Tying the conspiracy together: "The Russia Investigation Circus Is Over. Will There Be A Parade?"

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: JBurns

Mueller is finished with Trump and the entire White House staff

Say trumps lawyers. Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha. I bet Robert Mueller thinks differently.

All the rest of that... Pfffft

Interesting that this country's most leak-ridden investigation (possibly in history) has failed to refute that, eh?

You'd think that would be an easy win for them. Instead, silence. Again, from the noisiest, most obnoxious leak filled investigation in the history of this country.

originally posted by: JBurns
a reply to: Krazysh0t
There is only one reason to continually shy away from answering a simple question regarding tangible evidence (which I find it odd that the three of you have continually chosen to do......) and that is because *you* are personally aware of the specious nature of your assertions.

False dilemma

A false dilemma is a type of informal fallacy in which something is falsely claimed to be an "either/or" situation, when in fact there is at least one additional option.[1]

a reply to: Sillyolme

Why don't you hop on one of your alter-ego's to agree with yourself?

You can express your views freely, but frankly you're wrong. The fact you are still avoiding the tough questions simply proves you don't have any idea what you're talking about. What law is he accused of breaking? Code. Language.

For the 13th time

If you honestly ask yourself the following questions (and do the appropriate independent research - don't take my word for it) I trust you'll expand your awareness of this conspiracy. If you're totally convinced of your position, what harm can come from exploring these alternatives?

Dems and media like to say 17 intelligence agencies agreed unanimously - this is untrue. In actually, only three agencies provided input and NSA only expressed "moderate confidence" in the reports. Later, Clapper admitted that only a select handful of people within these agencies came to these findings - hardly the unanimous claim he'd made initially. In fact, the three agencies couldn't even be described as "unanimous." How much do you want to bet that FBI's opinion came from Pete Strozok (the lead counterintelligence SA at that time)

The accusations against Russia are entirely based on the findings of a private company (CrowdStrike) that the DNC hired in response to the leaks. 16GB of data was transferred in just a couple of seconds, so we already know it was transferred locally (via USB 3.0+ no less).

How come the same agents/lawyers who steered this standard counter-intelligence probe to an attack against Trump were involved in the Clinton investigation? Why is a special counsel needed now, but not when a Democrat administration was investigating a former SOS and DNC Presidential candidate?

What about the extremely suspicious text messages between Strozok, Lisa Page and others? What "insurance policy" against Trump were they referring to? Knowing the extent people went to in the 2016 election, what makes you believe these people maintained their professional standards? Wouldn't the right thing to have done been to recuse themselves?

What about the laundering of millions of dollars from the Clinton campaign and the DNC to pay Fusion GPS to produce a dossier full of salacious unverified (mostly unverifiable) charges against Trump? What if that was used to obtain intrusive FISA warrant(s)? How about Bruce Ohr meeting with the writers of the slanderous "dossier" ?

How about Andrew Weissmann, who congratulated disgraced acting-AG Sally Yates for refusing to follow what is universally termed a "lawful Presidential order"?

Why was Clinton, Mills, Abedin and dozens more interviewed without being put under oath by Peter Strozok no less? Why would co-conspirator Cheryl Mills be allowed to sit in on the interrogation?

Why did Strozok decline to charge Mills and Abedin for lying about knowledge of Clinton's illegal server? They clearly had the knowledge (as proven by their own emails), yet lied directly to federal agents (a crime whether under oath or not). They also were not prosecuted for this offense - yet it is precisely what the likes of Mike Flynn and company are charged with. Precisely the same offense. Once again, two sets of rules.

If this entire nonsense is based on the erroneous and malicious actions of these corrupt and tainted agents as well as the phony "dossier" (aka Democrat op-research hit-job stuff), then I fully expect the investigation will be shut down without warning. And rightfully so. A new investigator can easily be appointed, who is not tainted like Mueller and virtually his entire team. [/quote

a reply to: Krazysh0t


What is the additional option?

(14)

If you honestly ask yourself the following questions (and do the appropriate independent research - don't take my word for it) I trust you'll expand your awareness of this conspiracy. If you're totally convinced of your position, what harm can come from exploring these alternatives?

Dems and media like to say 17 intelligence agencies agreed unanimously - this is untrue. In actually, only three agencies provided input and NSA only expressed "moderate confidence" in the reports. Later, Clapper admitted that only a select handful of people within these agencies came to these findings - hardly the unanimous claim he'd made initially. In fact, the three agencies couldn't even be described as "unanimous." How much do you want to bet that FBI's opinion came from Pete Strozok (the lead counterintelligence SA at that time)

The accusations against Russia are entirely based on the findings of a private company (CrowdStrike) that the DNC hired in response to the leaks. 16GB of data was transferred in just a couple of seconds, so we already know it was transferred locally (via USB 3.0+ no less).

