Robert Mueller, Former F.B.I. Director, Is Named Special Counsel for Russia Investigation

Who the heck are "they"?

 

Be sure to not tell us what you think that those are.

 

Speaks of "reeks of desperation"

Your failure to understand the law is not a defense for it.

 

It’s just amazing that as soon as I lay out what the REBUTTAL (thanks @Astrodome) would be, a mere minutes later, Mojo jumps right in to the most predictable response on could have thought of.

 

Quotes have a liberal bias.

 

The DEEP State.

 

what was the original scope of the investigation?

 

WSJ editorial this morning

https://www.wsj.com/articles/wrap-it-up-mr-mueller-1544398545?mod=hp_opin_pos2

 

commentary:

"But the public has no right to know with whom a political candidate has had sex. If it did, candidates would be required to disclose this. Thus, although Trump’s alleged finance violation does differ from normal ones, it’s ludicrous to claim that voters were defrauded because they lost the opportunity to learn about Trump’s extra-marital sex life."​

https://www.powerlineblog.com/archi...d-for-alleged-campaign-finance-violations.php

 

I doubt I WSJ writer is dumb so I'll peg this to propaganda.

Or does this dude have some insight in the plethora of redacted content?

 

Hardworking president trump only has a lunch date with pence on his schedule so plenty of "executive time" for watching briefings from fox and friends and tweeting. Here's the first of what should be many. Note that its on an important topic that must be keeping trump awake at night... and Mueller hasn't found a "smocking" gun...

 

I guess because there hasn't been a smocking gun found...

 

this is an editorial, not an opinion piece . . . it represents the editorial stance of the Editorial Board of the Wall Street Journal

 

Been through all of this many times before. We all heard that it's not the act, but the covering up of the act. What's new is the attempt to put the POTUS above the law. Another new norm trying to be established here. Which has a good chance of succeeding since impeachment essentially is a political process.

"Defrauding" voters isn't a crime and the public has no right to not be "defrauded". The attempt to said it doesn't matter is itself ludicrous. Clearly, voters may make different decisions (and clearly, they may not) if Trump and co didn't jump through hoop to suppress and hide these events that were on their way to the 24/7 newscast. History tell us it does matter, and matter greatly and it's completely reasonable to think that's the calculus of Trump and co when they decided to suppress these events, illegally.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Edwards

A federal grand jury in North Carolina indicted Edwards in 2011 on six felony charges of violating multiple federal campaign contribution laws to cover up an extramarital affair to which he admitted, following his 2008 campaign. Edwards was found not guilty on one count, and the judge declared a mistrial on the remaining five charges, as the jury was unable to come to an agreement.[2] The Justice Department dropped the remaining charges and did not attempt to retry Edwards.[3] Though it did not result in a criminal conviction, the revelation that Edwards had an extramarital affair and fathered a child while his wife, Elizabeth was dying of cancer gravely damaged his public image and ended his career in politics.

 

Watergate took more than 2 years and that was all domestic. This is much more complicated.

 

https://archive.nytimes.com/www.nytimes.com/ref/membercenter/faq/timesselectqa14.html

 

you can tell OT is losing the debate when he desperately attempts to side-track the discussion.

stay on course, OT.

the topic of discussion is on the Mueller investigation ​