Speaking of Starr, this from a couple of weeks may have been prophetic.

If it is a witch hunt, it is being carried out by Republicans, which would be interesting.

From what I read, the Feds had to get authorization to pursue a search warrant directly from the US Attorney, who was appointed by Trump in 2017. And then after that they had to get approval from high levels in the Trump Justice Dept.

And, of course, then they had to convince a federal judge that:

* A crime had probably been committed
Evidence of the crime would be found at Cohen's office
They should search the office rather than subpoena the evidence because there was a higher than normal risk that the evidence otherwise would be destroyed

80sBEAR said:

---

Trump cheated on his wife with a porn star? This is absolutely shocking!!!!!

"I did not have sex with that woman...........Miss Lewinsky". Unfortunately the Dems set this bar. Now they are going to have to live with it. The chickens have come to roost.

---

Honestly Clinton was an amateur.


Who was America's most womanizing president?



I would say President Johnson( Don't laugh). That's LBJ, Lyndon B. Johnson.

This is a man who was so sex crazed for female company even as he was president, he shocked visitors with his behavior.

He called his ***** "Jumbo" and used to show it off to people and ask them if they'd ever seen one bigger.

He would openly flirt with women and his female group of secretaries was called his harem. He would hire attractive women, often with little skills. He was rumored to have woken up one White House visitor with the line, "Move over, I'm your President!" to the shocked woman as she slept.

I tended to think Kennedy was less crude in his methods.

Tavera Del Toro

This is all just parallel construction.

HuMcK said:

---

Mothra said:

---

tommie said:

---

Mothra said:

---

bubbadog said:

---

Apparently, it is Cohen (not Trump) who is being investigated. It involves possible bank fraud and campaign finance violations.

---

And an interesting by product - which I am sure they haven't thought of at all - is they may find some dirt on Trump. However, I thought they said that they were also looking for evidence of Cohen's involvement with Daniels and his communications with Trump regarding same. If that is the case, that doesn't seem to have anything to do with bank fraud or campaign finance violations.

Count me as one who finds the raid suspicious and potentially setting a dangerous precedent. As an attorney, the FBI raiding my files full of attorney-client communications would be quite troubling. While I am underwhelmed with Mueller's investigation thus far, I see why it is necessary. However, this has a very different feel. This seems almost like a witch hunt.

---

Trump doesn't understand that you can't fight everyone. So, when you pick fight after fight, it opens up fronts you can't defend.

Assume he agreed the Russians attacked our elections (or disagreed) and/ but actively pursued actions to protect the homeland, he'd have prevented this front from opening up. Instead, he attacks the FBI in a country where everything is illegal.

And he's dirty. (He pays porn stars, skirts taxes, illegally trades with Russians, skirts his financial obligations, cheats on his wives, lies, calls people and says he's someone else).

When they come after you, it's often just "doing their job".

Even when it's personal.

---

In other words, it is a politically motivated witch hunt.

Look, Trump is a buffoon, and I shake my head at most of his stupid antics. But that doesn't mean this doesn't set a dangerous precedent.

---

The precedent was set in the 90s by Kenn Starr. He investigated 15yr old land deals and ended up impeaching a sitting POTUS over an affair. Starr even threatened Lewinsky with jail-time to force her to testify against Clinton. Now we have a POTUS credibly accused of espionage against the United States and y'all are griping about the investigation being too aggressive and "setting precedents". People that paid attention to the supposedly "fake news" about Trump and his associates have been laying out how this would probably go since it started, so y'all can drop the surprise act at any time.

---

Fair enough. I don't disagree with you that the Starr investigation was politically motivated. But it appears this one is as well.

I do disagree with you that there are "credible" claims of espionage against Trump. however. I think only the most partisan observer could opine based on the evidence we know of to date that there is any credible evidence of espionage at this point. Similar to the Clinton investigation of the 90's, what started out as a Russian investigation now seems to have morphed into a fishing expedition, searching for any evidence of illegal behavior on the part of Trump. Searching Trump's lawyer's office for evidence of payment to a porn star for sex is a violation of campaign finance rules? Ok. Sounds like that has a lot to do with Mueller's investigation...

bubbadog said:

---

If it is a witch hunt, it is being carried out by Republicans, which would be interesting.

