Members of Congress, the Senate, Washington Elite, and taxpayers are starting to call for an end to the Russian Conspiracy Investigation into the Trump Administration. Absolutely zero evidence has surfaced and there’s no one left to interview except the Chief and the VP. With a high likelihood that even the earlier arrests will see difficulties, the entire event really didn’t accomplish anything. Do you see any reason to continue, other than a pure partisan hatred of the man?
Where was this concern when Hillary was being investigated so long, Ralph? No one but the pro-Trump fans want the investigation to end prematurely. What makes you think Mueller's indictments won't stick? And how do you know Mueller doesn't have Trump by the Stormy Daniels abused family jewels?
It's hilarious when Fox watchers try to outguess Mueller's investigation and make a decision based on Sean Hannity's outrageous opinions and conspiracy theories. Fox barely reports the scandals surrounding little Donnie from every side, and you guys are left in the dark as far as real news is concerned if you only watch Faux News.
Stormy won’t hurt him - he was a private citizen and didn’t spen tax payer dollars like John a Edwards did
And John Edwards was drummed out, wasn't he?
Payoff to Stormy Daniels = campaign finance law violation.
Didn't realize Stormy was running for anything. What was it?
Thanks, but it's not worth the effort. I don't really care whether it was for dog catcher (cat catcher?) or mayor of NYC.
Yes, just another craven, unethical move by Trump, orchestrated by his paid protector who, of course, was stiffed by Trump.
Nothing to see. Nothing at all.
The disbelief of Trump fans is predictable and unfortunately a rude awakening is in store for them. Since Mueller is running a leak free investigation so far, it's killing the righ not to be able to do anything but speculate. Meanwhile, Mueller keeps racking them up and getting closer to Donnie by the day. The stench is getting greater!
I believe Trump will go down as the most criminal president ever.
Who could have predicted that? [Can you see my eyes rolling?]
Trump WAS running though, but you already knew that. Didn't you?
Campaign finance law violation? I think that is a bit of a stretch PrettyPanther. Do you believe it was, or just repeating the Democrat's charge?
I believe there is reason to investigate whether Stormy was paid off to specifically avoid the story surfacing during the campaign, since she has said as much.
As I understand the charge, it was to keep her quiet that makes the payment qualify as a "campaign contribution."
Even if it was to keep her quiet, I think it is stretching the law too much to view it as a campaign contribution. But I am just an armchair legal scholar with 20 minutes of legal research experience to base my expertise on. Still, no law says I can't charge what I want, and I want my services to be valued at $600 p/hr. So I will only bill you for $200, and I will discount my time to type this reply as a professional courtesy.
I'm no legal expert either, although my brother is a lawyer, which surely counts for something. :-)
Edited to add: You'd be surprised at what constitutes a campaign contribution. I ran for office last year. If a friend rents chairs for your campaign rally, it's noted as an in-kind campaign contribution. If another friend donates their services as a deejay, that must be reported as an in-kind contribution. I can easily see where a third party using their own funds to satisfy an agreement that benefits the candidate could quality as an in-kind campaign contribution.
Of course, like you, that is my armchair legal evaluation.
As you can see from my response to IslandBites, I am not letting facts get in my way. I think what I think, and what I think must be right or I wouldn't think it.
On Jan. 22, the nonpartisan government watchdog group Common Cause filed complaints with the Federal Election Commission and the Department of Justice claiming that the $130,000 payment to Daniels constituted an in-kind contribution to Trump’s presidential campaign, in violation of federal campaign law.
In response, Cohen claimed that the payment was a private transaction that he was able to “facilitate” with his own personal funds. http://www.commoncause.org/policy-and-l … 2-2018.pdf
Common Cause is a watchdog group based in Washington, D.C. with chapters in 35 states. It was founded in 1970 by John W. Gardner, a Republican, who was the former Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare in the administration of President Lyndon Johnson as well as chair of the National Urban Coalition, an advocacy group for minorities and the working poor in urban areas.
The investigation into the 2012 Benghazi incident officially ended in 2016. Did you want that investigation shut down before it was complete?
Don't worry. Mueller is uncovering actual crimes. He has either indicted or gotten guilty pleas from 19 people in less than a year.
Many of you Trump fans are in for a very rude awakening. That is, if you accept reality.
Hi PrettyPanther, looks like you ended your self-exile from the forums.
I don't want the Mueller investigation to end -- until it ends, but...
How many of those "19 people" have been involved with collusion, (the point of the investigation), related charges?
I'm suspect you already know the answer to that question, at least as well as I do, so why are you asking?
