is the Russian attempt to influence our election in Trump's favor. This has been by now, well documented. That doesn't mean Trump colluded but it very surely means it needs to be looked at if our electoral process is to retain any integrity in the future. Mueller's mandate is to oversee the investigation into Russian tampering in the 2016 presidential election. And that includes looking at the various campaigns.
Justice comes later - when people are indicted, tried and convicted or exonerated. Justice is preceded by investigation.
The major crime committed was by the FBI when it committed perjury to obtain a surveillance warrant and
Specifically - what perjury? Do you have access to the FISA warrent because as of this point, it has not been released and if it has not been you have no way of knowing what evidence was given to obtain it.
On the other hand - we DO know that:
Michael Flynn has pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI (that is a crime).
George Papadopoulous has pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI (that is a crime).
Paul Manafort has been indicted on multiple charges which including money laundering, conspiracy and tax fraud. (all serious crimes).
Since there never was a reasonable basis for suspecting that the Trump campaign, transition team or administration had committed a crime in collusion with the Russian government, the investigation, itself, is a violation of the Constitution and is a crime.
I would say there is a reasonable basis - more than reasonable. In fact - if it were Clinton and not Trump, I'm sure you'd be all in.
Why is that you people ignore that fact that the crimes Manfort is accused of happened long before he ever even met Donald Trump? He shouldn't even be in the discussion!
He's in the discussion because he was a significant person on Trump's campaign team and he was involved with Russia. It's reasonable to include him based on that alone if you are going to examine everyone who might possibly be involved.
Collusion with Russia to attempt to illegally influence the election. Good lord. Lynch meets with Clinton on the tarmac and you have her indicted, tried and guilty of something. Trump and his associates meet with Russia, over matters including sanctions, hacked emails providing dirt...and...you look the other way. Dossier dirt = bad. Wikileaks dirt = good.
Who might be involved in what? Exactly what crime might he be involved in that also involves the Trump campaign.No it isn't.
But actively attempting to obstruct/derail it...is. Things like pressuring officials to stop, demands of personal loyalty...lying to the FBI...those are concerns.
All of that is part of an ongoing active investigation so we aren't going to be privy to much evidence. To be honest, I strongly suspect that the investigation will reveal some interesting things. Like money laundering. The sanctions effected the Russian oligarchs and government quite a bit, and it wouldn't surprise me - given the lack of transparency into his finances - if Trump and some of his campaign members were involved. But that is just guessing. There was a powerful legal reason to begin the investigation - I can't believe you wouldn't acknowledge it - and that is the Russian attempt to influence our election in Trump's favor. This has been by now, well documented. That doesn't mean Trump colluded but it very surely means it needs to be looked at if our electoral process is to retain any integrity in the future. Mueller's mandate is to oversee the investigation into Russian tampering in the 2016 presidential election. And that includes looking at the various campaigns.
Justice comes later - when people are indicted, tried and convicted or exonerated. Justice is preceded by investigation.
Specifically - what perjury? Do you have access to the FISA warrent because as of this point, it has not been released and if it has not been you have no way of knowing what evidence was given to obtain it.
On the other hand - we DO know that:
Michael Flynn has pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI (that is a crime).
George Papadopoulous has pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI (that is a crime).
Paul Manafort has been indicted on multiple charges which including money laundering, conspiracy and tax fraud. (all serious crimes).
I would say there is a reasonable basis - more than reasonable. In fact - if it were Clinton and not Trump, I'm sure you'd be all in.
Why is that you people ignore that fact that the crimes Manfort is accused of happened long before he ever even met Donald Trump? He shouldn't even be in the discussion!
He's in the discussion because he was a significant person on Trump's campaign team and he was involved with Russia. It's reasonable to include him based on that alone if you are going to examine everyone who might possibly be involved.
Collusion with Russia to attempt to illegally influence the election. Good lord. Lynch meets with Clinton on the tarmac and you have her indicted, tried and guilty of something. Trump and his associates meet with Russia, over matters including sanctions, hacked emails providing dirt...and...you look the other way. Dossier dirt = bad. Wikileaks dirt = good.
So why did Bill Clinton lie about their meeting in Phoenix?
He said they discussed their grandchildren. That's great except for the fact that Lynch doesn't have any!
You said, "When the subject of the investigation uses his power to prematurely end it it can be reasonably called obstruction." If you didn't mean Trump, then who did you mean?Once again you sound like Beria telling Stalin, show me the man and I'll show you the crime. The investigation was supposed to investigate whether the Trump campaign, transition team or administration colluded with the Russian government to commit any crimes, and there has never been a single piece of evidence to suggest this was true. When you say Trump is the subject of the investigation, you are essentially agreeing with me that this investigation is a way of using the FBI/Justice as a way of taking down a political opponent and you approve of this.That's a nice list of all your suspicions and biases, but since there never was a legitimate legal reason to open the investigation and the FBI/Justice cannot investigate everything about everyone without a reasonable suspicion a crime has been committed, ending the investigation cannot reasonable be called obstruction of Justice. It is more reasonably called obstructing a miscarriage of Justice. The US Justice Department cannot legally operate on the, show me the man and I'll show you the crime, basis you seem to be advocating.Opposition to the investigation is not obstruction of justice.