From what I read, the Feds had to get authorization to pursue a search warrant directly from the US Attorney, who was appointed by Trump in 2017. And then after that they had to get approval from high levels in the Trump Justice Dept.

And, of course, then they had to convince a federal judge that:

* A crime had probably been committed
Evidence of the crime would be found at Cohen's office
They should search the office rather than subpoena the evidence because there was a higher than normal risk that the evidence otherwise would be destroyed

---

As I've seen some other articles point out, it is the Southern District of NY that was very upset with Trump's plan to sack the US Attorney heading that district. The interim that is acting US Attorney in charge was promoted from within, and his political leanings are unknown.

SDNY is well-known for investigating other high profile conservatives. So I wouldn't necessarily call this an investigation carried out by Republicans.

Mothra said:

---

quash said:

---

Mothra said:

---

bubbadog said:

---

Apparently, it is Cohen (not Trump) who is being investigated. It involves possible bank fraud and campaign finance violations.

---

And an interesting by product - which I am sure they haven't thought of at all - is they may find some dirt on Trump. However, I thought they said that they were also looking for evidence of Cohen's involvement with Daniels and his communications with Trump regarding same. If that is the case, that doesn't seem to have anything to do with bank fraud or campaign finance violations.

Count me as one who finds the raid suspicious and potentially setting a dangerous precedent. As an attorney, the FBI raiding my files full of attorney-client communications would be quite troubling. While I am underwhelmed with Mueller's investigation thus far, I see why it is necessary. However, this has a very different feel. This seems almost like a witch hunt.

---

Trump may have waived atty/client privilege when he said "talk to my lawyer." I think that is shaky but it is being floated.

---

Shaky indeed. If that were the case, everyone who has ever sat for a deposition would have waived privilege.

"Sir, what did you do today to prepare for your deposition?"

"I talked to my lawyer."

"Gotcha! Now reveal to me everything your lawyer said!"

I don't think so.

---

There's a big difference between "I talked to my lawyer" and "You talk to my lawyer."

Mothra said:

---

bubbadog said:

---

If it is a witch hunt, it is being carried out by Republicans, which would be interesting.

From what I read, the Feds had to get authorization to pursue a search warrant directly from the US Attorney, who was appointed by Trump in 2017. And then after that they had to get approval from high levels in the Trump Justice Dept.

And, of course, then they had to convince a federal judge that:

* A crime had probably been committed
Evidence of the crime would be found at Cohen's office
They should search the office rather than subpoena the evidence because there was a higher than normal risk that the evidence otherwise would be destroyed

---

As I've seen some other articles point out, it is the Southern District of NY that was very upset with Trump's plan to sack the US Attorney heading that district. The interim that is acting US Attorney in charge was promoted from within, and his political leanings are unknown.

SDNY is well-known for investigating other high profile conservatives. So I wouldn't necessarily call this an investigation carried out by Republicans.

---

This article indicates something a little different: That the Trump appointee as US Attorney for SDNY (Berman) is in place but that he recused himself. For that reason others in the office vetted the warrant. While the boss may have not done the actual work, if whoever did the work wanted to keep working there I am guessing they made sure that this warrant was based on substantial evidence.

https://www.yahoo.com/gma/us-attorney-trump-appointee-recused-michael-cohen-investigation-161206157--abc-news-topstories.html

Mothra said:

---

HuMcK said:

---

Mothra said:

---

tommie said:

---

Mothra said:

---

bubbadog said:

---

Apparently, it is Cohen (not Trump) who is being investigated. It involves possible bank fraud and campaign finance violations.

---

And an interesting by product - which I am sure they haven't thought of at all - is they may find some dirt on Trump. However, I thought they said that they were also looking for evidence of Cohen's involvement with Daniels and his communications with Trump regarding same. If that is the case, that doesn't seem to have anything to do with bank fraud or campaign finance violations.

Count me as one who finds the raid suspicious and potentially setting a dangerous precedent. As an attorney, the FBI raiding my files full of attorney-client communications would be quite troubling. While I am underwhelmed with Mueller's investigation thus far, I see why it is necessary. However, this has a very different feel. This seems almost like a witch hunt.

