The logic of calling the Mueller investigation a “witch hunt” makes no sense at all

[grainbely]

Some points to consider:

1) Yes, we don’t know how in the investigation is going to end. We don’t know for sure Trump himself is culpable, but we have evidence that his campaign was. Mueller won’t examine Trump until he investigates anyone else.

2) Why would a witch hunt yield guilty pleas from campaign officials? How many more of current indictments will end up this way? There is bound to be more.

3) If Hillary had won the election, and had the exact same scandal, she would have been impeached a year ago. Republicans in office are that corrupt and self interested.

4) MUELLER WOULD OBVIOUSLY NOT UPDATE THE MEDIA IF HE HAD DAMNING EVIDENCE. THAT ISNT HOW IT WORKS. THE INVESTIGATION MUST END BEFORE THE MEDIA KNOWS ALL THE DETAILS.

Hey, isn't that what you called the Hillary email investigation? A "witch hunt"? Well, I can't argue, the name fits, but the logic doesn't...

It's sad that you call it the email investigation. It was the benghazi investigation, from which no punishable offenses relating to actual benghazi were found. Towards the tail end of the multi year and 20 hearing investigation the email controversy developed. If people were calling it a witch hunt it's because there was no evidence of wrong doing with respect to the purpose of the investigation. They eventually found something that was a punishable offense which likely covered up other shady stuff. I think that would likely be the case for any politician especially those that had been in high levels of the private or public sector for awhile.

As a center left leaner, I'm waiting for Trump's government to get to the bottom of the email server. It seems like something illegal happened there but 2 years in trump's promises have come up empty. You'd think that with information available to him and his handpicked administration and arms of the law, something substantial would have developed by now.

 

[TemplarKormac]

It's sad that you call it the email investigation. It was the benghazi investigation, from which no punishable offenses relating to actual benghazi were found. Towards the tail end of the multi year and 20 hearing investigation the email controversy developed. If people were calling it a witch hunt it's because there was no evidence of wrong doing with respect to the purpose of the investigation.

But it's as if now you're convinced that there is evidence of wrongdoing with respect to Trump. Not because you have any of your own, but because your emotions have convinced you so. Thirteen months on from the start of this investigation, and no provable evidence has been found by Mueller and his team of any collusion by Trump's campaign in the Kremlin.

It's funny too, you see the indictments of Trump's associates as evidence that Trump colluded with Russia. When in fact those indictments in no way point to Trump at all. Any time that happens, you link Trump to the associate and therefore to collusion with Russia. Guilt by association is not evidence, it is a fallacious argument only people with lazy minds and preconceived biases make.

I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but that's not how life works. And much to the chagrin of the OP, the more time that goes on without any provable evidence that Trump did anything to throw the election, the more it does indeed look like a witch hunt. So, therefore, it is one.

If you thought it was unfair to Hillary to be subjected to those hearings and investigations, only to glean no evidence at all, you should conceivably feel the same way about Trump. But you don't... I wonder why that is.

 

[Marion Morrison]

Where's Reality Winner now?

 

[TemplarKormac]

You'd think that with information available to him and his handpicked administration and arms of the law, something substantial would have developed by now.

You think, that with all the information and time afforded to Mueller and his team, that some evidence would have come up by now.

Interestingly, it hasn't. Not saying it won't, but after all this time, it hasn't.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Where's Reality Winner now?

Being a Reality Loser.

 

[Marion Morrison]

If they had anything on Trump, it would have been used to tank his campaign. Bet your bottom dollar on that.

 

[Marion Morrison]

Where's Reality Winner now?

Being a Reality Loser.

in Kansas?

 

[candycorn]

Some points to consider:

1) Yes, we don’t know how in the investigation is going to end. We don’t know for sure Trump himself is culpable, but we have evidence that his campaign was. Mueller won’t examine Trump until he investigates anyone else.

2) Why would a witch hunt yield guilty pleas from campaign officials? How many more of current indictments will end up this way? There is bound to be more.

3) If Hillary had won the election, and had the exact same scandal, she would have been impeached a year ago. Republicans in office are that corrupt and self interested.

4) MUELLER WOULD OBVIOUSLY NOT UPDATE THE MEDIA IF HE HAD DAMNING EVIDENCE. THAT ISNT HOW IT WORKS. THE INVESTIGATION MUST END BEFORE THE MEDIA KNOWS ALL THE DETAILS.

The longer it goes on, the more apparent it becomes that Trump is indeed guilty. That his spokespeople are running around floating the ideas that he could pardon himself are clear signs of guilt. I don't think even the most ardent Trump enabler would get behind the most recent fallacy that Trump was just trying to start a conversation about the powers of the presidency with his tweet about it the other day about pardoning himself. Whether Mueller can prove it or not is an open question. I think he can myself. We'll see what happens.

Either way, I do not think the nation (much less the Congress) has the fortitude to go through with impeachment outside of pardoning himself. At which point, it will likely be argued that a pardon supersedes the impeachment.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Where's Reality Winner now?

Being a Reality Loser.

in Kansas?

Dorothy told her to gtfo and leave the ruby slippers. She's not in Kansas anymore.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Some points to consider:

1) Yes, we don’t know how in the investigation is going to end. We don’t know for sure Trump himself is culpable, but we have evidence that his campaign was. Mueller won’t examine Trump until he investigates anyone else.

2) Why would a witch hunt yield guilty pleas from campaign officials? How many more of current indictments will end up this way? There is bound to be more.

3) If Hillary had won the election, and had the exact same scandal, she would have been impeached a year ago. Republicans in office are that corrupt and self interested.

4) MUELLER WOULD OBVIOUSLY NOT UPDATE THE MEDIA IF HE HAD DAMNING EVIDENCE. THAT ISNT HOW IT WORKS. THE INVESTIGATION MUST END BEFORE THE MEDIA KNOWS ALL THE DETAILS.

Now....a question
When you don't answer it, you will be proving what a fraud the "investigation" is and has always been.



Should an individual under investigation expect, and be entitled to, impartiality by the investigating agencies?

im·par·ti·al·i·ty
imˌpärSHēˈalədē/
noun


1. equal treatment of all rivals or disputants; fairness.



Take your time.

 

[DustyInfinity]

You notice how all the efforts to find Russian interference are only pointed at one party? That's not fishy at all.

 

[Billy000]

Some points to consider:

1) Yes, we don’t know how in the investigation is going to end. We don’t know for sure Trump himself is culpable, but we have evidence that his campaign was. Mueller won’t examine Trump until he investigates anyone else.

2) Why would a witch hunt yield guilty pleas from campaign officials? How many more of current indictments will end up this way? There is bound to be more.

3) If Hillary had won the election, and had the exact same scandal, she would have been impeached a year ago. Republicans in office are that corrupt and self interested.

4) MUELLER WOULD OBVIOUSLY NOT UPDATE THE MEDIA IF HE HAD DAMNING EVIDENCE. THAT ISNT HOW IT WORKS. THE INVESTIGATION MUST END BEFORE THE MEDIA KNOWS ALL THE DETAILS.

Your trolling Billy and you know it.

Nah you just know I’m right.