It should be since it is how our justice system works. Apparently you don't know much about fruit then. Both are the same at this point. Both are investigative bodies at this point. The big difference here is that Mueller isn't investigating and then trying his case in the court of public opinion. Mueller actually has to prove his case, and Trump actually gets to defend himself once the evidence is presented
Both are the "same" only in the broadest of generalities. I guess if you like to feel like you've made some sort of point you can be happy but your point is rather pointless.
Money to Candidates VAN GRACK, BRANDON WASHINGTON, DC 20009 BAKER BOTTS 04-03-2008 $286.00 Obama, Barack (D) Money to Candidates ANDRES, GREG NEW YORK, NY 10019 DAVIS POLK 03-13-2017 $2,700.00 Gillibrand, Kirsten (D) Money to Candidates ANDRES, GREG NEW YORK, NY 10019 U.S. GOVERNMENT 09-30-2009 $1,000.00 Hoffman, David (D) Thats all I could find at opensecrets.org
Mueller's mini DOJ got a few GJ subpoenas served for a few crooks to start testifying. The Trump Admin is feeling that noose......pardons are an admission of guilt and crimes.
OK, then lets look at it from your angle: If you think Mueller is being nothing but political, wasn't investigation number 6, and number 7, number 8, number 9 etc of Clinton nothing but political ?
Daryll Issa discredited himself. He staged a series of showy hearings, all preceeded by a well oiled public relations campaign aimed at the right wing audience. Then, he failed to produce.
I see that some of you guys still don't get it. Mueller's army is a paper tiger. Those establishment guys, both democrats and republicans had better stop playing with the fire before they all get burned. I've been saying this for quite some time. Washington/Obamaville DC elites live in a liberal bubble. They don't have a clue what is going on in their own country. Totally detached from real people. As Calls Grow, Former Adviser Warns of Armed 'Insurrection' If Trump Impeached GOP operative Roger Stone declares that any lawmaker voting for president's removal "would be endangering their own life" https://www.commondreams.org/news/2...-warns-armed-insurrection-if-trump-impeached#
It would help to be more specific about any Clinton investigations. There is so much there to investigate. Once again, the difference between a Grand Jury investigation (which can be endless, is conducted in secret, isn't limited to any one issue, etc.) is so different from a Congressional committee (which is limited in scope, has input from both parties, is carried out in public, etc.) comparisons are odious and vague. All I'm saying is Mueller now has carte blanche to put a shiv in Trump even though the supposed purpose of this investigation, Trump colluding with Russia, have been under intense scrutiny for months and months now with nothing to show for it. So Mueller turns around and raids Manafort and who knows who's next and he takes on the appearance of Inspector Javert, or Captain Ahab hunting his great white whale obsessively, rather than someone trying to find who helped the Russians leak embarrassing information about Hillary and the DNC (insiders have already stated that disaffected Bernie Sanders supporters at the DNC itself were the source but do we see Mueller following that lead?.....Not to anyone's knowledge we don't).
Roger Stone is endangering his own freedom. It is a violation of the law to threaten any elected official. Just ask Ted Nugent!
Roger Stone is not threatening anyone. He has sent out a friendly warning to all those delusional idiots who live in Washington DC liberal bubble. Americans all over the country want to see changes. Status quo isn't an option any longer.
Who cares what a professional scum bag like Roger Stone says. He is pandering to the far right winger again. He isn't the first conservative politician or activist to warn of civil unrest if the far right wing doesn't get its way.
I'm sure I'm in their data base. Then again I'm sure I'm in someone's data base by being on this forum. I only have two places on go on the internet as far as social media is concerned here and on World Poker Tour. I don't have a Facebook account , snap chat , or any of the others. Of course I guess my e-mail is always a target. Thanks for the information. It was quite interesting reading.
Which ones was she found guilty of ? Grand Jurys can be endless, just like a congressional committee, except that a grand jury cannot even be called until their is enough evidence of wrongdoing. The Benghazi committee is STILL alive, as are the email committees etc. A congressional committee has the same limits on their investigative powers as a grand jury. The big difference is that in a congressional committee they are trying the case in the court of public opinion, based on selective evidence. This was proven out time and time again. And if we are being honest, both parties don't have the same say in a congressional committee as was proven out when Devin Nunes shared information with Trump (the person he was supposed to be investigating), and then refused to share that data with the top democrat on the committee. In a grand jury investigation, they can find evidence, and if they find enough they can take it to trial, and by law, both sides have access to the same evidence so that it can be challenged or validated. The rules of evidence in a court of law are MUCH more stringent than they are in the court of public opinion as used by congressional committees. All due respect, but how does Mueller have "carte blanche" to shiv Trump. He cant do anything to Trump without supportive evidence. Thats the way a special prosecutor has to work. You are forgetting one huge piece here, Mueller had to have some pretty strong evidence to raid Manaforts house, because just like any other law enforcement agency, he has to get a warrant. He doesn't have some special power that allows him the privilege to just toss the constitution, he is bound by the same constitution that you and I are. And I don't know what leads he is following, the same as you don't. Maybe he did follow that lead. I am willing to let this play out, the same as I did the first 4 Benghazi investigations. I only started pushing back on those when they got to the 6th, 7th and 8th investigations.... And FTR, I have said for a while now that although I support an investigation into the Russian involvement in our election, Trump may not have had anything to do with that, we don't know, but it does need to be investigated. But I also said that Trump firing people, and his attempts to stymie that investigation may actually give legal grounds for impeachment. The ultimate irony is that he may not have had anything to do with the Russians, but that thru his own hubris he may have ended his own presidency.
