All of Robert Mueller’s indictments and plea deals in the Russia investigation so far.

He sure is. All of that. But what the news media has been doing is making them all into a federal case. The term "Snowflake" is being used because people are going crazy over every single thing he does.

One perspective It like to use to illustrate this madness is the story of the time Trump was elected, he decided to go out to eat at a restaurant. He didn't like the idea of the press hanging around. so he ditched them and went to dinner. The press caught up to him, and the next day every news organization except for a few in the USA, and BBC was reporting the story like Trump did something drastically wrong. This attitude led me to believe that there was a fair amount of press that would never give Trump any benefit, any fairness or stable words when reporting.

If you go on YouTube, you can find election 2016 videos on how many in the news media lost all composure when Trump won. Not just that Hillary lost, but because they can only seem to hate him so much.

This Russian collusion investigation is more of the same. The Democrats lied about a Russian hacking event, the FBI showed up to get the information from the servers, and the Democrats told them "no". So the only real hacking story by the Russians, other than from Wikileaks, is all kept under wraps by the Democrat party. We just have to take their word for a hack.

Otherwise, there is no evidence of Russian hacking, and Papadopoulos was set up to pass the rumor on so that Rosenstein could claim to a FISA judge that even the news media was reporting the story. The judge acted then.

They had to treat Papadopoulos to the same notion by an FBI agent and an Australian diplomat. Then Papadopoulos began to talk to others about the Russians hacking because he heard it, when it was all a set up. Now, Papadopoulos has to go to prison because the FBI says he lied to them.

edit: My girlfriend and I are watching a football game. I will be back later to read your list again. As far as I know there should be little to disagree with. The Art of the Democrats is to use rhetoric to try to defame anything "Trump". I noticed that there is some of that in the list. It's rhetoric. You might not have noticed because who can you rely on to counter any one-sided liberal (or conservative in your country as I understand it), argument? It's rhetoric, because none of those charges and court decisions have anything to do with Trump or Russian collusion. This has been a hunting expedition, and the lack of evidence of Russian collusion in any of those decisions makes that very clear. But I will read it against to make sure I saw relevant information, who knows, I could have missed something.

When Mueller makes the report public with evidence that there actually was collusion, do you accept it and change your mind?

It is quite possible that the reason you don't have any evidence is because Mueller hasn't made it public.... yet

When he makes the report public, with actual evidence, then I will believe it.
Until then. its just been 2 years of wasting taxpayer money on a meaningless witch hunt.

Again, I live in Australia. I don't have a clue what the difference is between Democrats and Republicans.

Everything on the list, I formed the opinion of from numerous reports about his behaviour - much that provided video feeds, and copies of his twitter rants, and reports on firings and resignations.

You are of course right that there has been some unfair media coverage, even from the start. And they did get hysterical when he won. My opinion is that many in the media new how much of a disaster he was going to be.

Mind you - most people over here thought he was going to be a disaster - and that consensus seemed to be formed just from coverage of the things he said during his campaign, and perhaps conceptions of him from The Apprentice.

Still, of greatest concern to me, is his sacking of Comey, and his sacking of anyone who doesn't defend him with enough 'vigour'. He appears to prefer outright lies as a defence, to careful defence using the truth, or even obfuscation. But those sackings say he only wants yes men, and ones that are prepared to make up any lie, or attack any person / organisation, to defend the president. If he manages to win another term, this will quite possibly become ingrained within the whitehouse, and perhaps further afield.

Two illogical, contradictory statements, mm, but a great quote for max's new book, Two US Parties: and their stunningly hypocritical partisan followers by Max the hypocrite dancona.

If we believe that sentence #1 is true, then sentence #2 completely contradicts it.

Be there, said that, map.

It is hilarious, in a pathetic sort of way, that the special counsel, a life-long and loyal republican who has served three Republican presidents with distinction, was appointed by a Republican Congress--and the right wing continues to whine about a Democratic witch hunt.