Edited to add: I stayed away for awhile because I couldn't stomach yet another round of gun control discussions following a mass shooting.
I have also tried to stay out of the gun discussion threads - except for a couple "clarifying" comments. :-)
I do know the answer to my question. My point was to ask why you thought that was worth mentioning as a validation of the investigation.
However, I must admit that even though I am disdainful of using the investigative mandate of collusion to address non-collusion crimes, I don't think non-related "uncovered" crimes should be ignored, and I am glad to see characters like Manafort exposed.
I mention the indictments and guilty pleas because they are evidence that there's an awful lot of criminal activity already exposed by Mueller in less than a year. The OP asked "do you see any reason to continue."
I trust that Mueller sees plenty of reason to continue or he would be done.
Hillary's use of a private email server was uncovered during the Benghazi investigation and I don't recall anyone lamenting that it wasn't the original focus of the investigation. Who is being partisan?
I feel the same way about Hillary's "email" discovery, as I said I did about Manfort's crimes. I am not thrilled with the method, but I don't lament the result.
So who is being partisan?
We don't know yet, GA. As Mueller is cutting deals with most of them he's offering lesser charges to get them to talk. As I said earlier, Mueller keeps his cards close to his vest.
And I am glad that he is running a leak-free effort Randy. You could be right, there may be more to come. Or there may not. We just don't know do we?
The "released" charging and plea stories could be just a message, and any real collusion charges or pleas haven't been released... yet. Or, what has been released really could be all there is.
I am staying tuned. :-)
Mueller did not run out of time but ran out of evidence for potential crime...
From the start, there was not a crime to warrant an investigation. It was a political fishing expediction concocted by Comey and his cohorts...
Even the FBI agent, Peter Strzok, who is a Trump hater, thought in his private text, that there were nothing there to pin anything on the Trump team...
It is time to end this charade for the betterment of the Democratic party and for the country and for the TDS media whi can’t seem to stop themselves...
Just curious. How do you know he has run out of evidence?
There is no Russian collusion between Trump and Russians... he was a businessman and a TV personality...
it was a total fiction created by a fake dossier that the DNC help pay for...and the FBI partisan ran with it...
As much as you dislike Trump and his policies...all valid views from the left, it does not change the fact.
You can’t make something up that was not true to begin with. It will eventually come out. Unfortunately it is taking this long and be a huge distraction for our country...
Someone will be held accountable for this fiasco...it can’t come soon enough in the mid term election.
That doesn't answer my question. I don't know if there was collusion or not, since the investigation is still ongoing. You stated Mueller "has run out of evidence for potential crime." I asked, how do you know he has run out of evidence?
How about this...
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2 … -there.php
So PP, put on your thinking cap for one minute. With all the deep state Obama holdouts in the FBI, CIA and the State department and the DOJ... don’t you think if there was real credible evidence, it would have leaked out in some way by now?
Just about everything else has been leaked including Comey himself have admitted to leaking to the NYT through a friend...
I don't buy the deep state theory. I admire how Mueller has maintained a leak-free investigation. Such a contrast to the salacious Ken Starr investigation which, by the way, lasted four years (I think).
It is not a theory...there are numerous evidence that many people serving in the current administration are allegiant to the Democratic party and President Obama. By the way, President Obama is the only president in our history that chose to stay in Washinton DC after he left office. Why do you think he did that? To write his memoirs?
A text message from an FBI agent sent two days after launch of the investigation is enough for you to conclude Mueller "has run out of evidence for potential crime"?
That was one example of many. It is too much to discuss and educate you on this issue. Many insiders knows there is no evidence and they are trying to put the best face on this investigation and end it by prosecuting some small fish...mark my words.
So let me ask you this PP, where do you see this investigation going?
Do you think this alleged crime rises to the level of high crimes and misdemeanor that warrants imprachment of Trump down the road?
Careful with your answers...
Remember what happened with the impeachment of Bill Clinton...
It was a distraction for our country for over one year and meanwhile our enemies plotted against us with 9/11...
I hate to see a political attack from one side against the other while our people suffers needlessly.
We are coming out of a self created malaise...it is due mostly to Trump.
I give him credit and my believe is most Americans will come to that conclusion in the mid term election.
They may not like him personally or his tweets...but they like the results.
I believe the investigation will uncover criminal activity on the part of Trump and/or his family, probably financially related. It may or may not uncover collusion which, to my understanding is not technically a "crime." However, do you really want a guy who colludes with a foreign enemy governing our nation? If it turns out he did, or condoned it or covered it up, many people will not tolerate it. He will be gone, one way or another, either through impeachment or the next election.
