Special Counsel for Russia Election Interference: Robert Mueller.

Really? What specific charges have been proven up to now?

Smokescreen. What has been found in all 0f these months of investigation???

I don't think I understand your point Brandon. Republicans are admitting that there was Russian meddling in the election, and Republicans (who control the White House and both houses of Congress) all say that this needs to be investigated.

At this point of the investigation there is suspicion of wrongdoing but no proof. Both Nixon's Watergate scandal and Clinton's impeachment went through this phase.

How is what is happening now different from either of these?

I will remind you that the Republicans are now in charge of the White House and both houses of Congress, and everyone with any authority in the investigation so far is a Republican or a Republican appointee. If there wasn't something here, then why are the Republicans doing so much to cover their asses?

It's true that republicans first contracted for this "opposition research" on Trump during the primaries. But they had no further interest once Trump secured the nomination.

That's when the Clinton campaign stepped in (and stepped up) the project. They were paying something like $50,000/month for this trash, and Steele had to keep it (something scurrilous) coming to keep collecting.

The republicans kept it private, but the democrats disseminated this "fake news," gathered from russian agents, as widely as possible in their attempt to "influence" the election with russian aid. For months, they were virtually begging every media outlet to publish it, but no one would because it couldn't be independently confirmed.

I never heard a single democrat complain about this complicity with russia. On the contrary, most of them just tried to pretend that it was "all true" and was rightfully presented to the American public.

That Flynn lied about meeting Russians for starters. That's a pretty big deal.

This is an interesting spin. The obvious flaw is that Putin was openly rooting for Trump from early on in the campaign.

Why would that be a "flaw?" All this information purportedly came from russian intelligence agents. They aren't "for Trump," they're just "against America." The more discord they can sow within America, the better. The democrats were extremely happy to accomodate them, so long as they thought doing so would advance THEIR interests.

The Watergate scandal began with burglars caught red handed by a security guard. Had there been no evidence of higher involvement after eight months, the investigation would probably have stopped. Your assessment that people are "covering their assses" is not evidence. The fact is that after months and months of active investigation, you don't have a particle of evidence of collusion. And, by the way, although I assume that the Russians tried to be involved in our election, just for the record, give me one particle of actual evidence that they were and not just a statement of someone else's opinion.

Tell me what he said and to whom.

This is it EXACTLY! Is anyone actually shocked that Russia was involved somehow in this election? Do people really think that Russia hasn't been involved in every US election since the end of WW2?

It's exactly like how the US is involved in other countries elections. This isn't new. This isn't unique to Trump.

I got to give it to Trump he fooled me pretty well. I thought he was dumb but it never crossed my mind he was retarded. This past week as settled it!

There isn't suspicion of wrongdoing. This is a malicious attempt to damage Trump with untrue charges.



Some people are weak and don't have what it takes to stand up to a witch hunt.

Couple reasons I can see... 1> Liberals won't shut the hell up about it and until the allegations are finally proven false they will keep whining about it. 2> Liberals are likely to lie or create some false evidence so better to put the kibosh on that ****.

Both Comey and Rosenstein were thought to very experienced professionals with spotless reputations until they ran afoul of Democrat narratives and desires.

There is only one way that Mueller can retain his spotless reputation with the likes of Schumer, Pelosi, Durbin, Warren and Frankel and that is to bring charges against Trump. Anything less will become a very big spot indeed.

See, now this is just another Anti-Trump liberal distorting reality in a blithe way to suit a narrative that already has the president guilty before investigations are complete and charges even considered.

Trump is not seriously contesting that the Russians meddled in the election if by meddle you mean involved themselves in hacking e-mail accounts and spreading disinformation. While it's true that he has hardly made it the #1 concern of his presidency and doesn't condemn it as if they stole copies of the original Constitution and Declaration of Independence and burned them, you should know full well that that is not the same as seriously contesting that they meddled. Lumping him with Putin when it is inaccurate at the least to assert they share the same opinion on the issue is another cute trick meant to cover for the fact that there is no there there.

If by meddle you mean actually manipulating vote counts (or even making the effort to) then you are correct that he seriously contests such an allegation, but then so does just about ever member of the intelligence community we've heard from.

It's hardly surprising or unreasonable that he would not wish to embrace the notion of Russian meddling since it is clearly the underpinning of the Opposition's strategy for destroying his presidency, and if he were to simply get in line with the rhetoric of the Maxine Waters of the nation and join the chorus shrieking that the Russians stole the election from Clinton he would be delegitimizing his own victory. Nice try, but don't expect him to cooperate.

You folks crack me up. Not only do you want to hang him for colluding with the Russians you try and insinuate that any push back from him is proof of his guilt or of his disregard for the institutions of democracy.

