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.
He is correct its not his job to prove collusion he is there to investigate the Russian intervention in our election. Its Nunes job to investigate the DOJ, not the Russians.
The simple point people keep missing is that the investigation is not cocluded.
[color=#000080]
His job specifically includes investigating coordination between the Russian government and the Trump campaign.
Right, the investigation is far from over. Strzok, Ohr, McCabe, and Steele might be interviewing the Russian hooker at this very moment. More Russians or Manafort-types might be indicted next Friday. So far, zip on the main reason D's hoped would get Trump impeached --- conspiring with Vlad to win the election.
Trump’s Justice Department ( headed by people Trump nominated and appointed with Senate confirmation) appointed Mueller as Special Counsel to investigate Russia’s potential interference in the 2016 Election and other matters that come to light as a part of the investigation.
This is not dissimilar to the appointment of Kenneth Starr who was appointed to investigate White Water 12 years prior to Clinton being elected. That investigation dragged on for years. It eventually concluded it did not have evidence to charge the Clintons with any crimes, an outcome dismissed by Clinton haters.
That investigation did however take down others. It also veered into many other matters not directly linked to Whitewater.
I have no opinion on Trump’s knowledge of collusion with Russia because I do not have access to the information the Mueller Team has. Having said this, my gut says there will be insufficient evidence to support charging Trump with any crimes, no different than the Special Investigation of Clinton/ Whitewater.
Trump’s Justice Department ( headed by people Trump nominated and appointed with Senate confirmation) appointed Mueller as Special Counsel to investigate Russia’s potential interference in the 2016 Election and other matters that come to light as a part of the investigation.
This is not dissimilar to the appointment of Kenneth Starr who was appointed to investigate White Water 12 years prior to Clinton being elected. That investigation dragged on for years. It eventually concluded it did not have evidence to charge the Clintons with any crimes, an outcome dismissed by Clinton haters.
That investigation did however take down others. It also veered into many other matters not directly linked to Whitewater.
I have no opinion on Trump’s knowledge of collusion with Russia because I do not have access to the information the Mueller Team has. Having said this, my gut says there will be insufficient evidence to support charging Trump with any crimes, no different than the Special Investigation of Clinton/ Whitewater.
It has and will continue to take down others.
Except you discount his propensity to lying.
Clinton got impeached for lying under oath, not what they were after him for.
I've said from the beginning, trump gets questioned under oath, that will be how they get him. Doubt anything else.
After 15 months of daily Lies, and of purposely distracting & using our law enforcement agencies for political purposes, and of NONSTOP blatant (& unethical) obstructing & rat******* of our current elected administration....it's:
Middle Class and Working Class Americans will continue to drop the Dems as a legitimate party option. (Perhaps Schiff will start blinking again in May or June. I haven't seen this strange lying dude blink in over 13 months??)
& 90% of the current Media will continue to be seen as a political tool for anti-middle class progressives. WAPO, NYT, MSNBC, NBC, ABC, CBS & CNN have abandoned their responsibilities. It's sad and disgusting to view how far these companies have fallen.
Gawd, how can anyone even watch The View? Those cackling hens cause my bowels to get loose every time I've hit that channel. Ick, poo. Bad TV, bad, bad, bad.
Trump’s Justice Department ( headed by people Trump nominated and appointed with Senate confirmation) appointed Mueller as Special Counsel to investigate Russia’s potential interference in the 2016 Election and other matters that come to light as a part of the investigation.
Indeed.
Russian election hackers target USA.
John Kerry gives Russian hackers visas to come in.
Russian hackers did some bad things. What? Nobody knows but Democrats.
Obama DOJ completely blind to it, or absolutely failed to act. (incompetence at all levels)
So Hillary Clinton Defeated, and Obama DOJ is swept out.
Trump's DOJ roots out Russian hackers that Obama apparently was blind do
So If you think these Hackers are bad, then
Trump has done a great service for the USA
Trump still winning.
#MAGA
(please no head explosions, we've had enough of them today)
Except for die-hard libs, we all know the Russian fairy tale is a crock. That isn't what Mueller's going for. He wants a totally lame process crime obstruction of justice charge right before the 2018 mid-terms that the MSM will sell as the worst thing ever to happen blah blah blah.
Schiff has been driving the Trump-Russia collusion narrative on behalf of his party for months from his seat on the House Intelligence Committee, claiming recently he has seen “more than circumstantial” evidence of collusion. But he offered nothing substantial to back up his claim when pressed on “The View” to get specific, and acknowledged hard proof of collusion may never materialize, even after an intensive and months-long investigation by special counsel Robert Mueller.
...
“Is it enough for Mueller to bring charges?” host Meghan McCain asked Schiff. “Because if it isn’t enough for Mueller to bring charges, what does that mean? Charges of collusion.”
Schiff responded by claiming it’s not his job to prove collusion happened, but to provide a narrative about what happened to the public.
... Translation: If Mueller can’t turn up hard evidence to indict someone, Democrats in Congress will have to rely on a much softer standard of evidence to persuade the public that collusion happened.
That last line is the key. The investigation is simply the framework needed to allow Democrats to bash Trump, and give them leverage down the road.
SCHIFF: There's actually a great deal to learn. We have a good basis in the report that the intelligence community put out, but we want to know the details of just what the Russians did, every vector they've used to attack our democracy. They've used media platforms, they've used obviously hacking, the dumping of documents. We want to make sure to investigate whether there were any connections, direct connections or communications with the campaigns, whether any financial transactions - the whole range of what might have taken place, some of which we certainly know. But we want to know the how of it, we want to know more about the why of it. We also want to examine the U.S. government's response and be self-critical about whether we acted the way we should, what improvements we need to make in our defenses.
....
GREENE: You and your Republican colleague Congressman Nunez said in a statement that you'll be looking at the 2016 election including, quote, "any links between Russia and individuals associated with political campaigns." That is very delicate language there, but are you talking about President Trump?
SCHIFF: Well, yes, and certainly we would explore any links between the Trump campaign and the Kremlin. We're not going to leave it there if there were any kind of communications or interactions with the Clinton campaign, we will look at that, too. But you're right, it is enormously fraught politically. After all, we're exploring a potential connection between a foreign adversarial power and one of the major presidential campaigns or both of them. So, yes, it's a very politically delicate task to talk about, but frankly we are committed and the chairman has said he is committed as well to following the evidence wherever it may lead, and so we have to pursue I think any credible allegation.
GREENE: Are you suspicious that there's a tie between Hillary Clinton's campaign and Russia, is what you're suggesting?
SCHIFF: No, not at all. But what we are saying is that we don't want to foreclose any possibilities. We don't want to say that this investigation is solely about the Trump campaign. You know, there were - there have been allegations that the Russians tried to obtain compromising material on both presidential candidates. So we don't want to exclude any possibility, but clearly there have been a number of very public allegations concerning the Trump campaign.
Mueller is still not even on the scoreboard for any Russian collusion.
The 13 Russians were one side of the jigsaw puzzle. The new batch is the other side. The five indicted are the bottom edge.
He'll fill it in shortly and you'll be able to see the whole picture.
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.
