Mueller's Sinking Reputation

[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?

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

But should it be?

 

[Foxfyre]

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

Again no doubt excellent information but far too lengthy for most to listen to without knowing what they will learn from it. Please summarize so that people will be encouraged to listen.

 

[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?

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?

Many on the left get all their news from biased sources. They are never exposed to differing opinions. So upon being exposed to an unbiased source, consider it biased.

I suppose the same thing happens on the right, though it is difficult only being exposed to right wing bias with an MSM that is mostly on the left.

 

[the other mike]

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

Again no doubt excellent information but far too lengthy for most to listen to without knowing what they will learn from it. Please summarize so that people will be encouraged to listen.

In a nutshell, George Papadopoulos was set up. If the FBI knew Russians were contacting the Trump compaign, they were supposed to have told them. In other words the whole thing has been dirty from the start.

Interview with George Papadopoulos.

 

[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?

Many on the left get all their news from biased sources. They are never exposed to differing opinions. So upon being exposed to an unbiased source, consider it biased.

I suppose the same thing happens on right, though it is difficult only being exposed to right wing bias with an MSM that is mostly on the left.

That's why I read people on the left who I admire and respect such as Michael Kinsley, Camille Paglia, even Maureen Dowd has some good insight to offer now and then. I have terribly missed William Raspberry since he retired. You won't find a Trump supporter in the group, but they for the most part engage in intellectual honesty that is sorely missing from most of the stuff coming from the left. Too many who once were rational people demonstrating critical thought have succumbed to the radical left and engage in that to keep what small audiences they have.

Pretty much the ONLY access to media that isn't radical left these days are a few small newspapers, conservative talk radio, Fox News and reading the objective and I believe essentially non partisan writers like the one who inspired the OP. (And the radical left is doing their damndest to find a way to shut down any media source who doesn't agree with them.)

 

[whitehall]

I doubt if Mueller's reputation is sinking but imagine where he would stand if the liberal media was unbiased.

 

[BlackFlag]

^ 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?

Many on the left get all their news from biased sources. They are never exposed to differing opinions. So upon being exposed to an unbiased source, consider it biased.

I suppose the same thing happens on right, though it is difficult only being exposed to right wing bias with an MSM that is mostly on the left.

That's why I read people on the left who I admire and respect such as Michael Kinsley, Camille Paglia, even Maureen Dowd has some good insight to offer now and then. I have terribly missed William Raspberry since he retired. You won't find a Trump supporter in the group, but they for the most part engage in intellectual honesty that is sorely missing from most of the stuff coming from the left. Too many who once were rational people demonstrating critical thought have succumbed to the radical left and engage in that to keep what small audiences they have.

Pretty much the ONLY access to media that isn't radical left these days are a few small newspapers, conservative talk radio, Fox News and reading the objective and I believe essentially non partisan writers like the one who inspired the OP. (And the radical left is doing their damndest to find a way to shut down any media source who doesn't agree with them.)

Lol no bias here folks

 

[Mac1958]

Mueller's job is done, he may or may not have to testify, I doubt he cares about what some people think of him. I'd be shocked if he did.

 

[the other mike]

^ 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?

Many on the left get all their news from biased sources. They are never exposed to differing opinions. So upon being exposed to an unbiased source, consider it biased.

I suppose the same thing happens on right, though it is difficult only being exposed to right wing bias with an MSM that is mostly on the left.

That's why I read people on the left who I admire and respect such as Michael Kinsley, Camille Paglia, even Maureen Dowd has some good insight to offer now and then. I have terribly missed William Raspberry since he retired. You won't find a Trump supporter in the group, but they for the most part engage in intellectual honesty that is sorely missing from most of the stuff coming from the left. Too many who once were rational people demonstrating critical thought have succumbed to the radical left and engage in that to keep what small audiences they have.

