• Please read the Announcement concerning missing posts from 10/8/25-10/15/25.
  • This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Trump: "I have the absolute right to do what I want with the DOJ!"

"Lock her up!" "Lock her up!" Remember that?

The president doesn't decide who gets investigated. He can tell the DOJ that he thinks a law has been broken, but if the DOJ doesn't see any evidence of a law being broken, then they're not going to investigate. That is, unless you want America to become just another banana republic...or maybe the better term is "cheeto republic".

Yes I remember that. The outrage that Clinton was not prosecuted for the crimes she committed didn't sit well with a lot of people.

Now try to answer my question honestly.

Who has Trump said he wanted investigated that hasn't broken any laws?
 
Feel free to show instances of hospitals forcing female convicts to give birth while shackled to a table. You made the claim, you back it up.

I asked a question.

I am not surprised you don't know the difference between a question and a claim.
 
You're projecting - so far it is only certain that a DP left-winger let an incidental and imprecise comment by Trump provoke him into "leaping" to attack a straw man, and then 'guess' that right-wingers would somehow wish to defend a ginned phantasm.

Trump's interview was pure Trumpian; rambling, superlative laden, ambiguous, badly framed, and best mined for emotional content - not for precise commentary. The takeaways are not unexpected:

- Confidence that Mueller will be fair and confirm there was no collusion.
- Framing the issue as one of Democratic collusion (the Dossier, Fusion, Clinton, etc.) and Awan.
- Commenting on the investigation having been bad for the country.

Nothing new or different in substance, but clearly communicating he is now more buoyant than anytime in the past year. Isis destroyed, tax reform, moving the embassy, many court appointments, booming economy, confronting North Korea, and far less drama in the reorganized executive branch.

Which, by the way, might explain why his left-wing critics are so tiresome and lame, repeatedly parroting the increasingly hollow tropes over "collusion" and "Trump tweets" - almost as dated and annoying as the ad "I named my car Brad".

Ah. So given the following:

Hm. Let's see here:

1. Paul Manafort - Trump's longest-serving campaign manager - is indicted by the FBI (apparently) for money-laundering...and the money laundered came from a Kremlin-connected Ukrainian politician.

2. Mike Flynn - Trump's NSA nominee (i.e. America's TOP SPY) - was a paid (and supervised) Turkish agent and was officially named a "Friend of Russia" by Putin. Also lied about his meetings with Russians including the ambassador.

3. Jared Kushner - Trump's son-in-law and "adviser" - "forgot" to include over 100 items on his security clearance form...including a meeting with Russians.

4. Donald Trump Jr. - Trump's son - had (along with Manafort and Kushner IIRC) a meeting with Russians where they offered him "information damaging to Hillary Clinton". Also, received communication from Julian Assange (of Wikileaks) about more "very damaging information on Hillary"...and fifteen minutes later Trump's tweeting that there's going to be more "very damaging information" on Hillary coming soon.

5. Jeff Sessions - Trump's AG (i.e. America's TOP COP) - lied to Congress about his meetings with Russians.

6. Oh, and let's not forget Trump firing the FBI director and then telling the Russian ambassador the very next day (in a meeting where American media was NOT allowed, but Russian government-owned media was present) that by firing Comey, he'd removed a lot of the pressure from "that Russia thing". And then there's the MANY times Trump has publicly and repeatedly taken the word of the ex-KGB colonel in charge of Russia over the word of our CIA, NSA, and FBI.


...given all that, if I listen to you, the Left's calls for continuing the investigation are just "so tiresome and lame". Your opinion, sir, is why this old Cold Warrior says that the Right has forgotten what patriotism means and what patriotism demands. I was a strong conservative - voted for Reagan and Bush 41 - but when I saw what was happening with the Religious Right and the right-wing pundits having more influence within the GOP than the politicians themselves, I knew it was time to leave. I knew where it was likely to lead...and sadly, I was right.
 