Okay. That is good. It helps me to know where to start trying to explain this. I'm going to try to do it without putting down too much information, which can make things even harder to understand.

For a long time The USA has been a two party political system. There are other parties, but none really successful. Personally I think it stinks, but when I look out into the American political landscape, I see worse. Socialists, Green Party, even Communists like Obama's former CIA director John Brennan.

The two parties can be seen as Democrat (the seedbed of liberalism, and the "Left"), and Republican (the seedbed of conservatism, and the "Right Wing"). Of course, both parties have extreme and subtle versions of the ideologies which entail those parties. Some Democrats are actually conservative, while some Republicans can be rather liberal. Sometimes I refer to the individuals who are more centrist as Republicrats.

This video is something that helped to concisely define the Democratic Party from its roots.
Prager University- The Inconvenient Truth About The Democratic Party (5 minutes 49 seconds long)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g_a7dQXilCo&t=62s

The Inconvenient Truth About the Republican Party
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OURy5WFp0zk

What I am not doing is trying to get you to agree with the Republicans. I can see they have weakness, today's Republicans were also against Trump. They put out an Omnibus Bill earlier this year that reeked of "FU Trump", being in control of both legislative bodies of government they showed themselves to be weak, scared of the media, and just as swampy as the Democrats at times.

So I'm not presenting this information to make you think Republican. They are untrustworthy, unless they accept Trump as their political leader, which I think Trump would do us well with.

Who do you mean? Who is a lifelong Republican? I hope you don't mean Comey.

I agree with what I agree with - which doesn't align to any political party that I know of, and to do so would in fact, be quite restrictive. Aligning with a political party would essentially mean allowing someone else to think for me.

As an aside, Political Parties suck people in under the guise of 'but you can effect change this way' (which is somewhat true, for those in the country you live in), but then demand that they conform to the parties ideology, and support the party line, whether you believe it's good, bad, or neither. Peter Garret was a classic example - years gone was the front man for a rock band called Midnight Oil (famous in Australia), who wrote many environmentalist songs (Blue Sky Mine may be his most famous). They lured him in with promises of becoming environment Minister. The amount of times he looked uncomfortable in front of the cameras, saying something he didn't believe in, was quite sad.

Both major parties in Australia appear to be slightly different versions of each other these days. 30 years back they stood for different things, but not today. And both parties are scared of the media, scared of interest groups that get media attention, scared of taking a stand that upsets people, and scared of anyone within government, legislature or executive, not following the party line. They are scared of anyone yelling the R word (Racist), anyone yelling the S word (Sexist), and similar mantra's, and so important things don't get discussed in the public domain.

Do you have reading comprehension problems? Is English not your native langauge?

Most importantly I seriously doubt the word collusion will even be used if there is an Mueller report. Somehow I don't see Mueller standing before the press reading a long report. In regards to the president, I imagine he will turn over his report to the Justice department and they will decide what if anything to do with it.

I am pretty sure the report will be made public. At least I hope it will be. I can't imagine it wouldn't be.

The Democrats got Scooter Libby convicted of obstruction when he actually told the truth.

I can imagine it wouldn’t be.

I hope Trump would see the folly in that, but certainly we can all imagine a world where his justice department sits on it.


I think it probably will though, but I’d put the odds at about 2:3

I defend Trump firstly because I defend the truth, and so far it looks like he has not done anything wrong.

I also defend him because he prevents the Democrats from violating my civil rights.

There are two big hurdles to clear here. Trump has to have done something wrong in the first place before Mueller can discover that wrongdoing. And at the moment there is no reason to think that he has done anything wrong.

Second, even if it transpires that Trump has actually done something wrong, who cares? If Bill Clinton gets to be above the law, so does Trump.

Why do people still whine about Senator McCarthy's witch hunting from back in the cold war?

Given that I don't, you are wasting your time asking me. The two situations are not analogous--once again, a respected, life-long Republican has been appointed by a Republican Congress. Calling it a Democratic witch-hunt is the height of dull-witted stupidity.