We will probably never know the whole truth about Trump's continuing
perfidies. Nevertheless, as to him personally, the Mueller Report apparently
identifies no indictable offenses, even though it also refused to formally
"exonerate him." This seems to me rather a cop-out. Mueller had vast
resources allocated to conduct his investigations, and was unable to find any
conduct warranting prosecution of the president. Much though I personally
dislike the man, I feel it's time to put these investigations behind us,
move on with our lives, and see if we cannot do a bit better in the upcoming
Trump is calling for even more investigations into the oranges of the Mueller
investigation. He wouldn't have to look far, since it has been explained
again and again that it was Trump himself that got that ball rolling when he
admitted on TV that he fired the head of the FBI because it was looking into how
Russia messed with our election process. Trump is also concerned
about windmills causing cancer...maybe he will want to investigate that too!"Lock her up! Lock her up! Lock her up!" Sound familiar? It is
silly that the party that brought us years of investigations into Benghazi and
emails is insisting that there are too many investigations.
Only Trump haters are unset.
Redshirt.... the do, and that is why there was no recommendation for charges.
The law she was being investigated under has no clause where simple negligence
is a crime. Trust me, she was incompetent in her dealings with the matter. But
her actions did not rise to the level of a crime. The House committee found no
breach of laws either. Incompetence yes... Criminal negligence ... no. Just like with Trump. We will likely find that the campaign did things
they were not supposed to do, but didn't rise to the level of criminally
chargeable offenses. Anyway.....
To "UtahBlueDevil " it wasn't part of the statute. See "Lisa
Page said FBI discussed charging Hillary Clinton with 'gross
negligence' in 2016, and DOJ told them no" in the Washington
Examiner.If you also look into the original draft of the Colmey
statement, he said that Clinton had handled classified information with gross
negligence.I would think that Lisa Page and Colmey know and fully
understand the term Gross Negligence as it applies to national security laws.
"The WHOLE nation (Democrats included ) should breath a sigh of relief that
no crimes were committed. Yet your ilk isn't satisfied with the report
stating that no crimes were committed. This is different from the Clinton Email
scandal where they found that crimes were committed but that she didn't
mean to, so they were not going to prosecute."This is patently a
false statement. Particularly that last sentence. That statue specifically
says that the the "intent to do harm to the nation" must be present for
it to be a crime. If it were as simple as using third party services for
email/phones, the Kusherns would be in equal legal jeopardy. We don't get
to rewrite law to suite our own personal agenda.If we really want to
stop having these investigations, we need to stop electing morally compromised
people. With the Clintons and Trumps, this has been a constant. With Obama,
the Bush's, for the most part Reagan and Carter, we didn't wallow in
the mud like we do now because these were more moral people. Mistakes still
happened (Iran-Contra), but they didn't dominate these presidencies.
Confused - Sandy, UTYUP!, still confused ."ECR -
"e (10 total investigations into the Benghazi tragedy all of which concluded
the same thing - there was no wrong doing).""Wrong, 10
investigation where the Obama Administration stonewalled the
investigation."You made the claim, now support your claim with
citations. Faux doesn't count."Talk about being honest
here, anyone who is not jaded by politics knows that Obama would not release the
requested documentation for what actually happened in Benghazi and who order
what... That is a fact, not politics."Here's your chance to
shine. Show us your citations!At least the investigations into Trump
and his administration has resulted in a whole bunch of crooked Republicans
Funny...I can't find Don's letter about Ken Starr or
Another point to consider is we have not seen a four page "summary" of
the Mueller report. We have seen a four page summary of the "major"
conclusions of the report. One of which was Mueller could not exonerate Trump
from obstruction of justice. You think there might be some juicy details
there?Being absolved from criminal behavior does not absolve one
from immoral, unpatriotic, and unethical behavior, all of which Trump has
displayed in spades over two years. Lets see the details.
Flipphone said, “Only leftist Democrats are unhappy with the conclusions
of the Mueller investigation.”First point - the only thing
that anyone has seen of the Mueller report is a four page summary written by the
Attorney General that President Trump appointed after he wrote an unsolicited
paper claiming the president couldn’t and shouldn’t be charged with
obstruction of justice no matter what he does because he’s the president.
Can you imagine?Most Republicans don’t accept a basic Mueller
finding - that Russia tried to interfere in the 2016 campaign. The president
doesn’t believe it. He denied what 17 different intelligence agencies
previously concluded and he denied it standing next to Vladimir Putin on an
international stage. So I’m thinking Trump isn’t happy with
EVERYTHING about the conclusions of the Mueller investigation.
Only leftist Democrats are unhappy with the conclusion of the Mueller
Redshirt - Let's start with this issue related to Trump's corruption.
President Trump was involved in discussions to build a skyscraper in Moscow
throughout the entire 2016 presidential campaign, a longer and more significant
role for Mr. Trump than he had previously acknowledged.Comments by
his lawyer [Giuliani] indicated that Mr. Trump’s efforts to complete a
business deal in Russia waned only after Americans cast ballots in the
presidential election.That means that Mr. Trump was seeking a deal
at the time he was calling for an end to economic sanctions against Russia
imposed by the Obama administration. He was seeking a deal when he gave
interviews questioning the legitimacy of NATO, a favorite talking point of
President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia. And he was seeking a deal when, in July
2016, he called on Russia to release hacked Democratic emails that Mr.