The mueller investigation came about because of Comey’s leaks... you said your self there may not be collusion with Russians... that was the bases of the original investigation. Are you admiting that it may be money laundering or some other crime that is going to bring down Trump?
If so, please go and look up the definition of High Crimes and Misdemeanors... it is the bases of any impeachment proceeding against a sitting president.
Yes, it might be money laundering or some other crime that brings down Trump. So what? You all thought Hillary was unfit to be president because she had two classified documents on an email server, a matter which, by the way, was discovered during the Benghazi investigation.
Pardon me if I'm sitting here chuckling as I type this. Oh, the irony.
Fair enough. I have to chuckle myself at the thought that while we KNEW of the emails and complete lack of care about security, you have only "it might be money laundering or some other crime that brings down Trump. Irony.
Again, no one knows if Trump will be charged with anything at all, since the investigation has not been concluded. That statement was in response to Jack's direct question. All any of us can do is wait and see. I have never once said Trump is definitely going to be indicted for anything.
Jack, on the other hand, definitively stated that Mueller has run out of evidence, even though he can't possibly know that. He thinks he does, though, and you point to me as the one who is jumping to conclusions. Yes, irony.
Perhaps I misunderstood and, if so, I apologize. I took the "might be" statement to mean it could be any of several crimes, not that he might or might not be brought down. Chalk it up to the evils of communication via the web, please.
Another leaker from previous Obama administration...
https://saraacarter.com/former-dni-jame … -revealed/
Another Obama official ...
https://theintercept.com/2014/09/18/lyi … qualifies/
You are missing the whole point and This is my last response since you are obviously too far gone.
Anyone including you and me, if put under the scrutiny of an FBI or DOJ investigator with unlimited resources will find some criminal element.
In the case of hillary, and her email server, it was the blatant disregard for our intelligence secrets which she placed in jeopardy by having her own private server in her basement.
The reason she did this was not carelessness or convenience as she claimed but to avert the FOIA laws. In case you don’t know what that is, it is the Freedom of Information Request which any citizen can file to disclose government documents and emails...
She did not want her activities with her private donors and her government business contacts as secretary of state scrutinized. That was the crime she committed and Comey and his cohorts allowed her to skate that crime.
If you don’t see the danger of that by anyone in a position of power than there is no hope for you.
I am glad you are not the majority...
Oh, but I am the majority. Hillary received more votes than Donald.
I am not condoning what Hillary did. I didn't vote for her in the primaries. She was the better choice of the two, however, and The Donald continues to prove that daily. it's only a matter of time before he is gone.
The House Investigation lost credibility when Nunes pulled his scam with Trump early on. What a farce! I suspect Nunes and his cronies will look stupid when Mueller gives his report. Good enough for them!
by Ralph Schwartz 19 months ago
Why did Comey think a Special Prosecutor was needed if Trump wasn't under investigation?Sounds like Comey doing all he can to help the Democrats slow Trumps agenda
by crankalicious 4 weeks ago
Here's a recent tweet from President Trump:"Remember, Michael Cohen only became a RAT after the FBI did something that was absolutely unthinkable and unheard of until the witch hunt was illegally started. They BROKE INTO AN ATTORNEY'S OFFICE!"So, none of that is true. The investigation is...
by Ralph Schwartz 19 months ago
Should Congress fire Special Prosecutor Mueller now that the truth is out?Comey obviously let America know that Trump was never under investigation, so why do we need Mueller? Some believe Comey wanted a special counsel just to slow down Trumps agenda. Others still think there is...
by Randy Godwin 22 months ago
Is a special independent prosecutor needed to clear up claims of Russian ties to Trumps aides?And to also put any claims to rest of Trump's alleging Oba tapped his phones. What would like to happen and please give a reason for your opinion. Please do not say Hillary or someone else dunnit too as an...
by Jack Lee 11 months ago
The Russian collusion has dominated the main street media for over a year now.What is going on? It is time for the special counsel Mueller to wrap things up.Either he has evident or not. No more fishing expeditions.This investigation has taken its course. Time to end it and move on... ...
by Randy Godwin 11 months ago
To the astonishment of few, the Buffoon-In-Chief has refused to release a Democratic memo debunking the Nunes memo. What else could he do? Nunes refused to answer questions about his staff colluding with the WH on his memo as well. Why? The answer is obvious to those who have seen Nunes in action...
Copyright © 2019 HubPages Inc. and respective owners. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc. HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|