We (or at least the NYT and WaPo) seem to know everything that is going on with and around Trump. Somehow we now know that he referred to Comey in unflattering terms when he met with the Russians, that he revealed classified information to the Russians, that he asked Comey to drop the Flynn investigation, that a Trump Administration official "close to Trump" is a "person of interest" in the FBI investigation, that he demanded Comey swear fealty to him personally and that he puts ketchup on his steak. Yet somehow the crack investigative reporters at these two papers with a seemingly limitless source of current and former government officials and employees who are willing to leak anything and everything (including classified information) to them, can't come up with even heresay evidence of collusion. It's the one and only thing multiple parties involved in these investigations have managed to keep hidden; close to their vests. Amazing! But I guess it proves your theory that three or four dozen members of Congressional committees and their staffers as well as a dozen or more FBI agents and their superiors can really keep a secret when it's that the president of the United States conspired with a foreign government in an attempt to rig a presidential election.

Of course the FBI is taking the question seriously. FBI investigators are not in the habit of treating any investigation frivolously and especially not high profile ones. You write this with the clear intent of implying that if the FBI investigators are diligently doing their jobs (taking the question of collusion seriously) that this is an indication that they believe the answer is "there was collusion" and are bound and determined to unearth the necessary evidence to bring charges against someone. When was the last time one of the agents assigned to the investigation briefed you? Where did you read that one of them or even an anonymous person who is familiar with one of them informed a reporter that they are "certainly taking the question [of collusion] seriously" and it's because they are convinced that there was collusion?

You're not a MSM reporter so this sort of disingenuous trickery with phraseology is nothing more than annoying but when journalists do it is professional malpractice and part of an effort to negate the results of a fairly held democratic election because they don't like the result and they detest the man who won.

There may be general consensus that Russia once again meddled (as noted elsewhere this is almost certainly not the first time they have made the effort) in the election by assisting in the revelation of e-mail from the accounts of Podesta and the DNC, positioning trolls in social media sites, and disseminating misinformation, but that's the extent of the consensus. It doesn't extend to manipulating vote counts, bribing or blackmailing election officials, or collusion between the Russian government and the Trump campaign. It doesn't even extend to the effect the meddling had on the election. The leaked e-mail simply provided further confirmation of what many millions of Americans already suspected and believed. The sort of wild fake news stories the Russians are thought to be responsible for (e.g. child pornography rings in DC pizza places) was hardly taken serious by great swathes of voters who would have otherwise cast their ballots for HRC. And when was the last time an internet troll of any nationality persuaded you to change any position you held, let alone who you wanted for president, because of something written in a forum like this one? The impact of the meddling, such as it was, has been hyped to an extreme because it has to be if Russian Interference is to be used as the explanation for Clinton blowing an election, the general consensus about which was that it was her's to lose.

What does it say about Clinton if what caused her to lose wasn't that the American wanted Donald Trump for their president, but instead, confirmation of the corruption and malfeasance which surrounded her as the source; in the words and keystrokes of her own party's national organization, her own Campaign Chairman, and the director of the FBI? Little if any of the confirming words were seriously contested with detailed refutations; instead the argument and complaint seemed to be "It was terribly unfair that those facts were revealed and some of them were revealed through a criminal operation aided by a foreign nation!" And if the rest of the keystone kops interference of the Russians (trolls and fake news stories) actually contributed to her loss, she was doomed from the start.

As well, plausible arguments can and have been made that:

Flynn was fired for lying to Vice President Pence. If Flynn was a key member of the cabal that included the president and colluded with the Russians, what possible sense would it make to risk creating an enemy of General Flynn, an enemy who might feel perfectly justified in jettisoning any sense of personal loyalty and spilling the beans about the fire izzy is so certain is burning? A typical answer from the Opposition would be:



Sessions recusing himself from the investigation was a foolish mistake intended to appease Democrats so he might put a lid on their braying about Russians. Whomever made the decision that he should recuse himself, obviously underestimated the fervor of the Opposition and not only should have realized that the move would never appease them, but that it would be offered (as izzy has just done) as evidence that there was collusion.

Sessions had an explanation for not revealing his meeting with the Russian ambassador during his confirmation process. Many on both sides of the aisle thought it was a bit too cute, but it obviously was good enough to prevent an effort to have him charged with perjury which most non-partisan legal experts opined would never stick. It certainly wasn't his recusing himself from the investigation that stemmed that tide. The Opposition will not be appeased. If Sessions was a key member of the cabal that included the president and colluded with the Russians, being able to exert control over the DOJ/FBI investigation would have been a great advantage and one not to be given up without more of a struggle. In addition, once Sessions got caught out in what was alleged to be a very suspicious lie, why wouldn't Trump follow the same approach he used with Flynn and simply sack him? The response:



Trump fired Comey in a fit of pique but based on a resentment and anger that had been building for months. First Comey dismissed his request that he lay off the great guy Flynn who Trump felt bad about firing and he quite possibly made it clear to Trump in a condescending way that he didn't appreciate the president's suggestion. Secondly, Trump saw him as a "showoff" and a "grand-stander." It takes one to know one and even colleagues who liked and respected Comey acknowledged that he liked to be the center of attention. There's only room for one Grand-stander in the Trump Administration. Finally and perhaps most importantly, Trump was convinced that Comey was one of the sources of leaks that were bedeviling him.