---

Trump doesn't understand that you can't fight everyone. So, when you pick fight after fight, it opens up fronts you can't defend.

Assume he agreed the Russians attacked our elections (or disagreed) and/ but actively pursued actions to protect the homeland, he'd have prevented this front from opening up. Instead, he attacks the FBI in a country where everything is illegal.

And he's dirty. (He pays porn stars, skirts taxes, illegally trades with Russians, skirts his financial obligations, cheats on his wives, lies, calls people and says he's someone else).

When they come after you, it's often just "doing their job".

Even when it's personal.

---

In other words, it is a politically motivated witch hunt.

Look, Trump is a buffoon, and I shake my head at most of his stupid antics. But that doesn't mean this doesn't set a dangerous precedent.

---

The precedent was set in the 90s by Kenn Starr. He investigated 15yr old land deals and ended up impeaching a sitting POTUS over an affair. Starr even threatened Lewinsky with jail-time to force her to testify against Clinton. Now we have a POTUS credibly accused of espionage against the United States and y'all are griping about the investigation being too aggressive and "setting precedents". People that paid attention to the supposedly "fake news" about Trump and his associates have been laying out how this would probably go since it started, so y'all can drop the surprise act at any time.

---

Fair enough. I don't disagree with you that the Starr investigation was politically motivated. But it appears this one is as well.

I do disagree with you that there are "credible" claims of espionage against Trump. however. I think only the most partisan observer could opine based on the evidence we know of to date that there is any credible evidence of espionage at this point. Similar to the Clinton investigation of the 90's, what started out as a Russian investigation now seems to have morphed into a fishing expedition, searching for any evidence of illegal behavior on the part of Trump. Searching Trump's lawyer's office for evidence of payment to a porn star for sex is a violation of campaign finance rules? Ok. Sounds like that has a lot to do with Mueller's investigation...

---

It's not Mueller doing the investigating, it's the federal prosecutor for SDNY, A Trump appointee, carried out by the FBI, run by a Trump appointee, with DOJ consultation, Rod Rosenstein.

And yes, it could easily be a campaign finance violation.

At this point, it is also unclear as to whether this actually connects to Mueller's investigation.

The scope of Mueller's investigation is circumscribed, and he has to get permission from Rozenstein for any expansion of the scope. It may be that Mueller came across some possible criminal conduct by Cohen that was beyond the scope of his investigation (that is, not related to Trump and Russia). Therefore, he "referred" it to a different jurisdiction to take a look at and determine if they wanted to pursue a case. Such an act by Mueller would be consistent with a sensitivity to avoid the kind of investigation that Starr led, which started with a land deal and became extremely broad.

quash said:

---

Mothra said:

---

quash said:

---

Mothra said:

---

bubbadog said:

---

Apparently, it is Cohen (not Trump) who is being investigated. It involves possible bank fraud and campaign finance violations.

---

And an interesting by product - which I am sure they haven't thought of at all - is they may find some dirt on Trump. However, I thought they said that they were also looking for evidence of Cohen's involvement with Daniels and his communications with Trump regarding same. If that is the case, that doesn't seem to have anything to do with bank fraud or campaign finance violations.

Count me as one who finds the raid suspicious and potentially setting a dangerous precedent. As an attorney, the FBI raiding my files full of attorney-client communications would be quite troubling. While I am underwhelmed with Mueller's investigation thus far, I see why it is necessary. However, this has a very different feel. This seems almost like a witch hunt.

---

Trump may have waived atty/client privilege when he said "talk to my lawyer." I think that is shaky but it is being floated.

---

Shaky indeed. If that were the case, everyone who has ever sat for a deposition would have waived privilege.

"Sir, what did you do today to prepare for your deposition?"

"I talked to my lawyer."

"Gotcha! Now reveal to me everything your lawyer said!"

I don't think so.

---

There's a big difference between "I talked to my lawyer" and "You talk to my lawyer."

---

Gotcha. Still shaky. Saying go through my lawyer or talk to my lawyer does not waive the privilege, IMO. Waiver has to be pretty specific.

quash said:

---

Mothra said:

---

HuMcK said:

---

Mothra said:

---

tommie said:

---

Mothra said:

---

bubbadog said:

---

Apparently, it is Cohen (not Trump) who is being investigated. It involves possible bank fraud and campaign finance violations.