Pretty much the ONLY access to media that isn't radical left these days are a few small newspapers, conservative talk radio, Fox News and reading the objective and I believe essentially non partisan writers like the one who inspired the OP. (And the radical left is doing their damndest to find a way to shut down any media source who doesn't agree with them.)

The MSM is not controlled by the 'radical left'. It is owned by 6 large companies and basically controlled by a global corporate network.

 

[Foxfyre]

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

Again no doubt excellent information but far too lengthy for most to listen to without knowing what they will learn from it. Please summarize so that people will be encouraged to listen.

In a nutshell, George Papadopoulos was set up. If the FBI knew Russians were contacting the Trump compaign, they were supposed to have told them. In other words the whole thing has been dirty from the start.

Interview with George Papadopoulos.

It definitely looks that way.

 

[Foxfyre]

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?

Many on the left get all their news from biased sources. They are never exposed to differing opinions. So upon being exposed to an unbiased source, consider it biased.

I suppose the same thing happens on right, though it is difficult only being exposed to right wing bias with an MSM that is mostly on the left.

That's why I read people on the left who I admire and respect such as Michael Kinsley, Camille Paglia, even Maureen Dowd has some good insight to offer now and then. I have terribly missed William Raspberry since he retired. You won't find a Trump supporter in the group, but they for the most part engage in intellectual honesty that is sorely missing from most of the stuff coming from the left. Too many who once were rational people demonstrating critical thought have succumbed to the radical left and engage in that to keep what small audiences they have.

Pretty much the ONLY access to media that isn't radical left these days are a few small newspapers, conservative talk radio, Fox News and reading the objective and I believe essentially non partisan writers like the one who inspired the OP. (And the radical left is doing their damndest to find a way to shut down any media source who doesn't agree with them.)

Lol no bias here folks

Really? Please point it out.

 

[Foxfyre]

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?

Many on the left get all their news from biased sources. They are never exposed to differing opinions. So upon being exposed to an unbiased source, consider it biased.

I suppose the same thing happens on right, though it is difficult only being exposed to right wing bias with an MSM that is mostly on the left.

That's why I read people on the left who I admire and respect such as Michael Kinsley, Camille Paglia, even Maureen Dowd has some good insight to offer now and then. I have terribly missed William Raspberry since he retired. You won't find a Trump supporter in the group, but they for the most part engage in intellectual honesty that is sorely missing from most of the stuff coming from the left. Too many who once were rational people demonstrating critical thought have succumbed to the radical left and engage in that to keep what small audiences they have.

Pretty much the ONLY access to media that isn't radical left these days are a few small newspapers, conservative talk radio, Fox News and reading the objective and I believe essentially non partisan writers like the one who inspired the OP. (And the radical left is doing their damndest to find a way to shut down any media source who doesn't agree with them.)

The MSM is not controlled by the 'radical left'. It is owned by 6 large companies and basically controlled by a global corporate network.

That would make a good thread topic but doesn't really fit into this one I think.

 

[Kilroy2]

And the possible abuses of the FISA warrant system that seems to have triggered Mueller's investigation.

In the realm of fantasy, possible means it hasn't been proven but just is just a conspiracy repeated when nothing has been proven

 

[easyt65]

Treating Manafort worse than Charles Manson by moving him from a minimum security prison in Pa to solitary confinement at Riker's island is helping sink Mueller's reputation and credibility as anything other than a vindictive a$$hole who went after Trump and any of his associates he could possibly punish politically. Even D-AOC blasted Mueller for engaging in 'torture' and has called for Manafort's entire release from prison.

On top of that, news broke that one of Mueller's top witnesses is convicted repeat-offender Child pornography convict / criminal who used to have Obama's top WH attorney for 3 years as his lawyer before getting a reduced sentence and before becoming one of Mueller's 'key' witnesses.

The more information being exposed about Mueller's 'investigation' even has Democrats bashing him and calling for him to testify under oath before Congress.....