Putin’s government was rumored at the time to have stolen.The
Trump Tower Moscow discussions were “going on from the day I announced to
the day I won,” Mr. Giuliani quoted Mr. Trump as saying during an
interview with The New York Times.And believe me, there's more.
ECR - "So far there have been 34 indictments and 7 guilty pleas. "And all of them had nothing to do with the collusion of the Russaians...
They were not convicted of colluding, they were convicted because a) the lie to
congress, b) business dealings they did prior to being involved with Trump.No person was convicted for colluding with the Russians which was the
original design of the investigation.
Letter: "Enough with all the investigations"As others have
patiently explained already, House investigations are in the Congressional job
description. Whether a particular Congress conducts too many or too
few oversight investigations is a political judgment. House members qre
particularly attuned to the consequences of misreading what their constituents
want, given their their 2-year terms.So the letter writer and some
commenters believe that there are currently too many House investigations into
the Trump administration?Okay, fine. But your choices are limited.
You can vote for a different Representative in 2020. Or
if your House Rep is already in the Little-to-No Oversight Caucus, you are left
with trying to persuade voters in other districts to elect folks who are
similarly handy with the rubber-stamp.Based on the 2018 election
results and the continuing trend-lines, those persuasive efforts are failing.
To "ECR" if there was "obvious" corruption apparently the DoJ,
FBI, and Congress have all missed it.Tell us what evidence do you
have that there was any corruption?With Obama and Clinton we have
evidence. See the new article "Lisa Page said FBI discussed charging Hillary
Clinton with 'gross negligence' in 2016, and DOJ told them no" in
the Washington Examiner.Shouldn't we be investigating the FBI
and DoJ to ensure that corruption like what Obama pulled off doesn't happen
again?Again, the Muller report shows that Trump did not commit
treason. Why are you not happy about that?
Confused said, "Wrong, 10 investigation where the Obama Administration
stonewalled the investigation."I guess you missed the 11 hour
session where Secretary Clinton sat taking questions from the Trey Gowdy Select
Committee on Benghazi. If you call that stonewalling, what do you call
President Trump's contribution to the Muelller investigation?RedshirtHarvard (right) said, "so what you are saying is that Obama had
better control over his DOJ and didn't let them arrest people who broke the
law."I guess you came to the discussion a little late.
We're talking about Congressional investigations which no president should
have any power over. Unless, of course, you don't count the cowards in the
Republican Congress who let the president and his administration slip past the
first 2 years without a whimper, despite obvious corruption."The
WHOLE nation (Democrats included ) should breath a sigh of relief that no crimes
were committed."No crimes were committed? So far there have
been 34 indictments and 7 guilty pleas. And that's just from the Mueller
investigation. We're all still waiting for the Southern District of NY US
Attorneys and any one of 3 state Attorney's General.
The real crime is that their were powerful democrats who tried to undermined the
Presidential election results... There false collisions changes was just
that.Now a new investigation needs to investigate, Starting with the
Obama administration and Hillary Clinton the FBI and DOJ. and pencil neck
To "Don Rasmussen" what does a federal investigation have to do with gun
laws?To "ECR" so what you are saying is that Obama had
better control over his DOJ and didn't let them arrest people who broke the
law. Would you like Trump to control the DOJ that way?Why should
the investigation continue? The FBI (supposedly more competent at investigations
than Congress) has turned in their report and have stated that nothing illegal
went on between Trump and the Russians. The WHOLE nation (Democrats included )
should breath a sigh of relief that no crimes were committed. Yet your ilk
isn't satisfied with the report stating that no crimes were committed. This
is different from the Clinton Email scandal where they found that crimes were
committed but that she didn't mean to, so they were not going to
prosecute.Do you have any evidence of any new crimes, or is it just
a blood lust that you are trying to satisfy?
ECR - "e (10 total investigations into the Benghazi tragedy all of which
concluded the same thing - there was no wrong doing)."Wrong, 10
investigation where the Obama Administration stonewalled the investigation.Talk about being honest here, anyone who is not jaded by politics knows
that Obama would not release the requested documentation for what actually
happened in Benghazi and who order what... That is a fact, not politics.As for having a "We should be genuine in the arguments we make, not
try to get the upper hand by twisting the obvious intentions of those with whom
we disagree."That is why I said "If I remember right, you
liberals called it a "Witch hunt", well it sure looks to me like the
democrats are doing their own "Witch Hunt" on Trump...."The GOP went after Obama and his cabinet members, just like the democrats are
going after Trump... Why? Simply because of politics and gaining points with
their base.Neither party is interested in doing what is best for the
country, just how i can make the other party look bad in the media.... (Pure
jaded view on my part).That is why I am neither GOP or a Dem...
Plus we're saving money by not giving it to "three Mexican
countries", like faux news claimed.
