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

...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.

Further, Clinton was not above the law and did pay. Politically and financially

Millions of U.S. citizens would likely care, including plenty of those that voted for him and had believed in him and his words.

Leaders of other nations would likely care too.

There might well be different crimes here, so any punishments meted out would be set accordingly.

Further, Clinton was not above the law and did pay. Politically and financially.

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.

They should mind their own business.

How did he pay politically?

By this reasoning, why should the US stick it's nose in anyone else's business?

why should the US stick it's nose in anyone else's business?

Dictators around the world use police forces for their own personal ends, so that is a path you never want a leader to go down - putting in place a series of events that lead to gaining control of a police force (ie. Keep appointing bootlickers to the top positions, until they influence the rest of the police force, who start to understand that the only path to promotion is through meeting certain political demands, and so on down the slippery slope).

Goldstone himself had promised as much, in an email to Trump Jr. saying the Russian had information that "would incriminate Hillary and her dealings with Russia and would be very useful to your father," and that it was "part of Russia and its government's support for Mr. Trump."

We're a civilized democracy. Presumably the people whose business we are sticking our nose in are third-world trash

The US has the right to force third-world hellholes to comply with civilized standards.

Alright, it appears you've missed the hypocrisy of your stance.

I'm pretty sure that according to you, citizens have the right to kill any foreign invader that steps foot on their soil - which is one of the reasons you believe in the right to bear arms in the way you do...so I presume you approve other countries citizens trying to kill / killing any american invaders.

And no, the US does not have the right to force third world hellholes to comply with civilised standards.

And it has in fact done the opposite numerous times, propping up dictactors. So using it as a justification for invasion is a self-serving claim at best.

Nor is 'enforcing civilised standards' it's usually motivation for invasion. Otherwise it would be in Africa quite a bit. But the Clinton era was the only time I remember them actually trying Africa.

Regardless tomorrow, everything may be different after Trump and Rosenstein meet.

And yes, I think it fair to equate the US to a police officer and equate a third-world hellhole to a bank robber.

However, even when we did this, we still pushed hard to move those countries towards democracy and civil rights.

I'm expressing my personal view of what US foreign policy should be, not making a statement of what we actually do.

That is a really bad analogy.

- The US in foreign policy terms, has never gone into any country where it didn't gain an economic advantage (Clinton Era, and Afghanistan aside). So if you want to compare the US to a policeman - it would be to a corrupt policeman, who only tackles crime if there's a cut in it for him

- certainly the US, as a policeman ignores the attrocities, dictators, and wars in Africa...so it's a policeman that chooses which crimes it wants to investigate...turning its head away from inconvenient crimes...and address only those which happen to be those most economically beneficial to it.

- And it's a police officer that apparently supports mob bosses (as we're using analogies, the mob bosses would be dictators)

So sure, if you want to compare it to a police officer - it would be be the equivalent of just about the most corrupt police officer you could find...but it's not a police officer.

The 'police officer' tag is just what it uses when it wants something. There's certainly a major reason why it chooses to intervene in the Middle East more than Africa. All it's small wars have been beneficial to it, with US companies setting up major bases in those countries after.

oralloy wrote:

However, even when we did this, we still pushed hard to move those countries towards democracy and civil rights.

Odd. The US doesn't seem to be doing this now.

It certainly has had little success achieving this.

I don't necessarily disagree with this action, in terms of protecting a countries interest, because, sometimes, in removing dictators, worse comes along afterwards.

I do though, say it's hypocritical to prop up dictators (no matter your reasoning), while claiming to support civilised societies / democracy etc.

If you have to do it, fine...but don't call it anything other than what it is, and you most certainly can't claim to be a policeman (unless you happily admit to being a corrupt one).

Which is fine...but you would have to say that before making a statement like that...otherwise it's always going to misinterpreted (in light of the US' actual actions)

What a crock of ****. How democratic is Saudi Arabia? If you're not Wahhabi or tolerated by the Wahhabis, you can forget civil rights in Saudi Arabia. Egypt has been a military dictatorship since King Farouk was run out, and almost all governments in the middle east are tribal minority governments.

When Iraq was a client state of the United States, no one attempted to guarantee democracy in a government run by less than 15% of the population.

Hafaz al-Assad created the minority tribal government of Syria as Prime Minister in 1970, and it was based on the Alawi, Twelver Shi'ite power tribe that rose to prominence in the French Mandate in the 1930s. Hafaz al-Assad became the President in 1971, and any mention of Sunnis and Shi'ites, or Ismailis and Druze was forbidden--the fairy tale was a majority Muslim state, as if these differences not only didn't matter, but didn't exist. Bashar al-Assad has run the same crime mob style of governemnt since Hafaz died in 2000.

The Kurds live in Turkey, Syria, Iraq and Iran, and no one has allowed them to unite since the death of Saladin (actually, Youssuf Sah'lah ad-Din [Joseph, Savior of the Faithful]) died about 800 years ago. Frankly, the though of a united Kurdistan scares the **** out of the rulers of Turkey, Syria, Iraq and Iran.

Iran has a majority Twelver Shi'ite society. and the last time anything like democracy reigned there was in 1953, when Mohammed Mossadegh's democratically elected government was overthrown by Central Intelligence at the urging of the Secret Services in London, because Mossadegh was going to cancel the Anglo-Persian Oil Company's concession in Iran.

In fact, the tribal minority running Israel is, in effect, the Zionists.

How much democracy do the Palestinians enjoy?

Who protects their civil rights?

The Zionists have been killing them and stealing their land since 1947.

Eisenhower and Carter are the only presidents who ever stood up to the Zionists.

Really, don't piss down my leg and tell me it's raining.

Setanta wrote:
In fact, the tribal minority running Israel is, in effect, the Zionists.
That is incorrect. They are the majority in Israel.