No it isn't.
But actively attempting to obstruct/derail it...is. Things like pressuring officials to stop, demands of personal loyalty...lying to the FBI...those are concerns.
There is to date no evidence that the Trump campaign, transition team or administration committed any crime in collusion with the Russian government or that it supported any cover up of any crime committed by anyone associated with it, and since there never was a legitimate legal reason to begin the investigation, if justice were the goal, there never would have been an investigation.
All of that is part of an ongoing active investigation so we aren't going to be privy to much evidence. To be honest, I strongly suspect that the investigation will reveal some interesting things. Like money laundering. The sanctions effected the Russian oligarchs and government quite a bit, and it wouldn't surprise me - given the lack of transparency into his finances - if Trump and some of his campaign members were involved. But that is just guessing. There was a powerful legal reason to begin the investigation - I can't believe you wouldn't acknowledge it - and that is the Russian attempt to influence our election in Trump's favor. This has been by now, well documented. That doesn't mean Trump colluded but it very surely means it needs to be looked at if our electoral process is to retain any integrity in the future. Mueller's mandate is to oversee the investigation into Russian tampering in the 2016 presidential election. And that includes looking at the various campaigns.
Justice comes later - when people are indicted, tried and convicted or exonerated. Justice is preceded by investigation.
The major crime committed was by the FBI when it committed perjury to obtain a surveillance warrant and
Specifically - what perjury? Do you have access to the FISA warrent because as of this point, it has not been released and if it has not been you have no way of knowing what evidence was given to obtain it.
On the other hand - we DO know that:
Michael Flynn has pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI (that is a crime).
George Papadopoulous has pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI (that is a crime).
Paul Manafort has been indicted on multiple charges which including money laundering, conspiracy and tax fraud. (all serious crimes).
Since there never was a reasonable basis for suspecting that the Trump campaign, transition team or administration had committed a crime in collusion with the Russian government, the investigation, itself, is a violation of the Constitution and is a crime.
I would say there is a reasonable basis - more than reasonable. In fact - if it were Clinton and not Trump, I'm sure you'd be all in.
No. It's a list of actual crimes. Lying to the FBI is a crime. Nothing to do with suspicions and bias'. It is either a lie or the truth. That one is pretty clear cut. And, you seem to forget Carter Page was on the radar since 2013. Again, not my bias but a fact.
When the subject of the investigation uses his power to prematurely end it it can be reasonably called obstruction. Did Clinton, in Whitewater investigation (lasting several years) attempt this? How about Clinton with Benghazi?
All this raises a bigger questions - why do you guys, who dragged Benghazi out for 17 months, want to end this one? Don't you want the truth to be known? Whether it's good or bad?
I'm arguing this: follow the evidence - be thorough - be professional. Mueller certainly is. And to add to the lopsided situation he happens to be Republican as was Comey which makes it harder to discredit them with bias.
I did not say Trump was the subject of the investigation.
Trump is one of many being looked at and most likely (if he can keep his tweet shut) peripheral. But I could be wrong.
So far we have not seen a single piece of evidence of any collusion between the Trump campaign, transition team or administration with the Russian government. Furthermore, collusion with Russia to try to influence the election is not a crime in itself. It would have had to involve a specific criminal act, such as complicity with Russia to hack the DNC server. So unless Comey and by extension Mueller have been investigating whether the Trump campaign participated in the hacking of the DNC server, there was no legitimate legal basis for the investigation in the first place, and if that was what they were investigating, the investigation would have closed a year ago.Who might be involved in what? Exactly what crime might he be involved in that also involves the Trump campaign.Opposition to the investigation is not obstruction of justice.
No it isn't.
But actively attempting to obstruct/derail it...is. Things like pressuring officials to stop, demands of personal loyalty...lying to the FBI...those are concerns.
There is to date no evidence that the Trump campaign, transition team or administration committed any crime in collusion with the Russian government or that it supported any cover up of any crime committed by anyone associated with it, and since there never was a legitimate legal reason to begin the investigation, if justice were the goal, there never would have been an investigation.
All of that is part of an ongoing active investigation so we aren't going to be privy to much evidence. To be honest, I strongly suspect that the investigation will reveal some interesting things. Like money laundering. The sanctions effected the Russian oligarchs and government quite a bit, and it wouldn't surprise me - given the lack of transparency into his finances - if Trump and some of his campaign members were involved. But that is just guessing. There was a powerful legal reason to begin the investigation - I can't believe you wouldn't acknowledge it - and that is the Russian attempt to influence our election in Trump's favor. This has been by now, well documented. That doesn't mean Trump colluded but it very surely means it needs to be looked at if our electoral process is to retain any integrity in the future. Mueller's mandate is to oversee the investigation into Russian tampering in the 2016 presidential election. And that includes looking at the various campaigns.
