Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
House Democrats pushing for the release of special counsel Robert Mueller's report on Russian election interference say they are not hearing much interest on the subject from their constituents back home.
A redacted version of Mueller's report is expected within days. In a letter on March 24 summarizing Mueller's findings, U.S. Attorney General William Barr said the special counsel had not found a conspiracy involving President Donald Trump's campaign and the Russian government. The special counsel also did not make a determination about whether Trump's actions during the investigation amounted to obstruction.
Despite the Washington intrigue over the Mueller report, many Democrats say they're not hearing much about it at town halls or in the grocery store aisles when they return to their districts.
Rep. Dale Kildee, D-Mich., said he usually runs into someone who brings up the subject every day.
But "the vast majority of what I hear is about kitchen-table issues," Kildee said. "People just talk about their own situation."
What part of the special council indefinitely stating "The investigation led by Robert S. Mueller III found no evidence that President Trump or any of his aides coordinated with the Russian government’s 2016 election interference" wasn't clear the first time?
The investigation is over and people are moving on. Try focusing on an actual campaign that can win for next year.
Justice doesn't go looking for crime. They only harass and fleece once one has been committed.
11 legal experts have gone on record to say that's not how it works. There's at least 2 cases that helped to set the precedent (Martha Stewart and Scooter Libby).
11 legal experts have gone on record to say that's not how it works. There's at least 2 cases that helped to set the precedent (Martha Stewart and Scooter Libby).
11 legal experts have gone on record to say that's not how it works. There's at least 2 cases that helped to set the precedent (Martha Stewart and Scooter Libby).
That's bogus. They're talking about something different and pretending it's the same. Martha Stewart wasn't convicted of anything requiring proof of a "corrupt" intent, which is the only context in which the existence of an underlying crime would be relevant.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