How come the same agents/lawyers who steered this standard counter-intelligence probe to an attack against Trump were involved in the Clinton investigation? Why is a special counsel needed now, but not when a Democrat administration was investigating a former SOS and DNC Presidential candidate?

What about the extremely suspicious text messages between Strozok, Lisa Page and others? What "insurance policy" against Trump were they referring to? Knowing the extent people went to in the 2016 election, what makes you believe these people maintained their professional standards? Wouldn't the right thing to have done been to recuse themselves?

What about the laundering of millions of dollars from the Clinton campaign and the DNC to pay Fusion GPS to produce a dossier full of salacious unverified (mostly unverifiable) charges against Trump? What if that was used to obtain intrusive FISA warrant(s)? How about Bruce Ohr meeting with the writers of the slanderous "dossier" ?

How about Andrew Weissmann, who congratulated disgraced acting-AG Sally Yates for refusing to follow what is universally termed a "lawful Presidential order"?

Why was Clinton, Mills, Abedin and dozens more interviewed without being put under oath by Peter Strozok no less? Why would co-conspirator Cheryl Mills be allowed to sit in on the interrogation?

Why did Strozok decline to charge Mills and Abedin for lying about knowledge of Clinton's illegal server? They clearly had the knowledge (as proven by their own emails), yet lied directly to federal agents (a crime whether under oath or not). They also were not prosecuted for this offense - yet it is precisely what the likes of Mike Flynn and company are charged with. Precisely the same offense. Once again, two sets of rules.

If this entire nonsense is based on the erroneous and malicious actions of these corrupt and tainted agents as well as the phony "dossier" (aka Democrat op-research hit-job stuff), then I fully expect the investigation will be shut down without warning. And rightfully so. A new investigator can easily be appointed, who is not tainted like Mueller and virtually his entire team.

Have an extremely weak argument that some backwards "internet lawyer" can pick apart? Keep asking Clinton for your daily talking points.

a reply to: JBurns

Maybe because you are annoying, rude, and displaying trollish behavior? Contrary to what you may or may not believe, your attitude and disposition to the people you are talking to goes a long way to people wanting to engage you further.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

If you want to have a civil discussion of the evidence, I am all for it. In fact, it is 100% what I've been asking for all along. I've got nothing but deflections, attacks and accusations in return.

Are you saying you're interested in an objective analysis? I appreciate it, and I'm entirely open to that Krazy.

I have no desire to engage in petty behavior and name calling. Any such behavior on my part is borne from frustration, and nothing against you (or anyone else) personally. I apologize for attacking you and insulting you, and I'm sincerely interested in impartial and objective analysis of the evidence. We can leave the interpretations from the OP out of it if you'd like, I am only interested in looking at the evidence at hand

a reply to: JBurns

Here is the situation as I understand it and what I believe. If you interpret ANY words into what I say here and put words in my mouth I will immediately end the conversation. Got it?

The investigation is not a nothing burger. It is indicting people. Flynn, being indicted, may not be directly related to the original intent of the investigation, but it is common knowledge that to get someone to flip on higher up people you plead guilty to a lesser crime. Flynn was also interested in saving his son. It remains to be seen how this plays out, but it is VERY likely that Flynn's plea is going to lead to more indictments down the road.

Manafort is another target that will be going to jail. He is connected much more fluidly with people like Jared Kushner and DT Jr. so they too could be swept up in this.

Primary point. The investigation isn't over. As it stands I am NOT saying that Trump is guilty of anything. For probably the thousandth time on ATS I am withholding my judgement against Trump on this until the investigation wraps up and we are privy to all the information that Mueller has looked over. If you want to bring up the Hillary investigations as counter points since I commonly call them witch hunts, keep in mind that 8 of those have started and finished. We are already privy to all the facts those investigations reviewed.

Speaking of which. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Just because right now we don't know any criminal activities Trump did or have any proof of them doesn't mean they won't come down the line later. This has nothing to do with Clapper's words on the matter either. Mueller isn't Clapper. He may come to different conclusions than him.

I HIGHLY disprove of Trump and right wing media's attempt to discredit this investigation and it smells like they are trying to derail it to hide something. This # is unAmerican to the core and any tried and true patriot should be speaking out against it. It's is disgusting. If there is nothing to hide then let it play out. Liberals have been saying this for months now. If you'd take time to actually LISTEN to us you'd know that.

originally posted by: Liquesence
a reply to: JBurns

There isn't any loaded rhetoric, though.

Sure?

Investigation Circus

Jim Clapper, todays P.T Barnum

All circuses, of course, have a tiny car full of clowns

climbing out from under the hood

Etc.

Do you care to dispute the facts?

Facts?

That there have already been indictments and guilty pleas from it?