Yes I remember that. The outrage that Clinton was not prosecuted for the crimes she committed didn't sit well with a lot of people.
She set up an email server so she could work from home, it's stupid, it's hardly some big criminal ****ing conspiracy. What happens to most people who do this? They get fired. She no longer works in government. Case closed they said, because it's a non-****ing-issue. Gods you people.
 
She set up an email server so she could work from home, it's stupid, it's hardly some big criminal ****ing conspiracy. What happens to most people who do this? They get fired. She no longer works in government. Case closed they said, because it's a non-****ing-issue. Gods you people.

She ordered her underlings to change classified headings so they could be sent through a non secure network.

Did you forget about that part?

Do you really believe somebody needs to have a server in their house to work from home?

Are you really that naive?
 
She ordered her underlings to change classified headings so they could be sent through a non secure network.
Did you forget about that part?
Do you really believe somebody needs to have a server in their house to work from home?
Are you really that naive?
But Hillary, but the emails.

All the stuff going on with Russia, Putin, and Trump's team and cover up...these don't concern you, but damn it all son, those emails. Naive doesn't even begin to describe the depravity of that.
 
Hm. Let's see here:

1. Paul Manafort - Trump's longest-serving campaign manager - is indicted by the FBI (apparently) for money-laundering...and the money laundered came from a Kremlin-connected Ukrainian politician.

2. Mike Flynn - Trump's NSA nominee (i.e. America's TOP SPY) - was a paid (and supervised) Turkish agent and was officially named a "Friend of Russia" by Putin. Also lied about his meetings with Russians including the ambassador.

3. Jared Kushner - Trump's son-in-law and "adviser" - "forgot" to include over 100 items on his security clearance form...including a meeting with Russians.

4. Donald Trump Jr. - Trump's son - had (along with Manafort and Kushner IIRC) a meeting with Russians where they offered him "information damaging to Hillary Clinton". Also, received communication from Julian Assange (of Wikileaks) about more "very damaging information on Hillary"...and fifteen minutes later Trump's tweeting that there's going to be more "very damaging information" on Hillary coming soon.

5. Jeff Sessions - Trump's AG (i.e. America's TOP COP) - lied to Congress about his meetings with Russians.

6. Oh, and let's not forget Trump firing the FBI director and then telling the Russian ambassador the very next day (in a meeting where American media was NOT allowed, but Russian government-owned media was present) that by firing Comey, he'd removed a lot of the pressure from "that Russia thing". And then there's the MANY times Trump has publicly and repeatedly taken the word of the ex-KGB colonel in charge of Russia over the word of our CIA, NSA, and FBI.

Given ALL THAT, you're still calling it a "witch hunt"? Really? How much f**king smoke do you need to see before you consider that maybe, just MAYBE the FBI ought to investigate to see if there's a fire? But wait, I get it - it's all just a witch hunt, nothing happened, nothing to see here, and Hillary putting emails on a private server is FAR worse than any of the above....

1: The money laundering, unless you can prove otherwise, is not connected to Trump.
2: For which he was fired. Unless you can prove that Trump knew about it beforehand, you have nothing.
3: Can you remember every little thing that you do for years on end? There is a reason that there is a process to amend those forms after they are filled out. Obviously forgetting things is common enough for that process to be initiated. Non-issue.
4: They offered, but iirc he ended up saying no to the offer. And...wow...three whole emails of which had nothing of substance beyond a password which for all you know was never used. You only assume that it was. And seriously? 15 minutes later? :roll: Yeah, I'm sure Jr. used that password and looked through all the info available and then went to his dad and told him everything...all in 15 minutes. Stretching much?
5: Has he? I don't recall hearing about a perjury charge....But then I don't know the specifics. Perhaps you can enlighten me? Also, what was the meeting about? What was said in the meeting?
6: He did? Who told you he said that? Names? Oh wait....iirc there were no names. Just anonymous sources by people that were supposedly in the room...or heard about it from someone that was supposedly in the room.