He has "carte blanche" in the sense he has all the staff, money and resources needed to carry on a political vendetta for a very long time. A warrant is not necessarily a guarantee of .a strong case. I am waiting for an even handed approach to Russian interference in our election and I would feel better about what seems to be a political vendetta against Trump if reliable allegations that disgruntled staffers within the DNC itself, angered by the raw deal Bernie Sanders got from Debbie Schultz Wassserman and Hillary Clinton, are the source of embarrassing leaks and not Russians.
Maria Bartiromo Was Right=> John Podesta Failed to Disclose ‘Pro-Putin Lobbying’ Fox News’ Maria Bartiromo invited former Hillary Clinton campaign chair, John Podesta as a guest to discuss his closed-door session with the House panel. Bartiromo slammed Podesta on his ties to the Russians. Bartiromo also brought up how the Democrats have stronger ties to the Russians. Podesta was visibly rattled as he struggled to defend his position . Bartiromo: “John, I gotta ask you about your own ties to Russian entities. You joined the board of a small energy company in 2011, two months later a Russia entity directly funded by the Kremlin invested $35 million in the company. You were given 75,000 shares in a Russian company which you failed to disclose when you became an Obama associate.” John Podesta came unhinged and immediately denied it. Podesta: “Maria that’s not true. I fully disclosed it and was fully compliant…and by the way I divested before I went to the White House…” Bartiromo: But where did you divest it, John? Why do people say you divested to your adult children?” Podesta became visibly angry and accused Bartiromo of “picking through his emails that were stolen by the Russians and released by Wikileaks.” The more Podesta pushed back, the more Maria Bartiromo slammed him over his lies and ties to the Russians. She even brought up Hillary Clinton’s Uranium One deal, selling 20% of U.S. Uranium to Russia while she was Secretary of State. We know from Podesta’s own emails that Hillary Clinton bragged about being invited to “Putin’s inner sanctum“. We also know that Podesta did exercise 75,000 stock options and as a result gained “75,000 common shares” as a result of being a member of the executive board of energy company, Joule Unlimited. We also know that Joule Unlimited received millions from a Putin-connected Russian government fund and that Podesta did transfer to his daughter, Megan Rouse, his shares of common stock in this company. Maria Bartiromo tweeted out the Gateway Pundit’s report from Friday where we point out that the media buried the fact that the Podesta Group was one of many firms to receive a subpoena from Mueller: http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/201...n-podesta-failed-disclose-pro-putin-lobbying/
Yes it is. Manafort worked for the Ukraine. This is not part of the Soviet Union. It hasn't been since the 1920s. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukrainian_Soviet_Socialist_Republic Additionally, last I heard, the two weren't getting along too well. Russia was sending tanks and occupying part of the Ukraine as of 3 years ago. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_military_intervention_in_Ukraine_(2014–present)
Your second sentences explains your first sentence and the connections/interests between the two countries and actually support the Manafort need.
Win or not, which was quite out of Russian hands, Podesta and Clinton were clearly up to their necks in all sorts of business dealings with Putin and other shady Russian oligarchs. The left has been clever and Machiavellian in pointing at Trump so Clinton is passed over and ignored.
So just for the sake of this debate, lets say Clinton and Podesta did have dealings with "shady Russian oligarchs". It raises the simple question: If their dealing with them are so nefarious, then wouldn't that support that Trumps dealings with them were nefarious ?
No need to raise the point for the sake of argument. Clinton's dealings with Skollovo (a "Russian Silicon Valley") and her signing off on this nation's strategic uranium reserve being sold to Russia (and Bill immediately raised millions making a series of speeches to a Putin tied bank for oligarchs) says it all. https://finance.yahoo.com/news/clinton-foundation-received-millions-uranium-132500796.html (Yahoo News...no right wing outlet by any means) You can choose to believe that any dealings with Russians are suspect (which has certainly been claimed by Trumpophobes) and that automatically makes Podesta and Clinton suspect also (and they actually are). Or you can claim such dealings actually are nefarious once a credible case has been made that raises that issue. So far as I know no one has brought credible claims against Trump when it comes to his dealings with Russian sources. Mueller certainly hasn't at this point and if he had information tying Trump to the Ruskies then he would certainly be pursuing that angle rather than going after Paul Manafort.
Good lord. The "uranium deal" has been debunked so many times its beyond ridiculous. All you need to know about the Uranium deal is that Clinton was one of 9 signatures......NINE....... I don't believe every dealing with the Russians is nefarious....you claimed that in your post. I just pointed it out. I am also pointing out that Trump and his campaign have lied repeatedly about their ties, and communications with Russian envoys. To claim there is no credible case is disingenuous. I carry the same standard for both. The only problem with your scenario is that the Uranium deal was vetted multiple times, and it was a US government deal, not a Hillary deal. She was one of nine people required to sign off on it, and ultimately Barack Obama was the one who had to approve it AFTER the 9 department heads (of which Clinton was ONE). And the ultimate is that even after signing off on it, Russia was not allowed to export the Uranium outside of the US. So again, whats the problem with that deal ? Yes there are credible claims. Those claims are many, but the most blatant are in the lies told by Trump and his campaign. The "we have had no contact with the russians", and then we find out they were in Trump tower for chrissakes.....They only admit to the meetings when they get caught. And since we all know that the Russian efforts did influence our elections for Trump, then that in itself should require an investigation as to not only how they did it, but why they did it.