---

And an interesting by product - which I am sure they haven't thought of at all - is they may find some dirt on Trump. However, I thought they said that they were also looking for evidence of Cohen's involvement with Daniels and his communications with Trump regarding same. If that is the case, that doesn't seem to have anything to do with bank fraud or campaign finance violations.

Count me as one who finds the raid suspicious and potentially setting a dangerous precedent. As an attorney, the FBI raiding my files full of attorney-client communications would be quite troubling. While I am underwhelmed with Mueller's investigation thus far, I see why it is necessary. However, this has a very different feel. This seems almost like a witch hunt.

---

Trump doesn't understand that you can't fight everyone. So, when you pick fight after fight, it opens up fronts you can't defend.

Assume he agreed the Russians attacked our elections (or disagreed) and/ but actively pursued actions to protect the homeland, he'd have prevented this front from opening up. Instead, he attacks the FBI in a country where everything is illegal.

And he's dirty. (He pays porn stars, skirts taxes, illegally trades with Russians, skirts his financial obligations, cheats on his wives, lies, calls people and says he's someone else).

When they come after you, it's often just "doing their job".

Even when it's personal.

---

In other words, it is a politically motivated witch hunt.

Look, Trump is a buffoon, and I shake my head at most of his stupid antics. But that doesn't mean this doesn't set a dangerous precedent.

---

The precedent was set in the 90s by Kenn Starr. He investigated 15yr old land deals and ended up impeaching a sitting POTUS over an affair. Starr even threatened Lewinsky with jail-time to force her to testify against Clinton. Now we have a POTUS credibly accused of espionage against the United States and y'all are griping about the investigation being too aggressive and "setting precedents". People that paid attention to the supposedly "fake news" about Trump and his associates have been laying out how this would probably go since it started, so y'all can drop the surprise act at any time.

---

Fair enough. I don't disagree with you that the Starr investigation was politically motivated. But it appears this one is as well.

I do disagree with you that there are "credible" claims of espionage against Trump. however. I think only the most partisan observer could opine based on the evidence we know of to date that there is any credible evidence of espionage at this point. Similar to the Clinton investigation of the 90's, what started out as a Russian investigation now seems to have morphed into a fishing expedition, searching for any evidence of illegal behavior on the part of Trump. Searching Trump's lawyer's office for evidence of payment to a porn star for sex is a violation of campaign finance rules? Ok. Sounds like that has a lot to do with Mueller's investigation...

---

It's not Mueller doing the investigating, it's the federal prosecutor for SDNY, A Trump appointee, carried out by the FBI, run by a Trump appointee, with DOJ consultation, Rod Rosenstein.

And yes, it could easily be a campaign finance violation.

---

I understand that. The article I read said it was in connection with or related to the Mueller investigation. That is what I was referring to.

HuMcK said:

---

The precedent was set in the 90s by Kenn Starr. He investigated 15yr old land deals and ended up impeaching a sitting POTUS over an affair. Starr even threatened Lewinsky with jail-time to force her to testify against Clinton. Now we have a POTUS credibly accused of espionage against the United States and y'all are griping about the investigation being too aggressive and "setting precedents". People that paid attention to the supposedly "fake news" about Trump and his associates have been laying out how this would probably go since it started, so y'all can drop the surprise act at any time.

---

Wrong.

Starr's investigation ended with a detailed report about obstruction of justice and perjury committed by a sitting POTUS - Bill Clinton. It wasn't about "an affair" - the evidence relating to the affair was a means to the end of proving the obstruction and perjury cases. Congratulations on memorizing that talking point, however.

As far as presently having a POTUS "credibly accused of espionage against the United States" - after about a year and a half of an exhaustive investigation cheered on by MSM hacks and liberals like you literally dying for anything to prove the wholly made up accusation of Russian collusion, there is still not one shred of evidence that it happened. Zip. Zilch. Narryin. Notta.