For the very little amount of info out there you sure are assuming a lot. What's funny is that you continually consider Trump as being inept and stupid and yet somehow he has perpetrated a crime (don't know what the crime actually is) against America that was so involved and convoluted that its taken a year and a half of investigation to come up with nothing but assumptions so far.
 
I remember a whole Tea Party mania, conservatives buying guns, Obama was the anti-Christ, Congressman yelling out liar, an explosion of militia, a vow to make him a one term president You don’t remember any of that?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I remember all of it, saw it, and know about it. Yet the left, you and others here forget to remember or even acknowledge as true, what I pointed out. The left get a pass when it comes to any hateful acts they commit.

That is the big difference.
When you do it, it is ignored and immediately forgotten.

...and so the blind partisan games begin yet again.
 
Last edited:
But Hillary, but the emails.

All the stuff going on with Russia, Putin, and Trump's team and cover up...these don't concern you, but damn it all son, those emails. Naive doesn't even begin to describe the depravity of that.

HAHAHA you are funny.

You want to divert attention to something that actually happened, Hillary, to something that there is no evidence of ever happening.

You are pretty sad.
 
1: The money laundering, unless you can prove otherwise, is not connected to Trump.
2: For which he was fired. Unless you can prove that Trump knew about it beforehand, you have nothing.
3: Can you remember every little thing that you do for years on end? There is a reason that there is a process to amend those forms after they are filled out. Obviously forgetting things is common enough for that process to be initiated. Non-issue.
4: They offered, but iirc he ended up saying no to the offer. And...wow...three whole emails of which had nothing of substance beyond a password which for all you know was never used. You only assume that it was. And seriously? 15 minutes later? :roll: Yeah, I'm sure Jr. used that password and looked through all the info available and then went to his dad and told him everything...all in 15 minutes. Stretching much?
5: Has he? I don't recall hearing about a perjury charge....But then I don't know the specifics. Perhaps you can enlighten me? Also, what was the meeting about? What was said in the meeting?
6: He did? Who told you he said that? Names? Oh wait....iirc there were no names. Just anonymous sources by people that were supposedly in the room...or heard about it from someone that was supposedly in the room.

For the very little amount of info out there you sure are assuming a lot. What's funny is that you continually consider Trump as being inept and stupid and yet somehow he has perpetrated a crime (don't know what the crime actually is) against America that was so involved and convoluted that its taken a year and a half of investigation to come up with nothing but assumptions so far.

Yeah, excuses, excuses, and more cherry-picked excuses...as if you'd be even a fraction as defensive of Obama if the same events occurred to his team. But because it's happening to the guy who's supporting policies that you like, you feel duty-bound to find cherry-picked excuses for Trump and his team.

It takes courage to stand up against one's own tribe when one sees that the tribe is doing wrong and is becoming something other than what it was before. I know, because I've done it - I'm one of the few on here who has lived both sides of the political spectrum. Turing against the tribe is harder than one thinks...but once it's done, one begins to realize how blind one had been in the past. Right now, you're blind...but you simply don't realize it.
 
Yeah, excuses, excuses, and more cherry-picked excuses...as if you'd be even a fraction as defensive of Obama if the same events occurred to his team. But because it's happening to the guy who's supporting policies that you like, you feel duty-bound to find cherry-picked excuses for Trump and his team.

It takes courage to stand up against one's own tribe when one sees that the tribe is doing wrong and is becoming something other than what it was before. I know, because I've done it - I'm one of the few on here who has lived both sides of the political spectrum. Turing against the tribe is harder than one thinks...but once it's done, one begins to realize how blind one had been in the past. Right now, you're blind...but you simply don't realize it.

