So I guess all the "Russia!" stuff was projection

[jamil]

Paying attention to what? Actual prosecution of actual wrongdoing? If anything, the rule of law is being supported in this endeavor.

Why should Mueller NOT try to find evidence of criminal wrongdoing by DJT? If he committed crimes, he should be prosecuted. If he didn't, he shouldn't. Just like Clinton. The husband. Well, that might not narrow it down much, either, but you get the idea.

Is a witch hunt a bad thing if actual witches are found?

Tell you what, there's some speculation that some of the institutions involved with Manafort are also connected to Clinton. The whole thing, as noted often, is incestuous. So, this isn't necessarily a partisan thing at all.

I want the rule of law followed, and I want it followed fairly. The question isn't why investigate at all. Of course I want it investigated. The question is why weren't there investigations then into all the Obama/Clinton scandals? The answer to that seems to be, the fix was in before it started. And, given that there weren't investigations then, the question also is, for what purpose have they decided to investigate now?

By all means, do investigate now. But I don't want witch hunts. If the purpose of this investigation is to find out, since there have been allegations against Trump, if there was any wrongdoing on his part. If the purpose is to oust a president they don't like, THAT's not rule of law. That's selective application laws the investigators find expedient.

 

[Birds Away]

It's okay, relax, CNN says there's no reason to investigate Obama/Clinton. All of those allegations have been debunked...by CNN. Nothing to see here, folks. Rule of law, hurrumph, harrumph.

 

[T.Lex]

I want the rule of law followed, and I want it followed fairly. The question isn't why investigate at all. Of course I want it investigated. The question is why weren't there investigations then into all the Obama/Clinton scandals?

Wait. I mentioned Ken Starr earlier. Clinton investigation - heck, that was closer to a witch hunt than what is currently playing out. And politically, I encouraged it!

Clinton the Shorter investigation (I'm really going to have to figure out a clearer way to distinguish the 2 Clintons) - it was, and nothing was found to be criminal. That wasn't an endorsement, it was simply the way things played out. Look, it could be re-opened, and I think DJT promised that, but it won't... probably because nothing was there.

Obama? Heck, his issues played out in public. He won legislative gamble after legislative gamble.

And, now that there's a "Republican" in office, this is when those investigations can happen.

The answer to that seems to be, the fix was in before it started. And, given that there weren't investigations then, the question also is, for what purpose have they decided to investigate now?

That's the question? Now that DJT is POTUS?

I'm sorry - that's not the right question IMHO.

By all means, do investigate now. But I don't want witch hunts. If the purpose of this investigation is to find out, since there have been allegations against Trump, if there was any wrongdoing on his part. If the purpose is to oust a president they don't like, THAT's not rule of law. That's selective application laws the investigators find expedient.

What's the difference? The result.

That's a terrible way to differentiate between an investigation and a witch hunt.

The obvious purpose is to find out if there was criminal wrongdoing, by anyone.

 

[1DOWN4UP]

The obvious purpose is to find out if there was criminal wrongdoing, by anyone.[/QUOTE] I think this is Trump's path to Uranium 1.

 

[T.Lex]

So, here's a National Review blog that covers the immediate link between Manafort and the Podestas.

The Day Gets More Interesting: Tony Podesta Steps Down From His Lobbying Firm | National Review

Corruption, like water and electricity, tends to follow the path of least resistance. Manafort doesn't seem like a political partisan. Rather, his role is to be effective for his clients regardless the party in power. So, when appropriate, he worked with Dem people.

But, that still raises the issue about what his intentions were when he got involved with Trump. He was set not matter who won the election. In the meantime, he could milk more coin from his clients by being close to the Republican nominee. Trump may not have been the Manchurian Candidate-candidate, but Manafort could've been the [strike]courtesan[/strike] courtier* influencer bought by the Russians.

ETA
*I think the Freudian slip is forgivable.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Well he's on your team so we wouldn't expect an objective look at it.

Yes, Trump is the devil incarnate. We got it, thanks.

If I have offended you in some way, I apologize. Please try to keep the snark to a minimum.

 

[Alpo]

Daily bag limit: 2 snarks.

3 allowed in possession.

I don't think Trump is smart enough to be a puppetmaster, much less Satan.