If it ever happens, that should be fun to watch.......but it's never gonna happen.

 

[Foxfyre]

I doubt if Mueller's reputation is sinking but imagine where he would stand if the liberal media was unbiased.

The polls indicate a lot of problems with him. But he will remain the darling of a lot of the left who insist he was sending messages that "TRUMP IS GUILTY but I wasn't allowed to say that." Which most of us who are informed on this and also are intellectually honest know is a crock.

And in truth, I believe if he has acted honorably, the current investigation(s) could exonerate him too. I don't think anybody on the left is expecting that though.

 

[Foxfyre]

Treating Manafort worse than Charles Manson by moving him from a minimum security prison in Pa to solitary confinement at Riker's island is helping sink Mueller's reputation and credibility as anything other than a vindictive a$$hole who went after Trump and any of his associates he could possibly punish politically. Even D-AOC blasted Mueller for engaging in 'torture' and has called for Manafort's entire release from prison.

On top of that, news broke that one of Mueller's top witnesses is convicted repeat-offender Child pornography convict / criminal who used to have Obama's top WH attorney for 3 years as his lawyer before getting a reduced sentence and before becoming one of Mueller's 'key' witnesses.

The more information being exposed about Mueller's 'investigation' even has Democrats bashing him and calling for him to testify under oath before Congress.....

If it ever happens, that should be fun to watch.......but it's never gonna happen.

Did AOC actually do that? If so good on her. Manafort may be thoroughly corrupt and guilty of the charges against him, but he in no way has deserved the treatment he has received. I hate that Democrats are taking out their irrational anger on him which is what appears to be happening. Even to the point of throwing the Fifth Amendment out the window.

Even if my cynicism agrees with you that we will see no justice done in this whole sordid mess, I still hold up a glimmer of hope that you are wrong about that.

Edit: I just noticed that AOC did in fact say that but in a subsequent tweet clarified that she meant Manafort and everybody else should be released from solitary confinement, not released from prison. Riker's Prison is in her district.

 

[the other mike]

Treating Manafort worse than Charles Manson by moving him from a minimum security prison in Pa to solitary confinement at Riker's island is helping sink Mueller's reputation and credibility as anything other than a vindictive a$$hole who went after Trump and any of his associates he could possibly punish politically. Even D-AOC blasted Mueller for engaging in 'torture' and has called for Manafort's entire release from prison.

On top of that, news broke that one of Mueller's top witnesses is convicted repeat-offender Child pornography convict / criminal who used to have Obama's top WH attorney for 3 years as his lawyer before getting a reduced sentence and before becoming one of Mueller's 'key' witnesses.

The more information being exposed about Mueller's 'investigation' even has Democrats bashing him and calling for him to testify under oath before Congress.....

If it ever happens, that should be fun to watch.......but it's never gonna happen.

Did AOC actually do that? If so good on her. Manafort may be thoroughly corrupt and guilty of the charges against him, but he in no way has deserved the treatment he has received. I hate that Democrats are taking out their irrational anger on him which is what appears to be happening. Even to the point of throwing the Fifth Amendment out the window.

Even if my cynicism agrees with you that we will see no justice done in this whole sordid mess, I still hold up a glimmer of hope that you are wrong about that.

Throw into that the break-in of Cohen's offices ( which many say was illegal, especially in light of the FISA warrant investigation) and the SWAT team raid of Roger Stone , destroying Michael Flynn financially and other egregious acts all while knowing the whole investigation was a farce from the beginning.

 

[gipper]

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?

Many on the left get all their news from biased sources. They are never exposed to differing opinions. So upon being exposed to an unbiased source, consider it biased.

I suppose the same thing happens on right, though it is difficult only being exposed to right wing bias with an MSM that is mostly on the left.