Do you see my lean under my avatar? It says "independent". I don't belong to a tribe. Because I'm...well...Independent. I don't subscribe to tribes, teams or any other group. Even in school I refused to play on teams even though the coach tried to get me to join. So stow the implication of partisanship. That dog don't hunt here. And the fact that you couldn't debunk anything that I said and instead decided to play an emotional game with me shows that you have no leg to stand on.
 
Do you see my lean under my avatar? It says "independent". I don't belong to a tribe. Because I'm...well...Independent. I don't subscribe to tribes, teams or any other group. Even in school I refused to play on teams even though the coach tried to get me to join. So stow the implication of partisanship. That dog don't hunt here. And the fact that you couldn't debunk anything that I said and instead decided to play an emotional game with me shows that you have no leg to stand on.

"Independent" is a word. To me, actions speak louder than words. You claim to be an independent, but the opinions you give are an action, and your actions say something else entirely. For instance, your claim that I "couldn't debunk anything" you said means nothing. Why? Because no one can win a debate if one side or both refuses to ever admit the reality of facts presented to them. You refused facts, and you refused to see the common thread tying the facts together...either that, or you did see all that and deliberately decided to be disingenuous in your reply in order to deny the need for investigation.

I don't know if you've ever been involved in criminal investigations. I have. I've trained others on how to investigate and supervised their investigations. I deal in what is known, and what is likely considering what is known...and I know this: the amount of evidence that is publicly known concerning the interference by Russia in our election, the communications and meetings between Trump's team and Kremlin-connected Russians, and the many denials by Trump and his team of Russia's actions and their communications and meetings with the Russians...all that FAR exceeds the minimum requirements for an investigation. What's more, I've seen firsthand how the same kind of excuses you just gave in #233 are shredded in the legal process.

And again, all that's just based on what's publicly known...whereas Mueller's investigation is stretching all the way to financial institutions in Europe. Think that's exceeding his mandate? Remember, then, that Ken Starr's investigation into Clinton began with Whitewater (which turned out to be a nothingburger) and ended with a blue dress (which ended with Clinton being impeached for lying to Congress). Trump keeps claiming no collusion...but collusion with Russia is not necessarily a crime. Conspiracy and obstruction of justice most certainly are.

The fact that you disagree with all that does not lend any credence to your opinion. In my opinion, you would do well to consider the importance of the rule of law even when it is being applied to those you personally support.
 
"Independent" is a word. To me, actions speak louder than words. You claim to be an independent, but the opinions you give are an action, and your actions say something else entirely. For instance, your claim that I "couldn't debunk anything" you said means nothing. Why? Because no one can win a debate if one side or both refuses to ever admit the reality of facts presented to them. You refused facts, and you refused to see the common thread tying the facts together...either that, or you did see all that and deliberately decided to be disingenuous in your reply in order to deny the need for investigation.

I don't know if you've ever been involved in criminal investigations. I have. I've trained others on how to investigate and supervised their investigations. I deal in what is known, and what is likely considering what is known...and I know this: the amount of evidence that is publicly known concerning the interference by Russia in our election, the communications and meetings between Trump's team and Kremlin-connected Russians, and the many denials by Trump and his team of Russia's actions and their communications and meetings with the Russians...all that FAR exceeds the minimum requirements for an investigation. What's more, I've seen firsthand how the same kind of excuses you just gave in #233 are shredded in the legal process.

And again, all that's just based on what's publicly known...whereas Mueller's investigation is stretching all the way to financial institutions in Europe. Think that's exceeding his mandate? Remember, then, that Ken Starr's investigation into Clinton began with Whitewater (which turned out to be a nothingburger) and ended with a blue dress (which ended with Clinton being impeached for lying to Congress). Trump keeps claiming no collusion...but collusion with Russia is not necessarily a crime. Conspiracy and obstruction of justice most certainly are.

The fact that you disagree with all that does not lend any credence to your opinion. In my opinion, you would do well to consider the importance of the rule of law even when it is being applied to those you personally support.

