Mueller report cover up

[Hawktawk]

https://theweek.com/speedreads/833201/r ... ade-public

The fix is so in. I've been saying it from day one. Its not surprising with Trumps hand picked stooge at the controls. The 4 page whitewash was purely political to set the initial narrative in a positive spin for the most lawless president ever to receive a political boost. Now the same fat rodent who could figure out there was no obstruction in less than 48 hours needs 3 weeks to produce a heavily redacted report. Umm Hmm...

The Justice department stonewalling on producing even these summaries proves day by day just how terribly damaging it is to Trump. Welcome to the banana republic known as the Trump administration.

[RiverDog]

https://theweek.com/speedreads/833201/report-mueller-investigators-wrote-summaries-assumed-made-public

The fix is so in. I've been saying it from day one. Its not surprising with Trumps hand picked stooge at the controls. The 4 page whitewash was purely political to set the initial narrative in a positive spin for the most lawless president ever to receive a political boost. Now the same fat rodent who cvould figure aout there was no obstruction in less than 48 hours needs 3 weeks to produce a heavily redacted report. Umm Hmm...

The Justice department stonewalling on producing even these summaries proves day by day just how terribly damaging it is to Trump. Welcome to the banana republic known as the Trump administration.

It reminds me of Nixon trying to sell Congress edited transcripts of the Watergate tapes. It didn't work for him as the Supreme Court eventually ordered him to comply by releasing to Congress the full content of the tapes. IMO won't work for Trump, either. Neither the Congress or the public will be satisfied until the full, unedited report is released.

[burrrton]

Neither the Congress or the public will be satisfied until the full, unedited report is released.

The report wasn't written for public consumption (for legal reasons, I've read)- we'll only see a redacted version.

Don't worry, though- that will allow the tinfoil hat, black helicopter brigade to keep their lives fulfilled insisting there was actually evidence of illegality in there.

[RiverDog]

Neither the Congress or the public will be satisfied until the full, unedited report is released.

The report wasn't written for public consumption (for legal reasons, I've read)- we'll only see a redacted version.

Don't worry, though- that will allow the tinfoil hat, black helicopter brigade to keep their lives fulfilled insisting there was actually evidence of illegality in there.

I don't necessarily need to see it in its entirety, but someone besides Barr needs to. There's no way any reasonable person can trust this current AG based on his previous statements regarding this particular investigation. It's like trusting the fox to guard the chicken coop.

[Aseahawkfan]

How did I know once the Mueller report came out a new line of excuse making by the anti-Trump crowd would start. Why let it out? It could state he is completely innocent and the anti-Trump crowd would find tons of things to insinuate like they did with The Russian crap to begin with.

Now we get to hear all the excuses about a cover up and other such garbage.

[burrrton]

How did I know once the Mueller report came out a new line of excuse making by the anti-Trump crowd would start. Why let it out? It could state he is completely innocent and the anti-Trump crowd would find tons of things to insinuate like they did with The Russian crap to begin with.

Now we get to hear all the excuses about a cover up and other such garbage.

Ayup.

[RiverDog]

Why let it (the Mueller Report) out?

The American taxpayers paid for that report. We deserve to know what's in it, or if there is sensitive information, have reasonable assurances from an impartial body that there was no evidence of criminal activity regarding the 2016 election. We are an open society.

If they bring in Mueller and have him testify under oath that he did not uncover any evidence of criminal activity in either the collusion aspect or subsequent obstruction of justice charges, then I'll accept it. But I don't trust Trump or his AG any further than I can throw them.

[Aseahawkfan]

The American taxpayers paid for that report. We deserve to know what's in it, or if there is sensitive information, have reasonable assurances from an impartial body that there was no evidence of criminal activity regarding the 2016 election. We are an open society.

If they bring in Mueller and have him testify under oath that he did not uncover any evidence of criminal activity in either the collusion aspect or subsequent obstruction of justice charges, then I'll accept it. But I don't trust Trump or his AG any further than I can throw them.