As for threatening him, what was the threat? He had just fired the man. What could he threaten him with? Death? His tweet about taped Oval Office conversations was at most a warning to Comey and maybe even a bluff. "Before you go off and lie about me to the media or do more of your leaking, you should realize I have the things you've said to me on tape" Now maybe that was to suggest that he could prove Comey was lying about him or maybe they both knew that Comey had said something inappropriate during a meeting. I suppose it could be very loosely characterized as a threat in the way that someone telling another person "If you try and hurt me, I will hurt you" might be considered a threat but it's obviously more a warning than a threat. Again what was he threatening him with? The truth? Now we've already established that Trump is impulsive, erratic, self-destructive and all around crazy so I guess there's no point in questioning the logic of a guilty man firing the Director of the FBI because he's afraid of an investigation when he had to know that firing Comey was not going to end the investigation, but rather cause his enemies to scream that this was precisely what he intended:

I can't answer for oralloy but I think that my view is shared by most conservatives:

If there is solid evidence that members of his campaign staff colluded with members of the Russian government in an effort of any sort to influence the election they need to be prosecuted to the full extent of whatever laws they violated.

If there is solid evidence that Trump know of this collusion and participated in it, encouraged it or even simply knew about it but didn't put an immediate end to it he needs to resign or be removed from office. If at that point he can prosecuted, he should be.

Of course this is an enormous "if," and as has been repeated over and over again by Republicans and Democrats, there is currently no evidence of collusion.

Obviously if such evidence exists it may still be found, and if it does exist I hope it is found. What will infuriate me though is for the investigations to be unnecessarily dragged out to accommodate the 2018 or, God forbid, the 2020 political aspirations of the Democrats. I will also be outraged if after a long and grueling investigation where no evidence is found, the Opposition refuses to put an end to their accusations and innuendos.

The Washington Post editorial board within 24 hours of the announcement of the appointment of a Special Counsel was calling for the formation of an Independent Commission, the clear intent of which would be to allow the Opposition to cover its bets, prolong the "scandal" beyond any finding by Mueller that there is no basis for criminal charges to be brought, and enable the Democrat members of the Commission to still castigate Trump and his Administration for



So the first question for you is if Mueller concludes his investigation with a finding that there is no evidence that Trump or members of his campaign colluded with the Russians and there are no grounds for criminal charges to be brought against anyone, will you be satisfied and consider the matter to be at an end?

The second question is, if Mueller concludes his investigation with a finding that there is no evidence that Trump colluded with the Russians or had any knowledge of such collusion by members of his campaign staff and therefore obviously neither allowed or encouraged it, will you be satisfied and consider the matter to be at an end, even if Mueller finds there is evidence that one or two staffers (Like Manafort for instance) did engage in illegal collusion (providing of course that appropriate charges are filed against the staffers identified)?

The final question is, that assuming your answer to the first two questions are "Yes," will you be willing and prepared to call out any member or group of the Opposition that refuses to do so and attempts to drag the matter on further?

Yes I would "IF"

Sitting here hoping for some catastrophe to overtake The GOP is idiotic for the country and my investments (To read it from a personal selfish POV).
We are vulnerable and floundering about as a nation while all this stops progress .

Yes.

If the results of the investigation if it finds no collision.or no witting collusion from Trump I will accept them. And yes, I would call out people who ignored that fact.

I trust Mueller, and I believe the agents of the FBI will be professional and competent. And I am sincere when I acknowledge that I have no way of knowing what really happened at this point.

I differ in several ways.

First, the Democrats are clearly trying to create a permanent double standard, where if a Democrat commits crimes they get excused for whatever nonsense reason that the Democrats can cobble together, but if a Republican does something wrong suddenly it is vital to enforce the law.

If the Democrats succeed in creating this permanent double standard that will be a disaster, so I think it is important to excuse Republicans for any wrongdoing that Democrats are also excused for.


Second, aside from the above concern, sometimes something is technically illegal but prosecutorial discretion would dictate against actually pursuing criminal charges. The entire point of the Democrats' call for a special prosecutor is because special prosecutors tend to abuse discretion and prosecute people who should never have been charged. I am against such excessive prosecutions even if the person did technically break the law.


Third, while I am confident that Trump didn't collude with Russia (although I think Flynn and Manafort probably did), if we assume for the sake of argument that Trump did collude with Russia, if he didn't actually commit a serious crime while doing so, I see no reason why that would justify impeaching him. It's not like Russia altered the vote count or anything. Russia merely tried to sway the opinion of voters who remained free to vote for whoever they wanted to.

I would bet that Putin's attempt to sway the 2016 election was a lot less intrusive than Bill Clinton's and Barack Obama's past attempts to sway Israeli elections against Netanyahu.