That's why I read people on the left who I admire and respect such as Michael Kinsley, Camille Paglia, even Maureen Dowd has some good insight to offer now and then. I have terribly missed William Raspberry since he retired. You won't find a Trump supporter in the group, but they for the most part engage in intellectual honesty that is sorely missing from most of the stuff coming from the left. Too many who once were rational people demonstrating critical thought have succumbed to the radical left and engage in that to keep what small audiences they have.

Pretty much the ONLY access to media that isn't radical left these days are a few small newspapers, conservative talk radio, Fox News and reading the objective and I believe essentially non partisan writers like the one who inspired the OP. (And the radical left is doing their damndest to find a way to shut down any media source who doesn't agree with them.)

The MSM is not controlled by the 'radical left'. It is owned by 6 large companies and basically controlled by a global corporate network.

Much of the MSM is controlled by those six billionaires. Those billionaires are globalists and members of the transnational capitalist class. This class not only controls most of our media, but also controls our central government.

 

[Foxfyre]

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?

Many on the left get all their news from biased sources. They are never exposed to differing opinions. So upon being exposed to an unbiased source, consider it biased.

I suppose the same thing happens on right, though it is difficult only being exposed to right wing bias with an MSM that is mostly on the left.

That's why I read people on the left who I admire and respect such as Michael Kinsley, Camille Paglia, even Maureen Dowd has some good insight to offer now and then. I have terribly missed William Raspberry since he retired. You won't find a Trump supporter in the group, but they for the most part engage in intellectual honesty that is sorely missing from most of the stuff coming from the left. Too many who once were rational people demonstrating critical thought have succumbed to the radical left and engage in that to keep what small audiences they have.

Pretty much the ONLY access to media that isn't radical left these days are a few small newspapers, conservative talk radio, Fox News and reading the objective and I believe essentially non partisan writers like the one who inspired the OP. (And the radical left is doing their damndest to find a way to shut down any media source who doesn't agree with them.)

The MSM is not controlled by the 'radical left'. It is owned by 6 large companies and basically controlled by a global corporate network.

Much of the MSM is controlled by those six billionaires. Those billionaires are globalists and members of the transnational capitalist class. This class not only controls most of our media, but also controls our central government.

Again you are probably right and a dishonest mostly leftist media and blatant efforts to silence anybody who disagrees with it or who supports anything not supported by the left is extremely dangerous to our nation and our liberties.

Unless all are allowed, even invited to express their opinions, however much we disagree with those opinions, we are doomed as a Democratic Republic founded on the principle of individual liberty. And no education happens at all. Only indoctrination.

The only reason censorship matters is that those people who don't watch Fox News, who don't listen to conservative talk radio, and/or don't read the very few conservative print publications left, have absolutely no accurate information on what is happening re the Mueller probe or the investigations currently in progress. Or why they are necessary.

 

[busybee01]

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 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.

This is a partisan article. Mueller did not conclude that there was no collusion. He decided that there was no meeting in which the Russians and the Trump campaign agreed to do certain things. Mueller's report states that "Manafort briefed Kilimnik on the state of the Trump Campaign and Manafort's plan to win
the election. That briefing encompassed the Campaign's messaging and its internal polling data. According to Gates, it also included discussion of "battleground" states, which Manafort identified as Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and Minnesota."

Kilimnik has been identified as having ties to Russian Intelligence. Of course Mueller was unable to follow up on this. Kilimnik would be the next step in the chain however Mueller was unable to subpoena him since he is a Russian national.

In a earlier meeting in May, Manafort directed Gates to send internal polling data.

Manafort gave the Russians a roadmap on how they could help Trump. They didn't need to coordinate.

Secondly this is not a court hearing nor is a hearing on a nominee to the Supreme Court. Innocent until proven guilty does not apply here. The fact is that DOJ policy forbids the indictment of a sitting President. Starr accused Clinton of 13 offenses. Since Starr could not indict Clinton then Starr violated legal principles as well.

When you take a partisan article and say that you are non-partisan, that does not ring true/