I am with you on the most of your statements. However, it seems that blind support goes both ways. I see party affiliation as being fairly blind these days. Being neither a Republican or a Democrat, and believing Trump says some very stupid things, I will still hold my indictment of him until some real proof a crime comes out. All I have seen since the night of the election is the rats (both Democrat and Republican) scurrying around screaming "Russia". Meanwhile nobody on the news screams about Hillary and the Clinton Foundation being investigated for the Uranium One scandal and that is in government documents. I believe there is a lot of corruption and treason in the federal government. I would be fine if everyone who is proven, with evidence, to have broken US law goes to jail and never is released. If Trump is guilty of a crime, he needs to go but all these attacks on him since he became President (with many being false) make me leery of jumping on the lynch Trump bandwagon. A Grand Jury has a much lower bar than a trial so let's see what comes of these charges in court.

As for US meddling in other countries elections, it is well documented and as someone said earlier, it still happens. In another thread I mentioned Iran's coup that the CIA was involved in back in the 50's (read "All the Shaw's Men). CIA doesn't mess around and they will take out leaders they do not like. Everyone believing Russia is the only government in the world that "meddles" in other countries politics is brainwashed or just ignorant. Ukraine is another prime example of the US involved in furthering a coup in another country (whether right or wrong).

I voted for Trump because Hillary is a satanic pedophile witch (backed up by wikileaks and the Clintons trips with known pedo Epstein to his little rape island). If Trump goes down, it will cause me no heartache, I have called him a clown on many occasions (which is probably unfair) but I need evidence before I say he is a criminal or a traitor. I can say Hillary is a traitor and a criminal because of many things she has done like Benghazi, stealing furnishings from the White House when they left, her receipt of money with Uranium One, etc, etc. d

https://www.politico.com/story/2017/10/31/facebook-twitter-post-election-russian-meddling-sought-to-undermine-trump-244380

So they concluded to get President Trump elected and then sought to undermine him.

I am curious as to how Trump's critics here can defend Mueller's hiring of dem donors, especially high profile ones who also had political jobs with partisan democrats.

With a plurality of the American population being independent was it really so unreasonable to expect Mueller to NIT hire democrat donors or for Mueller himself to not be partisan?

100% agree with you - I didn't mention the blindness on the other side because it seems to be the big elephant in the room. I am more concerned about weaknesses or errors in judgement on our side. The error very well could be on my part. When I say "Our side" I am referring to 2A supporters, not a party affiliation. This rankles some here. Sorry about that.

While I do agree with this also, it seems like a case of being accused of something and saying indignantly "But look what SHE got away with! It's not fair!"
I think JB is correct when he describes this tactic as a diversion. Is the Russia investigation a distraction to President Trump from presidenting the country? Probably. The deeper we dig in heels, the slower we get to the finish line maybe?
I am flabbergasted that Clinton and the Crime Family Cronies are not in prison... Floored, dismayed, and losing hope in our entire judicial system. If I spend too much processor time on the topic I slip over into rage.


I am a country boy who eschews television, radio and anything that looks like it has strong bias. From this loftily informed position, I don't see a shred of "treason". I find that charge ridiculous and offensive.
When the (almost) entire "news" manufacturing business aligned against him, I tend to support him more.
No, that's not quite right... My support of Trump and distrust of the news sources has more to do with their support of Clinton than what they write about Trump.


I loathe the Clinton Crime family. They have enriched themselves mightily by their political connections at the expense of the USA.

But the Epstein thing bothers me too. This led to another disagreement in a thread a few months ago. An early supporter of President Trump blasted a person who had visited at Epstein's house, even though there was not a shred of evidence that there was anything to do with a sex scandal, and quite convincing reasons that there would not have been.
Yet...

Epstein is a real scumball, but tarring anyone who knows him or has been to his mansion seems a dangerous tactic.

Maybe they were just the best people for the job. I don't read partisan bias into everything, that's tinfoil land.

I think Trump's narcissism and lack of self discipline is going to damage the whole country, but I don't say too much because of the above. It was a choice between bad and worse

You really don't see a conflict of interest in people who worked and donated money to defeat Trump who are also investigating Trump?

Judges are required BY LAW to recuse themselves from cases involving campaign donors or campaign donors of their opponents. Why not prosecutors?

Not really. Prosecutors don't hand out the judgements. I'd be more concerned with the judge than the prosecutors.

But they often poison the cases they work on. For instance, one of the people Mueller hired poisoned a lot of the ENRON cases where huge portions of convictions were later thrown out because of the tactics that guy used.

With regard to the raid on Manafort's home earlier this year, the fact it was a no-knock early morning raid was completely absurd as they had no reason to believe any danger to persons or evidence would occur had they knocked on the door.

There are reasons we expect our judicial officials to be impartial and given how nasty and hotly contested this past election was and how divided America is right now its insane to have partisan prosecutors investigating the President.

if they poison the cases, then it gets thrown out. That's a win for trump right?
This is a non-issue to me. Whether they are partisan or not, the prosecutors don't hand out the judgements. Prosecutors are not judges.

I would have preferred a complete wipe of all previous POTUS appointees, everywhere and at every level.
Would it have cluster F'd some agencies for awhile? Probably, but there are a lot of very intelligent and capable people working for our .Gov who were not appointees, and could step in for awhile.

I didn't mean this thread as a nit picky thing, but the rate at which the swamp is emptying is my biggest gripe. I want more change, and I want it 9 months ago.

Alpine has a point regarding people who actively campaigned against President Trump being hired to investigate him... But in reality, it would be just as disastrous (or more so) to have only Trump sycophants doing that work.
There should be a threshold for too much partisanship, or too strong an agenda, but I can't say what that would be without some long think time.
Donation threshold? Volunteer hours? Can't be by vote, obviously.

Please tell me you're joking. You're ok with prosecutorial misconduct because you think some judge might fix it later?

How often do you think that happens? If your answer is less than 100% of the time then it's unacceptable. You don't start with a broken approach hoping someone will fix it later, and certainly not with something as important as investigating the President after a divisive election...

A plurality of Americans identify as independents and don't donate to or do any work for either major party.

Finding lawyers in that group is easy.

That was way out of line. It makes me ashamed of whoever ordered that tactic. I don't know all the facts of course, but I am ashamed that such a thing could happen like that in our country.


What would you suggest as the criteria for non-partisan?