But wouldn't that be further election tampering providing the Democrats with ammunition to use against Trump? Isn't the whole point of the report to ensure a more fair, unburdened election? How does releasing the report help make it other than tampering by giving the Dems huge ammunition going into the next election? Or is it just ok to tamper as long as it's against the party or person you hate?

Isn't Mueller an upstanding Marine? If he found no reason to file charges, then can't we call it good? Even Hawktawk said Mueller was a stand-up guy that would do the right thing. If he didn't find a reason to file for charges, then can't we trust him? Didn't we pay a trustworthy man to conduct the investigation?

Sorry, we could have this discussion back and forth all day. Democrats paid to dig dirt. If the report is released before the election, then we basically paid for a Democrat attack piece that they started under questionable pretenses. I don't consider that less than the election tampering they accused Russia of. This was an investigation that should have never occurred and the Democrats should not benefit from it.

I don't like Trump as president. I've made that clear. But this was BS by the Democrats. I don't see how releasing the report so the Democrats can have a field day tossing out any little tidbit the left wing media and the Democrats can spin into shadowy dealings is good for the natoin. They've already spun little tidbits into Trump is supporting the Klan and other such trash on the loosest of accusations. They used this report to launch investigations into his finances that are questionable. They have gone after this guy worse than any president I've ever seen. Now you think it's ok to continue using taxpayer money to further fuel this clearly partisan attack by the Democrats given a trustworthy man did the investigation and didn't find enough to pursue? Sorry, I don't agree.

This was a hit job by the Democrats. They shouldn't be able to use it until after the next election. I don't want my taxpayer money going to party hit jobs in the first place, now I don't want it used for purposes that may bias the election.

[I-5]

How do we know what Mueller is actually saying, if Barr is the one interpreting the results of the report? Does the AG have the prerogative to make that interpretation himself via his 4-page letter? I agree with Riv, the taxpayers paid for that report. We don't all need to see it, but someone other than Trump's guy definitely needs to be able to read it in it's entirety. Let's see Wikileaks do it's thing now...oh, they probably wouldn't want to in this case.

[RiverDog]

But wouldn't that be further election tampering providing the Democrats with ammunition to use against Trump?

Not if all the information is accurately represented. Of course, the Dems would use it as ammunition against Trump, just like Trump and the R's would use damaging information about their opponent. That's not election tampering, it's freedom of information.

Or is it just ok to tamper as long as it's against the party or person you hate?

I don't like either party. But if information surfaces, like Hillary's prohibited use of an unsecured private server to conduct official government business, I want to know about it as it's important in my judgement of the candidate.

Isn't Mueller an upstanding Marine? If he found no reason to file charges, then can't we call it good? Even Hawktawk said Mueller was a stand-up guy that would do the right thing. If he didn't find a reason to file for charges, then can't we trust him? Didn't we pay a trustworthy man to conduct the investigation?

Yea, Mueller was a Marine, but what does that have to do with the price of tea in China? Marines don't lie?

I trust Mueller, which is why I want to see his report, or at least someone besides the AG, whom I don't trust. Either that or let him testify under oath as to the contents of the report. It's simply insufficient for me to accept the word of one highly biased individual. It would be like asking me to accept Haldeman or Ehrlichman's word that there wasn't anything damning on the Watergate tapes.

[Hawktawk]

How do we know what Mueller is actually saying, if Barr is the one interpreting the results of the report? Does the AG have the prerogative to make that interpretation himself via his 4-page letter? I agree with Riv, the taxpayers paid for that report. We don't all need to see it, but someone other than Trump's guy definitely needs to be able to read it in it's entirety. Let's see Wikileaks do it's thing now...oh, they probably wouldn't want to in this case.

This right here^^^^^^^^^^^^There is not ONE WORD of Mueller's actual summary on COLLUSION in this report and based on the statement by Barr that the thing apparently needs to be redacted into oblivion there's plenty of dirt on his foreign interactions beyond whats known in the public domain which is huge already. As for obstruction Barr cites a partial sentence where Mueller states "it does not exonerate the president" then goes on ahead and exonerates him .