The investigation is not over, there is much no one knows and hasn't been made public (because it's an ongoing investigation), and the rhetoric in this opinion piece aims to convince those who already believe it's nothing and is over when it's far from such a thing, already evident by the indictments and guilty pleas.

It's just getting started. That's why the damage control, like this opinion piece, and freaking out.

No... I don't think he was talking about the "rhetorical flourish" (although you KNOW that... or you really are brainwashed), he was talking about stuff like:

1. - "For months the Democrats and the media — but I repeat myself — told us that 17 intelligence agencies agreed. They did not, of course. The only agencies involved were the Central Intelligence Agency, the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the National Security Agency — and the NSA had only moderate confidence in the estimate. Later Clapper admitted that the conclusion was not even arrived at by the agencies, but by a handful of selected players in these agencies.

2. - "This entire narrative rests on the assertion that Russia hacked the Democrat National Committee computer server and released, over the course of the campaign, emails that put Mrs. Clinton in a bad light.

How do we know that? Why, we took the word of the private company hired by the DNC attorneys who told us that.

We have the most competent criminal investigators in the world. They have grand jury and subpoena powers and are employing all of it against President Trump, his children and his associates.

Did they employ those vast powers to get access to the DNC server and discover for themselves whether it was Russia, or perhaps a disgruntled employee, who actually got access to the emails?

NOPE!

3. - "What else did the DNC lawyers arrange? Why, they arranged launder millions of dollars from the Clinton campaign and the DNC to pay Fusion GPS to produce a dossier full of salacious charges against Trump. They paid Russians. It was arguably illegal. This dossier has been in the hands of much of the media and our vaunted intelligence services for over a year and none has yet been able to verify the charges.

(Has the Special Counsel verified them? NOPE!)"

4. - "First came Associate Deputy Attorney General Bruce Ohr who met secretly with the authors of the bogus dossier. He kept this secret from his bosses. I wonder why?

(Is the Special Counsel looking into that? NOPE!)"

5. - "Then, climbing out from under the hood came Andrew Weissmann, whose past history of prosecutorial misconduct clearly earned him a starring role in this circus. He sent his fawning congratulations to the Acting Attorney General for flagrantly refusing to carry out a presidential order that her own legal counsel determined was a legal order. Weissman’s anti-Trump bona fides are in fine shape too."

6. - "Then came the head clown, Peter Strzok, who found the time to text his mistress thousands of times while helping FBI Director Jim Comey write a memo that exonerated Mrs. Clinton in the email investigation before she was even interviewed."

7. - "Strzok then interviewed Mrs. Clinton without putting her under oath. No notes exist. He allowed co-conspirator, Cheryl Mills to sit in on the interview playing the role of Mrs. Clinton’s attorney."

8. - "Strzok had already interviewed Cheryl Mills and Huma Abedin who both told him that they were unaware that Mrs. Clinton had a private server though there are emails from them referring to it and Abedin had her own email address on it. Nothing to see here. Move along.

...I have to be somewhere... there is a LOT more.

So... it's the FACTS in the piece that are stirring the hornet's nest... not the rhetorical nuance of the opinion piece.

Care to respond to the above, which has been established as fact from the FBI and the DOJ Inspector General?

We'll wait...

a reply to: dasman888

So... it's the FACTS in the piece that are stirring the hornet's nest... not the rhetorical nuance of the opinion piece.

And still the "But what about Clinton."

It's trying to end or distract and undermine the current lawful investigation by attempting to deflect to 'look at this!'

Is the same thing as, only more cleverly couched, "But what about Clinton."

Clever.

originally posted by: Liquesence
a reply to: dasman888

So... it's the FACTS in the piece that are stirring the hornet's nest... not the rhetorical nuance of the opinion piece.

And still the "But what about Clinton."

It's trying to end or distract and undermine the current lawful investigation by attempting to deflect to 'look at this!'

Is the same thing as, only more cleverly couched, "But what about Clinton."

Clever.

Well now, here's the thing... Flynn pled guilty to perjury, for mischaracterizing his conversation with the Russian Ambassador...

Mrs. Clinton, Cheryl Mills, and a host of other folks would have been charged with far more crimes if they had been under oath, just based on their change in public testimony over the course of the last 20 months. Of course, they were NOT under oath... even though the lies they have been telling are part of the public record. In fact... there's no transcript... no audio recording... no video recording... and no, they were not sworn in...

...and you don't think that's salient to this conversation?

You truly are hyper-partisan. ANYONE who engages in crimes while conducting the nation's business deserves prosecution, regardless of party or political power. You don't agree with that?

originally posted by: Liquesence
a reply to: dasman888

So... it's the FACTS in the piece that are stirring the hornet's nest... not the rhetorical nuance of the opinion piece.

And still the "But what about Clinton."