You attribute something to me because I'm not agreeing with you. Doesn't mean that what you are attributing to me is true. The difference between what I am doing, and what you are doing is that I'm not assuming. Something you should know that you should never do if you've been in as many investigations as you claim. That doesn't make me a part of any tribe or party. Despite your claims. Every one of your "facts" and how you are interpreting them are based on assumptions. What we do know for sure is what I already posted to you in post 233. Posted and have yet to be debunked by you with actual facts. Give me actual facts and not assumptions and I'll holler for Trumps Removal. Until then he is the rightful sitting President.
 
Last edited:
You attribute something to me because I'm not agreeing with you. Doesn't mean that what you are attributing to me is true. The difference between what I am doing, and what you are doing is that I'm not assuming. Something you should know that you should never do if you've been in as many investigations as you claim. That doesn't make me a part of any tribe or party. Despite your claims. Every one of your "facts" and how you are interpreting them are based on assumptions. What we do know for sure is what I already posted to you in post 233. Posted and have yet to be debunked by you with actual facts. Give me actual facts and not assumptions and I'll holler for Trumps Removal. Until then he is the rightful sitting President.

Is it an assumption that Trump was warned not to hire Flynn as our nation's top spy?
Is it an assumption that Flynn was a paid agent for Turkey, and that Putin officially named him a "friend of Russia"?
Is it an assumption that Trump claimed time and time and time again that Putin was telling the truth about not interfering with America's election, and that the FBI and our other intel agencies were all wrong in their claims about Russian influence?

Is it an assumption that Trump fired the FBI direct, and then the very next day told the Russian ambassador that now that Comey was fired, there was a lot less pressure on that "Russia thing"...and did so in the Oval Office in front of Russian government-owned media even when American media were not allowed to be present?

Is it an assumption that Trump's longest-serving campaign manager was indicted with tax fraud and money-laundering (which money came from a Kremlin-connected Ukrainian politician)?
Is it an assumption that Manafort, Trump's son-in-law Kushner, and Trump's son Donald Jr. all met with Kremlin-connected Russians in Trump Tower last year?
Is it an assumption that Donald Jr. was under the impression that in the meeting, he was going to receive "dirt" on Hillary?
Is it an assumption that Donald Jr. lied about what the meeting was about, and did so at the direction of Trump himself?
Is it an assumption that when he was filling out his paperwork for his security clearance, Kushner "forgot" this meeting with the Russians?
Is it an assumption that Kushner also forgot about 100 other foreign nationals with whom he had had contact when filling out that paperwork?
Is it an assumption that Kushner lied about not having corresponded with Wikileaks?
Is it an assumption that Kushner lied when he somehow forgot about his meeting with the Russian ambassador when testifying to Congress?
Is it an assumption that Kushner lied when he claimed that he had never relied on Russian funding for any of his businesses?
Is it an assumption that Flynn pleaded guilty concerning lying to the FBI, and apparently did so as part of a plea deal wherein he will cooperate with the FBI?
Is it an assumption that Papadopolous pleaded guilty concerning lying to the FBI, and is also apparently cooperating with the FBI?

Looking at ALL that, how can you possibly think that an investigation by an independent special counsel is not warranted?
 
Is it an assumption that Trump was warned not to hire Flynn as our nation's top spy?
Is it an assumption that Flynn was a paid agent for Turkey, and that Putin officially named him a "friend of Russia"?
Is it an assumption that Trump claimed time and time and time again that Putin was telling the truth about not interfering with America's election, and that the FBI and our other intel agencies were all wrong in their claims about Russian influence?

Is it an assumption that Trump fired the FBI direct, and then the very next day told the Russian ambassador that now that Comey was fired, there was a lot less pressure on that "Russia thing"...and did so in the Oval Office in front of Russian government-owned media even when American media were not allowed to be present?