Not even one complete sentence of Mueller or his investigators summaries in this 4 page whitewash strictly to set the narrative and nothing else.Now they refuse to release the report un redacted to even the intelligence committees.The Republican Senate has repeatedly blocked even a vote on the bill that passed the house 420 to 0 to release it. The fat mouthed totally nutty guilty as hell POTUS has done a 180 on his bluster to demand it be released and so on.

Its BAD for Trump and I don't believe for a millisecond the WH isn't in possession of an un redacted copy and probably has been for days. It SHOULD be politically damaging since he did many bad things.Its a political cover up

But hey Burton and Asea tighten down your tinfoil hats shills. You're the ones wearing them.

[Hawktawk]

Not if all the information is accurately represented. Of course, the Dems would use it as ammunition against Trump, just like Trump and the R's would use damaging information about their opponent. That's not election tampering, it's freedom of information.



I don't like either party. But if information surfaces, like Hillary's prohibited use of an unsecured private server to conduct official government business, I want to know about it as it's important in my judgement of the candidate.





I trust Mueller, which is why I want to see his report, or at least someone besides the AG, whom I don't trust. Either that or let him testify under oath as to the contents of the report. It's simply insufficient for me to accept the word of one highly biased individual. It would be like asking me to accept Haldeman or Ehrlichman's word that there wasn't anything damning on the Watergate tapes.

All excellent points RD.

[burrrton]

If they bring in Mueller and have him testify under oath that he did not uncover any evidence of criminal activity in either the collusion aspect or subsequent obstruction of justice charges, then I'll accept it. But I don't trust Trump or his AG any further than I can throw them.

I don't either, but if there was evidence of criminal activity in there, the guilty party would have been indicted.

[Hawktawk]

Sorry, we could have this discussion back and forth all day. Democrats paid to dig dirt. If the report is released before the election, then we basically paid for a Democrat attack piece that they started under questionable pretenses. I don't consider that less than the election tampering they accused Russia of. This was an investigation that should have never occurred and the Democrats should not benefit from it.

I don't like Trump as president.

This was a hit job by the Democrats. They shouldn't be able to use it until after the next election. I don't want my taxpayer money going to party hit jobs in the first place, now I don't want it used for purposes that may bias the election.

Quit being dishonest. First of all you love Trump but try to play the middle to disguise it somewhat. At the beginning of this administration you were one of his biggest defenders . A while back you became more bipolar than me in your opinions but at least highly critical much of the time as everyone should be most of the time. Now you're back to mouthing the Trump party line as well as Sarah Sanders and Kellyane Conway as well as the liar in chief himself.

As for a hit job by democrats this is another lie. The Steele report much of which has been substantiated and much of which may be in the report we cant see was initially funded by Republicans. Beyond that its been proven over and again that it was the actions of Roger Stone, George Papadopolis and Carter Page that cause the FBI to launch a counterintelligence investigation and obtain FISA warrants long before the Steele dossier became known.

Democrats indeed began paying Steele once aware of his findings and ultimately the republicans in control of the FBI also paid him for additional investigation.

The Mueller investigation began after Trump had Rosenstein craft a phony letter citing the handling of the Clinton E mail scandal as justification for Comey's firing then told Lester Holt and the world 2 days later it was over the "Russia thing". A day later he told Sergei Lavrov and Alexis Kysliak, two very high ranking Russian government officials firing Comey had "relieved great pressure on the Russia investigation". This meeting was in the oval office and only state run Russian media was present.Really you cant make this stuff up. Frankly based on whats in the public domain I'm not sure what it takes to prove obstruction and Collusion.

Trump was under investigation because of his unlawful behavior towards law enforcement and his entanglement with our greatest geopolitical foe on many levels and his bizarre actions and statements regarding them. Did Dems take advantage of his buffoonery and worse? Of course, politics aint beanbag and Trump provides a big soft target...