 

[Kutnupe14]

The obvious purpose is to find out if there was criminal wrongdoing, by anyone. I think this is Trump's path to Uranium 1.

Doubtful. Nine agencies had to approve the Uranium deal. The Clinton led state department was only one of those agencies. The Clinton Foundation donor did not own any shares of Uranium One when he donated to Clinton, when the deal was approved. In fact, he had sold them years before. Further, Clinton wasn't even Sec of State when the foundation received the donation. So unless the donor had some foresight and a time machine, this kinda seems like people getting mad for nothing. Now, one may want to investigate why the donor gave the foundation so much money, but trying to attach it to Uranium One, is pretty ridiculous.

 

[Alpo]

Yeah. So is believing anything Sean Hannity says.

 

[1DOWN4UP]

Doubtful. Nine agencies had to approve the Uranium deal. The Clinton led state department was only one of those agencies. The Clinton Foundation donor did not own any shares of Uranium One when he donated to Clinton, when the deal was approved. In fact, he had sold them years before. Further, Clinton wasn't even Sec of State when the foundation received the donation. So unless the donor had some foresight and a time machine, this kinda seems like people getting mad for nothing. Now, one may want to investigate why the donor gave the foundation so much money, but trying to attach it to Uranium One, is pretty ridiculous.

You are probably right.

 

[Brad69]

President Trump may not be smart enough to be a puppet master!
Just smart enough to be President !
The Clinton empire has many shady deals not one has stuck they are made of Teflon as well as being above the law.
I am confident that Clinton’s have isolated themselves yet again.
The Podesta angle is most interesting he resigned from his own firm to meet with his lawyers full time?

I am on full Snark I have to work tonight unexpectedly!

 

[Alpo]

"Smart enough to be president".

I guess you don't remember the Carter or Bush 43 years......

 

[Kutnupe14]

You are probably right.

I'm just going with what seems logical. Giving a 100 plus million to the CF doesn't seem logical. In fact it smells. The Uranium One brouhaha, is only because it has a Russian connection. It seems like more deflection, than a legitimate issue.

 

[Birds Away]

Yeah. So is believing anything Sean Hannity says.

I wouldn't know as I don't watch that channel. IMO Fox, CNN, MSNBC etc. are just entertainment channels designed to tell people what they want to hear. Watching any of those channels to get the news is akin to watching Hogan's Heroes to learn the history of WWII.

 

[Brad69]

Hey Carter was a nice guy! Best peanut farmer ever to be president.
The country breathed a collective sigh of relief in 1980.
Bush senior was a life long insider a cog in the machine.

President Trump is quite insane and I am fine with that !
I enjoy watching CNN or MSNBC having a meltdown everyday.
While the economy grows unemployment falls the stock market booms ect.

 

[Birds Away]

A stated personal opinion, devoid of the intimate knowledge needed to make such a claim, renders it little more than an emotional outburst based in frustration.

If I have offended you in some way, I apologize. Please try to keep the snark to a minimum.

I guess I just need to polish it up a bit. Makes it much more palatable.

 

[Woobie]

I wouldn't know as I don't watch that channel. IMO Fox, CNN, MSNBC etc. are just entertainment channels designed to tell people what they want to hear. Watching any of those channels to get the news is akin to watching Hogan's Heroes to learn the history of WWII.

Funny because it's true.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Hey Carter was a nice guy! Best peanut farmer ever to be president.
The country breathed a collective sigh of relief in 1980.
Bush senior was a life long insider a cog in the machine.

President Trump is quite insane and I am fine with that !
I enjoy watching CNN or MSNBC having a meltdown everyday.
While the economy grow unemployment falls the stock market booms ect.

Hypothetically, are these acceptable trade offs if the ruling administration of our nation is beholden to another?

 

[Birds Away]

Hypothetically, are these acceptable trade offs if the ruling administration of our nation is beholden to another?

Do you really, honestly believe that?

 

[Brad69]

Hypothetically speaking Yes

1. We will switch the President in four or eight years.
2. The President’s power is not absolute if we had a kingdom I would worry!
3. The Russians are not that special or powerful if so the USSR would still be in effect.

The Chinese are a much bigger threat!