Is it an assumption that Trump's longest-serving campaign manager was indicted with tax fraud and money-laundering (which money came from a Kremlin-connected Ukrainian politician)?
Is it an assumption that Manafort, Trump's son-in-law Kushner, and Trump's son Donald Jr. all met with Kremlin-connected Russians in Trump Tower last year?
Is it an assumption that Donald Jr. was under the impression that in the meeting, he was going to receive "dirt" on Hillary?
Is it an assumption that Donald Jr. lied about what the meeting was about, and did so at the direction of Trump himself?
Is it an assumption that when he was filling out his paperwork for his security clearance, Kushner "forgot" this meeting with the Russians?
Is it an assumption that Kushner also forgot about 100 other foreign nationals with whom he had had contact when filling out that paperwork?
Is it an assumption that Kushner lied about not having corresponded with Wikileaks?
Is it an assumption that Kushner lied when he somehow forgot about his meeting with the Russian ambassador when testifying to Congress?
Is it an assumption that Kushner lied when he claimed that he had never relied on Russian funding for any of his businesses?
Is it an assumption that Flynn pleaded guilty concerning lying to the FBI, and apparently did so as part of a plea deal wherein he will cooperate with the FBI?
Is it an assumption that Papadopolous pleaded guilty concerning lying to the FBI, and is also apparently cooperating with the FBI?

Looking at ALL that, how can you possibly think that an investigation by an independent special counsel is not warranted?

And through all of that you still have yet to provide proof that Trump has done anything wrong. You've already convicted him. What ever happened to waiting for Mueller to finish his investigation?
 
I remember a whole Tea Party mania, conservatives buying guns, Obama was the anti-Christ, Congressman yelling out liar, an explosion of militia, a vow to make him a one term president You don’t remember any of that?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
That's your list, LMAO

Sent from my SM-T800 using Tapatalk
 
Oh...I wouldn't count on those "new laws" you speak of. Congress would have a hard time getting over their partisanship to even pass them and the sitting President wouldn't sign them. All you are left with are your dreams and your crying.
Actually they would not need the presidents signature if they had a super majority. Congress has the ultimate power.

Sent from my SM-T800 using Tapatalk
 
Actually they would not need the presidents signature if they had a super majority. Congress has the ultimate power.

Sent from my SM-T800 using Tapatalk

Of course...that's true. But they would still have to get past that partisan thing.

I still wouldn't count on it.
 
Of course...that's true. But they would still have to get past that partisan thing.

I still wouldn't count on it.
Yeah I wasn't saying that it would happen. I just thought it was important to point out that ultimate authority lies with congress not the president. It makes sense to put that power in the hands of many rather than one.

Sent from my SM-T800 using Tapatalk
 
And through all of that you still have yet to provide proof that Trump has done anything wrong. You've already convicted him. What ever happened to waiting for Mueller to finish his investigation?

And through all of that, you still seem to think that no investigation is warranted. What you're forgetting - or, more likely, refusing to acknowledge - is that the special counsel's job is NOT to declare someone guilty, but to investigate. What you should be asking is whether there's enough probable cause to investigate.

And has Trump done anything wrong? That's not up to the special counsel to determine, but - again, it's up to the courts. However, when it comes to the threshold of probable cause to investigate, what we already know is significantly more than sufficient to warrant an investigation not only for obstruction of justice, but also conspiracy as this study by law professors at the Brookings Institute clearly shows. From the Executive Summary:

There are significant questions as to whether President Trump obstructed justice. We do
not yet know all the relevant facts, and any final determination must await further investigation,
including by Special Counsel Robert Mueller. But the public record contains substantial
evidence that President Trump attempted to impede the
investigations of Michael Flynn and Russian interference
in the 2016 presidential election, including by firing FBI
Director James Comey. There is also a question as to
whether President Trump conspired to obstruct justice
with senior members of his administration although the
public facts regarding conspiracy are less welldeveloped.