But keep on preaching the faith brother.

[Hawktawk]

I don't either, but if there was evidence of criminal activity in there, the guilty party would have been indicted.

A sitting President cant be indicted and I would surmise Mueller extended it to Trumps immediate family as he understood it would cause an immediate constitutional crisis. Trump was "not exonerated" by Mueller. Neither Nixon nor Clinton was indicted but as you know one resigned knowing he would be impeached and the other was.

Trump Jr provably perjured himself before congress and had told associates he expected to be indicted which netted Cohen a felony conviction . Lets just see the report, all of it.

[RiverDog]

I don't either, but if there was evidence of criminal activity in there, the guilty party would have been indicted.

Not necessarily. As Hawktalk indicated, there is a reluctance to indict a sitting POTUS. There's also non criminal activity that the public has a right to know about.

For example, negotiating with the Russians over a Trump Tower in Moscow might have been perfectly legal, but it might make a difference to me if I knew a candidate was negotiating a deal for a for-profit real estate project with a hostile country while he was a nominee. It's no different than the Clintons accepting donations from foreign entities to their Clinton Foundation. It's called a conflict of interest, and it's not always a criminal act.

[burrrton]

You retreated from "criminal activity" awful fast there.

I don't really disagree, though.

[RiverDog]

You retreated from "criminal activity" awful fast there.

I don't really disagree, though.

If I did, it wasn't intentional. The Mueller Report did not rule out criminal activity regarding the obstruction of justice accusation.

But whether or not the report includes evidence of any criminal activity, it's still the paid property of us taxpayers and we deserve to know what's in it. It's not the personal property of the Trump Adminstration.

[Hawktawk]

I heard a report on satellite radio today while driving that its leaking that Barr didn't even characterize the reports conclusions on collusion/conspiracy particularly accurately either . Maybe that is why there isn't ONE WORD of Mueller's actual words in quote regarding his conclusions on that in the 4 page whitewash political document.

To be fair about all this stuff third party reporting is always a bit suspect and I haven't found this in print to link it yet. Its just another reason the intelligence committees in the house and senate need to see the un redacted report immediately and the American people need to be able to see as full a version of it as possible. And the walrus doesn't need to be the one to decide what that is. Koo Koo Ka Choo
Oh and the anticipated bump for Trump post report isn't happening, down to 43% from a high of 46% a month ago and only up a fraction of a percent since the whitewash letter.

Ill say it one more time as well. Why in the hell should the chief law enforcement officer in the nation which is the POTUS be basically immune from the laws that govern all of us Its way too much power and freedom, especially with some of the clowns we have had elected recently, none more so than the current one.

[RiverDog]

Oh and the anticipated bump for Trump post report isn't happening, down to 43% from a high of 46% a month ago and only up a fraction of a percent since the whitewash letter.

Based on his weekly job approval rating throughout his 2+ years, it should not be surprising that Trump wouldn't get a bump, or if he did, it would be a minor one, 2-3% at the most. He seems pretty insulated from news events, both positive and negative. People seem to have their minds made up about him, good, bad or indifferent. He's unique in that regard.

[idhawkman]

The American taxpayers paid for that report. We deserve to know what's in it, or if there is sensitive information, have reasonable assurances from an impartial body that there was no evidence of criminal activity regarding the 2016 election. We are an open society.

Really? We are an open society? I don't think so. As you put it, "American Taxpayers also pay for the CIA, NSA, DIA and many more intelligence collection not only on our own folks but from around the world." Let's see all of that too so we can find out just how much s*** we are all in.

If they bring in Mueller and have him testify under oath that he did not uncover any evidence of criminal activity in either the collusion aspect or subsequent obstruction of justice charges, then I'll accept it. But I don't trust Trump or his AG any further than I can throw them.

So why wont you trust what he puts out in coordination with Barr? You do know that he's working along side Barr on the final report to release to Congress, right? Along with Rosenstein who is no friend of Trump.