Confused, try to be honest in your arguments. Thomas Jefferson wasn't
criticizing Jason Chaffetz for his role in the multiple investigations
undertaken while he was in Congress, he was pointing out the hypocrisy of those
who are now saying the investigations should now stop when previously they were
cheering on investigations that were clearly over the top and excessive (10
total investigations into the Benghazi tragedy all of which concluded the same
thing - there was no wrong doing). If we are to have civil discourse on this
page or in any other public forum, we should be genuine in the arguments we
make, not try to get the upper hand by twisting the obvious intentions of those
with whom we disagree.
Thomas Jefferson - "Part of the job of congress is to investigate. ""And somehow I dont think this writer was near as concerned when the gop
congress and our own jason 'pay attention to me' chaftazz was doing
the investigating."So which is Thomas Jefferson? You can't
have both ways...."IF" it is the job of congress to
investigate, then why are you critical of Chaftez doing his duty investigating
what happened in Benghazi, email scandal, etc?If I remember right,
you liberals called it a "Witch hunt", well it sure looks to me like the
democrats are doing their own "Witch Hunt" on Trump....You
liberals praised Mueller and his investigation, just knowing there was collusion
with Trump, now that he said there was none.... Well now he is a hiss and by
word... I have to laugh at the hypocrisy of the democrats.
Part of the job of congress is to investigate. And somehow I dont
think this writer was near as concerned when the gop congress and our own jason
'pay attention to me' chaftazz was doing the investigating.
Oversight matters! Let the investigations run their course!
The investigations ARE protecting us. At least they are trying.Unfortunately, to too many of our fellow Americans, TRUTH means nothing any
"Millions of dollars have been spent, and are still being spent, for ongoing
investigations trying to find some wrongdoing by our administration."It sounds like sour grapes because it's your party that is being
investigated. How can you be against uncovering all of the corruption that has
been found within the current Republican administration? Do you
prefer to let the corruption go on just because your party is getting indicted,
imprisoned and heavily fined?The cost of the investigation has been
about $24 million. The recovery through fines has been $64 million. It more than
paid for itself.Just out of curiosity, did you also complain when
Jason Chaffetz did 7 investigations in 4 years on Hillary Clinton without
finding any wrong doing? Were you chanting; "lock her up?" or maybe
"Benghazi!"Then, there is the matter of $54 million from the
Ken Starr fishing investigation into Bill Clinton for lying about a sexual
liaison...Why do you support Republicans?
Possible hypocrisy aside (did you support the endless investigations of Hillary
Clinton?), we have had only one real investigation into the possible collusion
of the President and Russia to soil our democratic process. We have
only begun to look into all the other legal and ethical problems Trump brought
into the Presidency, and continues to bring into government while in office.
And we should ignore all that?In 2016 the GOP knowingly nominated a
seriously questionable candidate. His businesses have always been dodgy, his
morality was questioned and he campaigned under false pretenses. By some crazy
set of circumstances, he won the election (the Democrats candidate was badly
scared, with a bad campaign). The GOP owns the selection and election of one of
the most corrupt personages ever elected to any office. Deal with
investigations. It is the role and the duty of the Congress to ferret out the
truth and inform the US public. As Jack Nicholson sad in a movie: "you
can't handle the truth".
"(Your) representatives were elected to serve" by providing oversight of
the Executive Branch. Oversight derives from the many express powers of the
Congress in the Constitution. It is implied in the legislature's authority,
among other powers and duties, to appropriate funds, enact laws, raise and
support armies, provide for a Navy, declare war, and impeach and remove from
office the President, Vice President, and other civil officers. Congress could
not exercise these powers without knowing what the executive was doing; how
programs were being administered, by whom, and at what cost; and whether
officials were obeying the law and complying with legislative intent."
Thus, Congressional hearings are necessary.It is worth noting that
ten investigations were conducted into the 2012 Benghazi attack, six of these by
Republican-controlled House committees. Despite numerous allegations against
Obama administration officials of scandal, cover-up and lying regarding the
Benghazi attack and its aftermath, none of the ten investigations found any
evidence to support those allegations.To date:Trump
Administration - 34 indictments, 7 guilty pleasObama Administration - 0
People's character & integrity matter especially when you are electing
or appointing them to the highest offices in our country. Investigations as needed are part of taking care of the people's
business. If Nixon had not been breaking the law & had paid
taxes he owed there wouldn't have been a Watergate. Trumps/Kushners are not known to be families of high moral character &
integrity. Neither were the Clintons. You get what you elect. We
need to raise not lower the bar in who we will accept as our leaders. Until
then, they will push the country in a downward spiral in more ways than one.
People are naive to think the downward spiral in the quality of our leaders and
societal values can't & won't take us down as a country. It has
all other great civilizations in history. Too much $ going into the
elections helped corrupt our election process. One reason we need $ & high
paid lobbyists out of our elections. Politicians who have to fund raise to get
re-elected spend half their time raising $ rather than doing the jobs we elected
them to do. All the investigations of Trump/family or Hillary should
be no surprise to anyone in either party.
Agree 100%! I don’t care about their past. If they can be effective while
in office, great. If not, vote them out in the next election.