Apparently some of you have missed this tidbit of news:

Trump-appointed US attorney recused from Michael Cohen investigation

Starr was terrible actually. The current investigation is legit. What is forgotten here is that Starr was the second independent counsel to investigate the 20 year old land deal. There was an independent counsel by the name of Fiske (also a Republican) who was originally appointed in around 93. His investigation ended with clearing Clinton of anything inappropriate regarding a land purchase in Arkansas in the 70s. The the GOP insisted it be looked at again and had Starr appointed and Starr then correlated the land deal of the 70s investigation (where still there was nothing) into anything he could come up with regarding Clinton and sex in recent years at that time period.

Then fast forward. Starr comes along and does a terrible job as Baylor President. If you dont believe in Karma you almost have to after recent years at Baylor. Karma hits back and Starr and takes Baylor down as well by association.

Mueller's investigation is no where close to the investigation by Starr. Mueller doesnt give a rats about whether Trump has ever had an affair and denied it. He has so did Clinton and does almost everyone who has had an affair. Mueller isnt trying to criminalize denying an affair.

There's a massive difference between Clinton/Monica and Trump/Stormy.

Clinton got sucked off in the oval office and used his mere presence of being the president as a way to get away with it. And he lied about it to the entire nation under oath.

Trump banged a porn star over a decade ago while he wasn't married. And everyone already knows Trump is a playboy billionaire whose probably slept with hundreds if not thousands of women.

But this investigation is a fishing expedition. It is designed for parallel construction.
It has nothing to do with Russia or collusion.

Its there for midterms.

Johnny Bear said:

---

HuMcK said:

---

The precedent was set in the 90s by Kenn Starr. He investigated 15yr old land deals and ended up impeaching a sitting POTUS over an affair. Starr even threatened Lewinsky with jail-time to force her to testify against Clinton. Now we have a POTUS credibly accused of espionage against the United States and y'all are griping about the investigation being too aggressive and "setting precedents". People that paid attention to the supposedly "fake news" about Trump and his associates have been laying out how this would probably go since it started, so y'all can drop the surprise act at any time.

---

Wrong.

Starr's investigation ended with a detailed report about obstruction of justice and perjury committed by a sitting POTUS - Bill Clinton. It wasn't about "an affair" - the evidence relating to the affair was a means to the end of proving the obstruction and perjury cases. Congratulations on memorizing that talking point, however.

As far as presently having a POTUS "credibly accused of espionage against the United States" - after about a year and a half of an exhaustive investigation cheered on by MSM hacks and liberals like you literally dying for anything to prove the wholly made up accusation of Russian collusion, there is still not one shred of evidence that it happened. Zip. Zilch. Narryin. Notta.

---

Take away sex with Lewinsky and there is no obstruction, there is no perjury. Don't be obtuse.

Doc Holliday said:

---

There's a massive difference between Clinton/Monica and Trump/Stormy.

Clinton got sucked off in the oval office and used his mere presence of being the president as a way to get away with it. And he lied about it to the entire nation under oath.

Trump banged a porn star over a decade ago while he wasn't married. And everyone already knows Trump is a playboy billionaire whose probably slept with hundreds if not thousands of women.

But this investigation is a fishing expedition. It is designed for parallel construction.
It has nothing to do with Russia or collusion.

Its there for midterms.

---

I asked you this before and you didn't answer: how many indictment/convictions by Starr/Mueller?

quash said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

There's a massive difference between Clinton/Monica and Trump/Stormy.

Clinton got sucked off in the oval office and used his mere presence of being the president as a way to get away with it. And he lied about it to the entire nation under oath.

Trump banged a porn star over a decade ago while he wasn't married. And everyone already knows Trump is a playboy billionaire whose probably slept with hundreds if not thousands of women.

But this investigation is a fishing expedition. It is designed for parallel construction.
It has nothing to do with Russia or collusion.

Its there for midterms.

---

I asked you this before and you didn't answer: how many indictment/convictions by Starr/Mueller?

---

Related to the campaign/election: ZERO.

Doc Holliday said:

---

quash said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

There's a massive difference between Clinton/Monica and Trump/Stormy.

Clinton got sucked off in the oval office and used his mere presence of being the president as a way to get away with it. And he lied about it to the entire nation under oath.

Trump banged a porn star over a decade ago while he wasn't married. And everyone already knows Trump is a playboy billionaire whose probably slept with hundreds if not thousands of women.