[idhawkman]

How do we know what Mueller is actually saying, if Barr is the one interpreting the results of the report? Does the AG have the prerogative to make that interpretation himself via his 4-page letter? I agree with Riv, the taxpayers paid for that report. We don't all need to see it, but someone other than Trump's guy definitely needs to be able to read it in it's entirety. Let's see Wikileaks do it's thing now...oh, they probably wouldn't want to in this case.

I know you are joking but when Trump said something similar to this, they investigated him for 2 years over it. Be careful what you say...

[idhawkman]

A sitting President cant be indicted and I would surmise Mueller extended it to Trumps immediate family as he understood it would cause an immediate constitutional crisis. Trump was "not exonerated" by Mueller. Neither Nixon nor Clinton was indicted but as you know one resigned knowing he would be impeached and the other was.

Trump Jr provably perjured himself before congress and had told associates he expected to be indicted which netted Cohen a felony conviction . Lets just see the report, all of it.

That simply isn't true.

[idhawkman]

Not necessarily. As Hawktalk indicated, there is a reluctance to indict a sitting POTUS. There's also non criminal activity that the public has a right to know about.

Its not the function of the federal government to investigate and create opposition research. Mueller was there to find evidence of a crime and then indict, not to dig up dirt and disseminate it. Just because Comey did it to Hilliary, doesn't mean it is right. Probably why the FBI investigates and the DOJ indicts. What Comey did was a travesty and should be criminally charged.

For example, negotiating with the Russians over a Trump Tower in Moscow might have been perfectly legal, but it might make a difference to me if I knew a candidate was negotiating a deal for a for-profit real estate project with a hostile country while he was a nominee. It's no different than the Clintons accepting donations from foreign entities to their Clinton Foundation. It's called a conflict of interest, and it's not always a criminal act.

This may be true, but it is not the function of the FBI or DOJ to publish non-criminal activities. They either indict or they shut their mouths and move on. Name me any other investigations where there were no indictments that the invetigative properties were released to the public. (Comey's crap against Hilliary was wrong as already noted so that one won't count.)

[idhawkman]

If I did, it wasn't intentional. The Mueller Report did not rule out criminal activity regarding the obstruction of justice accusation.

But whether or not the report includes evidence of any criminal activity, it's still the paid property of us taxpayers and we deserve to know what's in it. It's not the personal property of the Trump Adminstration.

Two reasons there were no obstruction charges by Mueller.

1. There was no crime to obstruct the implementation of justice for. No collusion, no obstruction. Or are you arguing that he was trying to obstruct his legal actions?

2. Firing of Comey, he can do that for any reason and the exercising of his constitutionally provided privileges in no way can be obstruction.

[Hawktawk]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r8gAYUupm2k

I dare you trumpies to watch this. I would likely disagree with a majority of Adam Schiffs politics but he nails these blind shill Republican sheep to the wall with this. As I've said if this aint collusion with our greatest geopolitical foe I don't know what is and not sure what it takes to prove it. I'm not sure why any patriotic american puts up with it.

[idhawkman]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r8gAYUupm2k

I dare you trumpies to watch this. I would likely disagree with a majority of Adam Schiffs politics but he nails these blind shill Republican sheep to the wall with this. As I've said if this aint collusion with our greatest geopolitical foe I don't know what is and not sure what it takes to prove it. I'm not sure why any patriotic american puts up with it.

And I dare you to watch this video and tell me how what Schiff is doing in this video is different than the meeting that Don Jr, et al took?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m3Rut64GDgA

[idhawkman]

AG Barr on capital hill today is putting the "cover up" issue to bed pretty well. Said he was in communications with Rosenstein and Mueller weeks before the report was issued and that the Mueller team is helping with the redactions. Said there are four categories that can't be released and that each redaction will be color coded and notes added as to why each redaction happened.

The categories are:
1. 6E material (grand jury information)
2. information that could compromise intelligence sources and methods
3. classified information
4. information that could hurt the reputation and privacy of peripheral third parties

So it will be pretty transparent.

