The jig is up. Mueller Expands Probe to Trump Business Transactions

Actually I am right. He'd just have to take one other step first. He doesn't need Rosenstein at all.

As for reasons, he already has a great one, and that is the conflict of interest of Mueller being best buddies with, and mentor to, Comey.

In fact, Mueller should have already recused himself. It's a shanda that he hasn't stepped down himself. For shame.

Since Comey already admitted under oath illegally leaking his notes to get a special counsel appointed....it seems we also have collusion between Comey and Mueller.

So easy.

I can't wait for the screaming and eye gouging to start.

 

None of you assertions change who Trump is. The fact taht a minority of American voted for him does not covey character, integrity, experience, trust, or competence. Trump has none of these things, and the votes who picked him picked a fool.

Right wings routinely make bad choices and vote against their own interests.

As for this:

"I wonder how long Obama would have held up under an open-ended investigation operating under the idea that Obama has done something wrong, that all we have to do is find it. Again, that's not the way our justice system works."

Bill Clinton held up under it, and watched his approval ratings rise even as the GOP impeached him.

Obama had four years of Benghazi, and he breezed right through it.

 

again with the jokes

 

Anecdotal.

 

It helps take the sting away when I destroy your argument.

Ah who am I kidding I do it for myself.

 

so funny, it really is amazing how gullible y'all are

crowd chants: 'lock her up'

trumps says: "forget it, that plays great before the election

now we don't care, right?"

 

Um, that's referred to as consciousness of guilt. Admissible in a court of law.

 

your question is a typical example of a 'cherry picking logical fallacy'

the complete evidence shows that millions more voters selected hillary, than trump

 

Trying to get away from the old argument eh?

 

Well let's get Hillary a gold star for her efforts.

 

that's ridiculous, do you even know what my argument is?

 

If those on the left believe that undermining a president elected to get the country moving in a new direction is going to be helpful in the long term, I think they need to rethink their approach. As an independent, I'm open to hearing arguments from both sides, but I am not willing to support anybody who thinks it proper to constantly lob grenades in order to politically assassinate a president. I may have to work actively against Dems in '18 and '20, because what they're doing is completely unacceptable.

 

And it's completely UNACCEPTABLE to NOT KNOW how deep his financial ties are to Russian oligarchs and if it has compromised his judgment in dealing with Russia.

Trump has been all over the map on just about every issue except one, Russia. WHY?

 

what's happening is that tump is being investigated, not assassinated

the point is to bring charges against him and eventually unseat him, like with nixon

7 Steps of Impeachment:

1. Justice Department or an independent council investigates charges & presents them to the House Judiciary Committee

2. House Judiciary Committee (HJC) reviews evidence

3. HJC drafts Articles of Impeachment

4. HJC debates Articles of Impeachment (Nixon)

5. Entire House of Representatives debates Articles of Impeachment & votes on them (Simple Majority)

6. Senate holds the Trial "Will the official be kicked out of office"

7. A 2/3 majority of the Senate must vote against accused to remove the person from office

 

And you don't seem to understand that if there were anything there they'd have gone there first rather than just sort of haphazardly drifting there when they couldn't find anything else.

 

And 3/4 of them lived in CA.

 

of course you don't like the facts

it really is amazing how how many ridiculous excuses y'all make up

 

It is you ignoring the facts. Without CA Trump wins the popular vote by 1.4 million or so. And your willingness to ignore the obvious is duly noted. If they had anything they'd have already charged. The fact that they keep digging further and further into the past suggests at the very least that they don't really have much in the here and now.

 

"without California" is a stupid distinction.

How does Trump do "without Texas" or "without Florida

 

Your claim is false, as usual. Nixon was not accused, but investigations were underway into whether he was involved in the dirty tricks that included the Watergate breakin.

Just as Trump has not yet been accused, but investigations are underway into whether he was involved in efforts to collude with agents of the Russian government to interfere in a US Presidential election.

Now that we know that his top officials were all too eager to consider such an action, it is a very relevant question.

And as Trump's meltdown this week clearly indicates, he is worried.

 

That's rather amusing. Me, I tend to agree with Marc Thiessen, American Enterprise Institute Fellow, when he says the following:

Donald Trump's business has global reach which I'm sure has financial ties in Russia. Does that prevent him from operating in the best interest of the American people?

Yes, and please note that #1 does not read Open an investigation, stack the investigative team with supporters of the opposing candidate, and try to figure out what charges can be made to stick, which is what it should say if we're being honest here.

 

When you start calling for a new investigation into the DNC collusion with Ukraine, I'll start believing that your motives are pure. Until then? Partisanship, pure and simple.

 

Mueller is a Republican. Comey is a Republican. Rosenstein is a Republican.

Get real

 

Something about impeachment and russian's I'd guess.

I don't know, I've lost interest in the left's insanity.

 

Get real? Sure thing. You must not be aware of those Mueller has hired. Per a Newsmax article:

Here are the Mueller appointees identified by the Post:

James Quarles, a former assistant special prosecutor on the Watergate Special Prosecution Force. He came with Mueller from the law firm WilmerHale and has donated over $30,000 to various Democratic campaigns in 2016, including $2,700 to Hillary Clinton. His donations date back two decades.
Jeannie Rhee, a deputy assistant attorney general in the Office of Legal Counsel and assistant U.S. attorney in D.C. She also came from WilmerHale – and her donations include $5,400 to Clinton's campaigns in 2015 and 2016, and $4,800 to the Obama Victory Fund in 2008 and 2011.
Andrew Weissmann, the chief of the Justice Department's fraud section. He donated $2,300 to the Obama Victory Fund in 2008, $2,000 to the Democratic National Committee in 2006, and at least $2,300 to the Clinton campaign in 2007.
Andrew Goldstein, the former head of the public corruption operation in the U.S. Attorney's Office in the Southern District of New York, working under Preet Bharara, whom President Trump fired as U.S. attorney in March after he refused to resign. He donated $3,300 to Obama's campaigns in 2008 and 2012.
Elizabeth Prelogar, a lawyer in the U.S. solicitor general's office, who donated $250 each to Clinton's campaign and the Obama Victory Fund 2016 and 2012.
Brandon Van Grack, a national security division prosecutor in the Justice Department, who contributed $286.77 to Obama's campaign in 2008.
Rush Atkinson, a trial attorney in the Justice Department's fraud section, who gave $200 to Clinton's campaign last year.​

Real enough for you?