Mueller Files first Charges (MUELLER CONTENT GOES HERE)

[Todd.K]

I don't particularly care if the investigation is politically motivated.

What happened to your concern about the NORMAL separation of the Administration and DOJ?

[FromMyColdDeadHand]

It's been about 45 days since the press went full crazy that there was evidence that Cohen was in Prague. Witnesses and even pictures were mentioned. Supposedly Meuller had combed through stuff and found it- and the Russians were there at the same time...

And........


Sure, "Fake News" is a fake claim. Not.

[Averageman]

It's been about 45 days since the press went full crazy that there was evidence that Cohen was in Prague. Witnesses and even pictures were mentioned. Supposedly Meuller had combed through stuff and found it- and the Russians were there at the same time...

And........


Sure, "Fake News" is a fake claim. Not.

So exactly what does this prove?
I'm sure you can find a Russian Oligarch, Diplomat, perhaps even a "for reals" Spy in just about every Capital of every Major or Minor Country in the World.
So circumstacial that it's a non-issue to the point of humourous.

At what point after the ruin of the USSR, did we decide we wanted another Cold War?
Was that about the same time the House of Saud wanted a pipeline through Syria?
I'm not sure that it wouldn't be smarter to sit down with the Russians and try some diplomatic solutions to our problems, but then negotiating with them isn't going to get us commited to a real war now is it?

Ask yourself what role McCain has been playing for about five years or more before anyone could spell dossier.
Remember the embarrassing photo Op with those guys he didn't know were islamic fundamentalist terrorists?
And suddenly he's concerned with POTUS Trumps supposed ties to Russia?

[26 Inf]

What happened to your concern about the NORMAL separation of the Administration and DOJ?

LOL, I guess like a lot of folks it depends on whether I'm buying or selling.

ETA more serious response: You raise a good point. And I was semi-serious in my response. I suppose Whitewater wasn't politically motivated? On occasion I bitched about President Obama legislating by EO, I also remember a lot of other folks doing the same. President Trump EO's, pretty much crickets from the usual suspects. Like I said, buying or selling. Same thing with drone strikes.

There should be a separation between any President's Administration and DOJ as to the Administration dictating what is investigated and what is not on an individual basis. Obviously, there is a political aspect, especially since the Attorney General is nominated by the President.

Regarding political motivation, pretextual investigations have long been allowed, so long as the underlying basis for the investigation is based on reasonable suspicion or probable cause.

[RetroRevolver77]

There should be a separation between any President's Administration and DOJ as to the Administration dictating what is investigated and what is not on an individual basis.

So you were fine with Obama using executive authority to direct the FBI and DOJ to investigate Trump over the DNC funded made up dossier?

However you're not OK with Trump, now that he is President- to use his executive authority to intervene against an obviously biased investigation?

You were for executive branch abuse of authority until you were against it?

Which is it?

[26 Inf]

So you were fine with Obama using executive authority to direct the FBI and DOJ to investigate Trump over the DNC funded made up dossier?

Did President Obama himself actually direct that, or call for that? Because seems to me President Trump is doing so directly. In public.

However you're not OK with Trump, now that he is President- to use his executive authority to intervene against an obviously biased investigation?

Proof of Mueller's bias? Other than accusations/statements from subjects of the investigation. Yeah, in case you forgot, that is kind of what got President Nixon. So, no, not so much.

You were for executive branch abuse of authority until you were against it?

Which is it?

I'm always against executive branch abuse of authority. Where there is credible evidence to begin an investigation.

I'm not as easily swayed as you. My experience, with raising children, and talking with suspects, is that if the story constantly changes, likely there is something of substance being hidden.

Throwing up a smokescreen of accusations against everyone from Joe Shit the Rag Man to the former President, doesn't strike me as particularly innocent.

Don't want people sniffing up your behind? Don't run for President.

[RetroRevolver77]

I'm always against executive branch abuse of authority. Where there is credible evidence to begin an investigation.

I'm not as easily swayed as you. My experience, with raising children, and talking with suspects, is that if the story constantly changes, likely there is something of substance being hidden.

Throwing up a smokescreen of accusations against everyone from Joe Shit the Rag Man to the former President, doesn't strike me as particularly innocent.

Don't want people sniffing up your behind? Don't run for President.

You aren't against executive branch abuse because you are perfectly fine defending the DNC funded fake dossier that Obama used to acquire the FISA warrant to begin with. Did you plant evidence on people when you were a cop just to get a conviction? No, then why defend the practice now? That's what going on. FAKE planted evidence on an innocent person to warrant an investigation is still ongoing based on that false evidence. At this point all that is out in the open. Just as Page wrote Strozk; "POTUS wants to know everything we're doing", it's because all of this came from the top down.

It's now a matter of time as the desperate Socialists and the MSM circle the drain praying that Mueller hands them a miracle. Mueller is likely now realizing he was played for a fool and may decide to redeem himself along with the FBI, entering into court records all the stuff the Obama administration ordered to have happened. I'm thinking Obama gets impeached before this is through. Fitting since Obama wasn't technically eligible to be President anyway.

Now this;

Assange Reportedly Willing To Testify Before Congress On Russia Probe.

http://www.oann.com/assange-reported...-russia-probe/


7n6

[26 Inf]

You aren't against executive branch abuse because you are perfectly fine defending the DNC funded fake dossier that Obama used to acquire the FISA warrant to begin with. Did you plant evidence on people when you were a cop just to get a conviction? No 7n6

Thank for not making a snarky accusation. Sincerely.

It seems we will just have to disagree on our views of the correct course.

Hope you had a good day and burnt some burgers or brats.

[Moose-Knuckle]

The inference being that if it is true, it is a very series offense against the Nation. If it's not true, President Trump drops off the list completely. Is that concept so difficult to understand?

One of CNN's chief propagandist admitted on a "hot mic" that the Trump Russian thing is a "big nothing burger"? It it's "true" that Trump did in fact collude with Putin to win the US presidential election then they BOTH saved us from a nuclear war cause had Hillary won you can be damned sure we be doing duck and cover drills by now.

As an aside, you might note that in standing with proper respect to the office, I generally (I believe always) refer to President Trump as President Trump not 'Trump.'

Who cares?

Regarding what?

How about Fast & Furious?

Or the fact that he gave Iran, a state sponsor of terrorism $1.7 BILLION?

Or the fact that his entire life is a lie and his records are sealed?

Or the fact that his political career was hatched in the living room of a convicted terrorist?

I could go on but what is the point, you said on this very forum not so long ago that Bill Clinton and Barrack Obama were the most intelligent presidents.

[RetroRevolver77]

An interesting perspective by David Vincent Gilbert.


"How do civil wars happen?

Two or more sides disagree on who runs the country.
And they can’t settle the question through elections because they don’t even agree that elections are how you decide who’s in charge.

That’s the basic issue here. Who decides who runs the country? When you hate each other but accept the election results, you have a country. When you stop accepting election results, you have a countdown to a civil war.

The Mueller investigation is about removing President Trump from office and overturning the results of an election. We all know that. But it’s not the first time they’ve done this. The first time a Republican president was elected this century, they said he didn’t really win. The Supreme Court gave him the election There’s a pattern here.

What do sure odds of the Democrats rejecting the next Republican president really mean? It means they don’t accept the results of any election that they don’t win. It means they don’t believe that transfers of power in this country are determined by elections.

That’s a civil war."


More at the link:

http://www.freedomsledder.com/index....ncent-gilbert/