[I-5]

Can someone explain why Barr would need to redact Mueller's report? For the public I can understand, but why redact it for congress? As someone else said, I don't need to see every page, but I want someone other than Trump's guy to be able to read the report in its entirety.

[idhawkman]

Can someone explain why Barr would need to redact Mueller's report? For the public I can understand, but why redact it for congress? As someone else said, I don't need to see every page, but I want someone other than Trump's guy to be able to read the report in its entirety.

I can explain that. Under the Clinton administration the democrats were furious that the independent counsel that was put in place by congress to investigate Clinton decided to change the laws and they did away with the independent Counsel statute. Because Congress commissioned Starr, they got the unredacted report and because you can not hold a member of congress accountable for leaking information, the full report was released to the public and did a lot of damage to the Clinton administration.

They decided to put rules in place so that this would never happen again and turned over any "special Counsel" investigations over to the DOJ who would protect the innocent 3rd parties, classified info and grand jury info before a report would be published. Now the Democrats have the shoes on the other feet and want the Independent counsel statute and guidelines back but Barr is specifically prohibited by the Special Counsel rules from doing that. Also, since we know the dem congressmen will "leak" the info if they got an unredacted copy and they are exempt from the leaking laws, Barr isn't going to give the info to them just to smear innocent people who are not being charged with any wrong doing or criminal acts.

I think if the dems want dirt on Trump, they need to fund it themselves and see if their constituents have a stomach for more of what we've already investigated with 4 different entities. They need to move on and find policies that the masses want to get behind but they are stuck on identity politics and will be crushed because of it in the 2020 election. Pretty sad state that the dems find themselves in at this point.

[Aseahawkfan]

I can explain that. Under the Clinton administration the democrats were furious that the independent counsel that was put in place by congress to investigate Clinton decided to change the laws and they did away with the independent Counsel statute. Because Congress commissioned Starr, they got the unredacted report and because you can not hold a member of congress accountable for leaking information, the full report was released to the public and did a lot of damage to the Clinton administration.

They decided to put rules in place so that this would never happen again and turned over any "special Counsel" investigations over to the DOJ who would protect the innocent 3rd parties, classified info and grand jury info before a report would be published. Now the Democrats have the shoes on the other feet and want the Independent counsel statute and guidelines back but Barr is specifically prohibited by the Special Counsel rules from doing that. Also, since we know the dem congressmen will "leak" the info if they got an unredacted copy and they are exempt from the leaking laws, Barr isn't going to give the info to them just to smear innocent people who are not being charged with any wrong doing or criminal acts.

I think if the dems want dirt on Trump, they need to fund it themselves and see if their constituents have a stomach for more of what we've already investigated with 4 different entities. They need to move on and find policies that the masses want to get behind but they are stuck on identity politics and will be crushed because of it in the 2020 election. Pretty sad state that the dems find themselves in at this point.

Typical Washington D.C. hypocrisy. When it's your guy, the other group is wrong. When it's the guy you hate, his people are always hiding something or doing something nefarious. This tiresome investigation should be over by now, but the idgits on both sides think they're going to find something that a 2 year investigation game headed by the meticulous Marine former FBI director couldn't find. It's pretty dumb.

Mueller was the guy that was going to get Trump, until he wasn't. Now they want to keep on digging until they get him on something. Usual scumbag politics using the courts and all the little laws they've put in place to criminalize life.

[idhawkman]

Typical Washington D.C. hypocrisy. When it's your guy, the other group is wrong. When it's the guy you hate, his people are always hiding something or doing something nefarious. This tiresome investigation should be over by now, but the idgits on both sides think they're going to find something that a 2 year investigation game headed by the meticulous Marine former FBI director couldn't find. It's pretty dumb.

Mueller was the guy that was going to get Trump, until he wasn't. Now they want to keep on digging until they get him on something. Usual scumbag politics using the courts and all the little laws they've put in place to criminalize life.