But this investigation is a fishing expedition. It is designed for parallel construction.
It has nothing to do with Russia or collusion.

Its there for midterms.

---

I asked you this before and you didn't answer: how many indictment/convictions by Starr/Mueller?

---

Related to the campaign/election: ZERO.

---

Wrong.

quash said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

quash said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

There's a massive difference between Clinton/Monica and Trump/Stormy.

Clinton got sucked off in the oval office and used his mere presence of being the president as a way to get away with it. And he lied about it to the entire nation under oath.

Trump banged a porn star over a decade ago while he wasn't married. And everyone already knows Trump is a playboy billionaire whose probably slept with hundreds if not thousands of women.

But this investigation is a fishing expedition. It is designed for parallel construction.
It has nothing to do with Russia or collusion.

Its there for midterms.

---

I asked you this before and you didn't answer: how many indictment/convictions by Starr/Mueller?

---

Related to the campaign/election: ZERO.

---

Wrong.

---

Ok so show me what indictments are based on or pertaining directly to the election.

JusHappy2BeHere said:

---

---

Risenstein signed off on the referral. Berman does not appear to have been party to it.

Doc Holliday said:

---

quash said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

quash said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

There's a massive difference between Clinton/Monica and Trump/Stormy.

Clinton got sucked off in the oval office and used his mere presence of being the president as a way to get away with it. And he lied about it to the entire nation under oath.

Trump banged a porn star over a decade ago while he wasn't married. And everyone already knows Trump is a playboy billionaire whose probably slept with hundreds if not thousands of women.

But this investigation is a fishing expedition. It is designed for parallel construction.
It has nothing to do with Russia or collusion.

Its there for midterms.

---

I asked you this before and you didn't answer: how many indictment/convictions by Starr/Mueller?

---

Related to the campaign/election: ZERO.

---

Wrong.

---

Ok so show me what indictments are based on or pertaining directly to the election.

---

Let's just jump to convictions: Papadopoulos.

quash said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

quash said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

quash said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

There's a massive difference between Clinton/Monica and Trump/Stormy.

Clinton got sucked off in the oval office and used his mere presence of being the president as a way to get away with it. And he lied about it to the entire nation under oath.

Trump banged a porn star over a decade ago while he wasn't married. And everyone already knows Trump is a playboy billionaire whose probably slept with hundreds if not thousands of women.

But this investigation is a fishing expedition. It is designed for parallel construction.
It has nothing to do with Russia or collusion.

Its there for midterms.

---

I asked you this before and you didn't answer: how many indictment/convictions by Starr/Mueller?

---

Related to the campaign/election: ZERO.

---

Wrong.

---

Ok so show me what indictments are based on or pertaining directly to the election.

---

Let's just jump to convictions: Papadopoulos.

---

...and the conviction had nothing to do with the election or campaign.

Doc Holliday said:

---

quash said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

quash said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

quash said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

There's a massive difference between Clinton/Monica and Trump/Stormy.

Clinton got sucked off in the oval office and used his mere presence of being the president as a way to get away with it. And he lied about it to the entire nation under oath.

Trump banged a porn star over a decade ago while he wasn't married. And everyone already knows Trump is a playboy billionaire whose probably slept with hundreds if not thousands of women.

But this investigation is a fishing expedition. It is designed for parallel construction.
It has nothing to do with Russia or collusion.

Its there for midterms.

---

I asked you this before and you didn't answer: how many indictment/convictions by Starr/Mueller?

---

Related to the campaign/election: ZERO.

---

Wrong.

---

Ok so show me what indictments are based on or pertaining directly to the election.

---

Let's just jump to convictions: Papadopoulos.

---

...and the conviction had nothing to do with the election or campaign.

---

Hoo boy...

quash said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

quash said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

quash said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

quash said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

There's a massive difference between Clinton/Monica and Trump/Stormy.

Clinton got sucked off in the oval office and used his mere presence of being the president as a way to get away with it. And he lied about it to the entire nation under oath.

Trump banged a porn star over a decade ago while he wasn't married. And everyone already knows Trump is a playboy billionaire whose probably slept with hundreds if not thousands of women.