Justice comes later - when people are indicted, tried and convicted or exonerated. Justice is preceded by investigation.
The major crime committed was by the FBI when it committed perjury to obtain a surveillance warrant and
Specifically - what perjury? Do you have access to the FISA warrent because as of this point, it has not been released and if it has not been you have no way of knowing what evidence was given to obtain it.
On the other hand - we DO know that:
Michael Flynn has pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI (that is a crime).
George Papadopoulous has pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI (that is a crime).
Paul Manafort has been indicted on multiple charges which including money laundering, conspiracy and tax fraud. (all serious crimes).
Since there never was a reasonable basis for suspecting that the Trump campaign, transition team or administration had committed a crime in collusion with the Russian government, the investigation, itself, is a violation of the Constitution and is a crime.
I would say there is a reasonable basis - more than reasonable. In fact - if it were Clinton and not Trump, I'm sure you'd be all in.
Why is that you people ignore that fact that the crimes Manfort is accused of happened long before he ever even met Donald Trump? He shouldn't even be in the discussion!
He's in the discussion because he was a significant person on Trump's campaign team and he was involved with Russia. It's reasonable to include him based on that alone if you are going to examine everyone who might possibly be involved.
Collusion with Russia to attempt to illegally influence the election. Good lord. Lynch meets with Clinton on the tarmac and you have her indicted, tried and guilty of something. Trump and his associates meet with Russia, over matters including sanctions, hacked emails providing dirt...and...you look the other way. Dossier dirt = bad. Wikileaks dirt = good.
Please...some cheese with your whine? Look up election 2000...great example of left trying to steal an election.Real Question: “Involved in What?” Hillary lost. Give it up. Russian’s had nothing to do with it. Gay pride parades, and BLM burning down legit businesses...That had everything to do with it. The Left has no leadership capabilities.
This isn't about overturning an election. That won't happen. People voted. The votes are not disputed. Hillary lost.
This is about insuring our electoral integrity in future elections.
Excuse me...my dick is not “overly abused.” It is however, “properly used.”Opposition to the investigation is not obstruction of justice.
No it isn't.
But actively attempting to obstruct/derail it...is. Things like pressuring officials to stop, demands of personal loyalty...lying to the FBI...those are concerns.
There is to date no evidence that the Trump campaign, transition team or administration committed any crime in collusion with the Russian government or that it supported any cover up of any crime committed by anyone associated with it, and since there never was a legitimate legal reason to begin the investigation, if justice were the goal, there never would have been an investigation.
All of that is part of an ongoing active investigation so we aren't going to be privy to much evidence. To be honest, I strongly suspect that the investigation will reveal some interesting things. Like money laundering. The sanctions effected the Russian oligarchs and government quite a bit, and it wouldn't surprise me - given the lack of transparency into his finances - if Trump and some of his campaign members were involved. But that is just guessing. There was a powerful legal reason to begin the investigation - I can't believe you wouldn't acknowledge it - and that is the Russian attempt to influence our election in Trump's favor. This has been by now, well documented. That doesn't mean Trump colluded but it very surely means it needs to be looked at if our electoral process is to retain any integrity in the future. Mueller's mandate is to oversee the investigation into Russian tampering in the 2016 presidential election. And that includes looking at the various campaigns.
Justice comes later - when people are indicted, tried and convicted or exonerated. Justice is preceded by investigation.
The major crime committed was by the FBI when it committed perjury to obtain a surveillance warrant and
Specifically - what perjury? Do you have access to the FISA warrent because as of this point, it has not been released and if it has not been you have no way of knowing what evidence was given to obtain it.
On the other hand - we DO know that:
Michael Flynn has pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI (that is a crime).
George Papadopoulous has pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI (that is a crime).
Paul Manafort has been indicted on multiple charges which including money laundering, conspiracy and tax fraud. (all serious crimes).
Since there never was a reasonable basis for suspecting that the Trump campaign, transition team or administration had committed a crime in collusion with the Russian government, the investigation, itself, is a violation of the Constitution and is a crime.
I would say there is a reasonable basis - more than reasonable. In fact - if it were Clinton and not Trump, I'm sure you'd be all in.
Why is that you people ignore that fact that the crimes Manfort is accused of happened long before he ever even met Donald Trump? He shouldn't even be in the discussion!
He's in the discussion because he was a significant person on Trump's campaign team and he was involved with Russia. It's reasonable to include him based on that alone if you are going to examine everyone who might possibly be involved.
He was a campaign manager recommended to Trump by others. When his background was discovered, he was removed post haste!
Why can't you be honest for once in your miserable, liberalism-infested life?
I can never understand why liberals are such pathological liars. Did your parents dribble your tiny little heads on the floor and render you incapable of any intelligence and sense of honesty?
You just don't get it.
Every connection has to be examined.
And please, spare me the faux outrage, tuck your overly abused dicks back in your pants and use your god given brains. For someone who chucks guilt by association at others like rice in a wedding, you come off as blatently dishonest.