Yeah, now they are back to the tax returns issue because the witch hunt has been foiled... The tax returns will also be foiled and in the meantime, the Dems have not proposed one bill or law that actually makes life better for anyone. Sad.

[Aseahawkfan]

Yeah, now they are back to the tax returns issue because the witch hunt has been foiled... The tax returns will also be foiled and in the meantime, the Dems have not proposed one bill or law that actually makes life better for anyone. Sad.

I love how they worded the he was not exonerated by the report. We have an innocent until proven guilty standard in this nation and the scumbag Dems and their liberal media arm acting like it's guilty until proven innocent with Trump. If Mueller couldn't find reason to charge, than he' remains innocent, no exoneration required. Why are the Dems trying to change the justice standard of the nation for their attack purposes?

Maybe all the Trump haters and the like could explain while it's ok to change the standard of guilt when it comes to Trump? Maybe they could explain why they support this hypocrisy and choose to be hypocrites? Let's read another hawktawk rant on "we must do any scumbag thing to stop crazy orange guy."

[I-5]

Could we apply this logic to the numerous, costly, and time-consuming investigations of HRC?

[burrrton]

Could we apply this logic to the numerous, costly, and time-consuming investigations of HRC?

Are you referring to the email/server/CI thing, or something else?

[I-5]

All of it.

[idhawkman]

Until HRC is fully investigated I don't think it will be let go. There are clear violations that she made and now the former top Attorney of the FBI even thought she should be charged but was "talked out of it" by others. I suspect that this AG as he pointed out today, is looking into a lot of stuff that the former intel heads were doing that has very questionable activities.

I'll give a few instances.

Telling the president that the file they have is salacious and unverified while at the same time signing a FISA warrant and testifying in front of a judge that it is true.

Spying on a political campaign instead of telling them that they may have some Russian spys trying to infiltrate them. They told Fienstein that she had a spy in her staff instead of launching a counterespionage surveillance against her and her office.

The NY times has already admitted that there were spies launched against the Trump campaign way before the firing of Comey or the production of the dossier. Why?

We will get to the bottom of all this but it is not going to be good for the deep state, the Obama senior Intel officers, and the Main stream media who have been pushing this false narrative for 2 years while knowing that it is false.

[Aseahawkfan]

Could we apply this logic to the numerous, costly, and time-consuming investigations of HRC?

Didn't the Dems already apply this logic while the Republicans applied the same logic the Dems are applying now? You want me to say the Republicans are less scumbag than the Democrats? You won't hear that from me. Both parties are scumbags.

The Dems are just doing exactly what is expected and changing the goalposts according to their political motives. So all the hypocrite Democrats and left leaning media organizations can stop pretending they're anything but the same scumbags they accuse Trump of being. Trump's presidency has exposed the scumbag nature of our current politicians in Washington on all sides more than I've seen in my lifetime. Even the metoo# movement showed clearly the hypocrisy of Dems as as many of them of them got caught up in the sweep and now the Dems are defending Biden's overly touchy behavior to give them some hope.

The pretense of "seeking justice" by these folks is laughable. If the American people can't clearly see both of these parties are dumb, scumbag, and agenda driven, I don't know what to tell you. We're a very gullible group controlled more by brand messaging than intellect.

The only saving grace I guess is we still are one of the wealthiest, most powerful nations on the planet. Which I guess proves that if you create a very good system, even idiots, liars, and criminals can make it work.

[burrrton]

All of it.

Well, I think the 'lock her up' chants are stupid and pointless, but unless you want to name specific concerns *other* than the email/server/CI thing, I'd keep quiet about it. I held a clearance for 12 years, and I can tell you with 100% confidence that what she did would have gotten anyone not named Hillary Clinton prosecuted.

That's not the hill you want to die on defending her.

[I-5]

I'm sure that whatever HRC has on her (none has been proven yet through the investigations, unless you can produce it), can it even compete with the list that the current administration is racking up in terms of sheer quantity and depth? For example, anyone concerned with the use of personal emails by various White House staff for official government business at this point?