But this investigation is a fishing expedition. It is designed for parallel construction.
It has nothing to do with Russia or collusion.

Its there for midterms.

---

I asked you this before and you didn't answer: how many indictment/convictions by Starr/Mueller?

---

Related to the campaign/election: ZERO.

---

Wrong.

---

Ok so show me what indictments are based on or pertaining directly to the election.

---

Let's just jump to convictions: Papadopoulos.

---

...and the conviction had nothing to do with the election or campaign.

---

Hoo boy...

---

Well explain how it does. Ill wait.

Mueller's investigation is hopelessly conflicted. Shut it down. Andrew Weissman, Mueller's top deputy, is an anti-Trumper. Judicial Watch found smoking-gun email. And Mueller covered up for months the anti-Trump bias of the Strzok-Page duo.

Judicial Watch is anti Hillary and anti Mueller. So....

Doc Holliday said:

---

There's a massive difference between Clinton/Monica and Trump/Stormy.

Clinton got sucked off in the oval office and used his mere presence of being the president as a way to get away with it. And he lied about it to the entire nation under oath.

Trump banged a porn star over a decade ago while he wasn't married. And everyone already knows Trump is a playboy billionaire whose probably slept with hundreds if not thousands of women.

But this investigation is a fishing expedition. It is designed for parallel construction.
It has nothing to do with Russia or collusion.

Its there for midterms.

---

The parallel is that, while extra-marital sex is not a crime, men and women will often get caught in all manner of criminal activity to avoid disclosure. It was Clinton lying about his relations, and Trump's Lawyer providing hush money to cover a story that was already out, that has led to further investigations. No worries about a coup, I have been thinking for more that a year that Mueller will not actually get the evidence against Trump; what is likely to happen is a number of people close to Trump are going to be in courtrooms for the next couple of years. Mr. Cohen's illustrious lawyering days may be numbered. None of this rises to the level of Impeachment: not even close in my view.

The precedent for impeachment set in the Clinton case is pretty low actually. If denying an affair is impeachable (and it is now precedent) then I'm absolutly sure Mueller has a hell of alot more than that. Hell Trump's tweets are practically a prima facie case of obstruction just right there. I sense this is not going to end well at all for Trump and he may take the party down with him.

bubbadog said:

---

quash said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

quash said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

quash said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

There's a massive difference between Clinton/Monica and Trump/Stormy.

Clinton got sucked off in the oval office and used his mere presence of being the president as a way to get away with it. And he lied about it to the entire nation under oath.

Trump banged a porn star over a decade ago while he wasn't married. And everyone already knows Trump is a playboy billionaire whose probably slept with hundreds if not thousands of women.

But this investigation is a fishing expedition. It is designed for parallel construction.
It has nothing to do with Russia or collusion.

Its there for midterms.

---

I asked you this before and you didn't answer: how many indictment/convictions by Starr/Mueller?

---

Related to the campaign/election: ZERO.

---

Wrong.

---

Ok so show me what indictments are based on or pertaining directly to the election.

---

Let's just jump to convictions: Papadopoulos.

---

Well yeah, but other than the fact that he worked for the Trump campaign and spoke up in campaign meetings about his connections with the Russians, how could that possibly have anything to do with the Trump campaign and Russia?

---

No waiting, Doc, the facts preceded your post.

PartyBear said:

---

The precedent for impeachment set in the Clinton case is pretty low actually. If denying an affair is impeachable (and it is now precedent) then I'm absolutly sure Mueller has a hell of alot more than that. Hell Trump's tweets are practically a prima facie case of obstruction just right there. I sense this is not going to end well at all for Trump and he may take the party down with him.

---

Clinton Impeachment was galvanized by the perjury charge--lying about the affair in a deposition. In my view, it was never anything close to the "High Crimes" Threshold for impeachment as described in the Constitution. That said, the reality is that Impeachment is a political action, not a criminal one. If the opposition party has the votes, they can impeach a sitting President because they don't like his or her hair. The danger of removing a president without evidence of treason or a high crime endangers every presidency: Many think the Clinton Impeachment was fueled by Republicans looking for revenge from the Nixon days, and many think what is going on now is payback for what was done to Clinton. Unless you follow the law, it will never end.