Attempts to stop an investigation represent a
common form of obstruction. Demanding the loyalty of
an individual involved in an investigation, requesting that
individual’s help to end the investigation, and then
ultimately firing that person to accomplish that goal are
the type of acts that have frequently resulted in
obstruction convictions, as we detail. In addition, to the
extent conduct could be characterized as threatening,
intimidating, or corruptly persuading witnesses, that too
may provide additional grounds for obstruction charges.


Sir, you need to make up your mind whether or not you want to live in a nation where the rule of law applies to everyone. If you do, then you need to acknowledge - if only to yourself - that it is crucial that our law enforcement agencies be allowed to do their job, to do their sworn duty. There is more than enough to warrant an investigation of Trump on both conspiracy and obstruction of justice...but an investigation is NOT the same thing as a declaration of guilt. Because the matter of impeachment lay only with Congress, that will be up to them once the special counsel has presented his case.

That being said, if the Republicans in Congress were both smart and courageous, they'd impeach both Trump and Pence (yes, there's growing indications that Pence is involved, too) ASAP. Why? Because if they did, Paul Ryan would become president, and there's no impeachment-worthy scandals involving Ryan. However, if the GOP does not do so, there is a significant likelihood that the Dems will take at least one - and possibly both - houses of Congress in the midterms...and if the Dems do, then both Trump and Pence will be impeached and removed from office, and Nancy Pelosi will take over as president. BUT I strongly doubt the GOP will take the route of impeachment no matter how strong the case against Trump and Pence, for they all know that as soon as they do, they'll get primaried from the Right...and it will be Bannon leading the charge against them...and so far, the only Republican congresspersons with the courage to stand up to Trump are (mostly) those who are not running for reelection.
 
And through all of that, you still seem to think that no investigation is warranted. What you're forgetting - or, more likely, refusing to acknowledge - is that the special counsel's job is NOT to declare someone guilty, but to investigate. What you should be asking is whether there's enough probable cause to investigate.

And has Trump done anything wrong? That's not up to the special counsel to determine, but - again, it's up to the courts. However, when it comes to the threshold of probable cause to investigate, what we already know is significantly more than sufficient to warrant an investigation not only for obstruction of justice, but also conspiracy as this study by law professors at the Brookings Institute clearly shows. From the Executive Summary:

There are significant questions as to whether President Trump obstructed justice. We do
not yet know all the relevant facts, and any final determination must await further investigation,
including by Special Counsel Robert Mueller. But the public record contains substantial
evidence that President Trump attempted to impede the
investigations of Michael Flynn and Russian interference
in the 2016 presidential election, including by firing FBI
Director James Comey. There is also a question as to
whether President Trump conspired to obstruct justice
with senior members of his administration although the
public facts regarding conspiracy are less welldeveloped.

Attempts to stop an investigation represent a
common form of obstruction. Demanding the loyalty of
an individual involved in an investigation, requesting that
individual’s help to end the investigation, and then
ultimately firing that person to accomplish that goal are
the type of acts that have frequently resulted in
obstruction convictions, as we detail. In addition, to the
extent conduct could be characterized as threatening,
intimidating, or corruptly persuading witnesses, that too
may provide additional grounds for obstruction charges.


Sir, you need to make up your mind whether or not you want to live in a nation where the rule of law applies to everyone. If you do, then you need to acknowledge - if only to yourself - that it is crucial that our law enforcement agencies be allowed to do their job, to do their sworn duty. There is more than enough to warrant an investigation of Trump on both conspiracy and obstruction of justice...but an investigation is NOT the same thing as a declaration of guilt. Because the matter of impeachment lay only with Congress, that will be up to them once the special counsel has presented his case.

That being said, if the Republicans in Congress were both smart and courageous, they'd impeach both Trump and Pence (yes, there's growing indications that Pence is involved, too) ASAP. Why? Because if they did, Paul Ryan would become president, and there's no impeachment-worthy scandals involving Ryan. However, if the GOP does not do so, there is a significant likelihood that the Dems will take at least one - and possibly both - houses of Congress in the midterms...and if the Dems do, then both Trump and Pence will be impeached and removed from office, and Nancy Pelosi will take over as president. BUT I strongly doubt the GOP will take the route of impeachment no matter how strong the case against Trump and Pence, for they all know that as soon as they do, they'll get primaried from the Right...and it will be Bannon leading the charge against them...and so far, the only Republican congresspersons with the courage to stand up to Trump are (mostly) those who are not running for reelection.
Politically we are complete opposites but i agree with thr first part of your post. If there is sufficent evidence to suggest trump was involved he should be investigated.

I also welcome several more investigations including muellers investigation being looked at.



Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk
 
Shortened quote due to 5k character limit.

And through all of that, you still seem to think that no investigation is warranted. What you're forgetting - or, more likely, refusing to acknowledge - is that the special counsel's job is NOT to declare someone guilty, but to investigate. What you should be asking is whether there's enough probable cause to investigate.

I never said that there shouldn't be an investigation. I said that this investigation is a witch hunt because so far, in a year and a half of investigation, nothing has turned up linking Trump to any criminal wrong doing in regards to the election. Lots of innuendo and assumptions and claims. But nothing factual and provable. I bided my time waiting for a year and a half for something to be proven before saying that this investigation is a witch hunt. I gave it a chance. Now all that Trump haters are doing is attempting to find anything that they can to get rid of him. It's not about collusion anymore. Has Trump committed some crime or other in his life? I'm sure he has. Considering all the laws on the books its impossible for a person to go through their entire lives without violating some law or other.

If you really were about the rule of law then you'd be demanding an investigation into all members of Congress, the Sentate, Obama, Hillary, Lynch and many others. Because I'd bet you a years subscription to DP that there isn't a single one of them that hasn't committed some crime or other....well..maybe the newer, younger ones haven't. But the established ones? Yeah pretty sure they're not innocent. But you won't. For a few reasons. One is that it wouldn't suit your agenda. You'll also likely claim resources and money problems in doing such. Of course if you were really about the rule of law then you wouldn't care about that.
 
How is that any different to what Obama had said?

Obama - January 2014 -: “One of the things that I will be emphasizing in this meeting is the fact that we are not just going to be waiting for legislation in order to make sure that we are providing Americans the kind of help that they need, ... I’ve got a pen, and I’ve got a phone ..."

The difference between using the office to help and using the office to punish.
 
Shortened quote due to 5k character limit.



I never said that there shouldn't be an investigation. I said that this investigation is a witch hunt because so far, in a year and a half of investigation, nothing has turned up linking Trump to any criminal wrong doing in regards to the election. Lots of innuendo and assumptions and claims. But nothing factual and provable. I bided my time waiting for a year and a half for something to be proven before saying that this investigation is a witch hunt. I gave it a chance. Now all that Trump haters are doing is attempting to find anything that they can to get rid of him. It's not about collusion anymore. Has Trump committed some crime or other in his life? I'm sure he has. Considering all the laws on the books its impossible for a person to go through their entire lives without violating some law or other.

If you really were about the rule of law then you'd be demanding an investigation into all members of Congress, the Sentate, Obama, Hillary, Lynch and many others. Because I'd bet you a years subscription to DP that there isn't a single one of them that hasn't committed some crime or other....well..maybe the newer, younger ones haven't. But the established ones? Yeah pretty sure they're not innocent. But you won't. For a few reasons. One is that it wouldn't suit your agenda. You'll also likely claim resources and money problems in doing such. Of course if you were really about the rule of law then you wouldn't care about that.
The problem i have is not the money or my agenda. Its a conflict of interest dilemma. The people who would run the investigation would answer to the people they are investigating. This is where the 4th estate has failed the people. They are not the watchdogs. They are gatekeepers keeping our eyes out of what goes on behind the walls

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk
 
Back
Top Bottom