It's trying to end or distract and undermine the current lawful investigation by attempting to deflect to 'look at this!'

Is the same thing as, only more cleverly couched, "But what about Clinton."

Clever.

FWIW... it's NOT the Trump side or his supporters fault that dirty cops at the FBI and DOJ hoodwinked Bob Mueller. Mueller can NOT even address these issues... but talk to ANYONE who is apolitical and knows the law... this is not a partisan tit for tat argument, regards what Strzok, Ohr, McCabe and others did. It was not even on the margins, so far as it being okay.

We can argue and you can pretend this is just a sparring match about right vs left. Anyone who doesn't have their politics shoved up their a** knows this is a super serious issue... and if the tables were turned and it was Clinton being investigated and the same positions were doing the same things and were anti-Clinton... it would still be OUTRAGEOUS.

One more thing... if Strzok and/or Ohr used the Dossier to get a FISA warrant (After being turned down the first time), then that has crossed the line into probable felonies. Just because these dirty cops thought Hillary would be elected, and they would get away with this stuff... doesn't make this crap Trumps fault.

As they say... if you can't do the time, don't do the crime.

Did you happen to notice... with all these shenanigans at FBI/DOJ, the left media took the liberty to say Trump was going to fire Mueller? Show me ONE SINGLE UTTERANCE during the same period, where Trump even suggested he was thinking about firing Mueller. You won't find one... and in fact when asked, Trumpo said "No. Does that surprise you?"

Hell... Mueller is Santa Clause these last 2 weeks... he is giving Trump one huge present after another... why would he fire Mueller, when one juicy piece of dirty behavior after another is getting released?

LASTLY... DOJ has an Inspector General... and he is investigating Obama's DOJ and how all this was handled. That will be a pretty interesting report... don't you think?

a reply to: JBurns

Mueller will be investigating this for another full year.
At least through 2018.

originally posted by: JBurns
a reply to: amfirst1

99.9% of the Democrats I know mock the false Russian narrative.

That's weird. Last Poll I saw showed 75% of Democrats thinking the Russian Investigation was Justified.

Of course they weren't involved. If they cared so much about the GOP, where have they been?

??????????

They don't care about the GOP? They care about the Orange Oaf, cuz they own him.

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: JBurns

Mueller will be investigating this for another full year.
At least through 2018.

Watergate was over 2 years and a dozen plus indictments by the time Nixon finally resigned.

So many Parallels:

June 20, 1972: Reportedly based on a tip from Deep Throat (associate director of the FBI, Mark Felt), Bob Woodward reports in the Washington Post that one of the burglars had E. Howard Hunt in his address book and possessed checks signed by Hunt, and that Hunt was connected to Charles Colson.

June 23, 1972: In the Oval Office, H.R. Haldeman recommends to President Nixon that they attempt to shut down the FBI investigation of the Watergate break-in, by having CIA Director Richard Helms and Deputy Director Vernon A. Walters tell acting FBI Director L. Patrick Gray to, "Stay the hell out of this".

September 15, 1972: Hunt, Liddy, and the Watergate burglars are indicted by a federal grand jury.

April 6, 1973: White House counsel John Dean begins cooperating with federal Watergate prosecutors.

April 30, 1973: Senior White House administration officials Ehrlichman, Haldeman, and Richard Kleindienst resign, and John Dean is fired.

May 17, 1973: The Senate Watergate Committee begins its nationally televised hearings.


January 28, 1974: Nixon campaign aide Herbert Porter pleads guilty to perjury.

February 25, 1974: Nixon personal counsel Herbert Kalmbach pleads guilty to two charges of illegal campaign activities.

March 4, 1974: the "Watergate Seven" (Mitchell, Haldeman, Ehrlichman, Colson, Gordon C. Strachan, Robert Mardian, and Kenneth Parkinson) are formally indicted

April 5, 1974: Dwight Chapin convicted of lying to a grand jury.

en.wikipedia.org...

I left the party due to the way the election was handled.

But, I also think what pushed me out was the takeover of the Democrats by cultural Marxism and identity politics gone wild.

a reply to: JBurns

Fake news. From failing MSN. Sad. So Sad.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Here is the situation as I understand it and what I believe. If you interpret ANY words into what I say here and put words in my mouth I will immediately end the conversation. Got it?

Got it

I appreciate that. I also apologize for using those types of under-handed tactics previously. I genuinely appreciate your willingness to discuss this issue.

The investigation is not a nothing burger. It is indicting people. Flynn, being indicted, may not be directly related to the original intent of the investigation, but it is common knowledge that to get someone to flip on higher up people you plead guilty to a lesser crime. Flynn was also interested in saving his son. It remains to be seen how this plays out, but it is VERY likely that Flynn's plea is going to lead to more indictments down the road.

The investigation itself is not a nothing-burger, in that I agree completely. I don't have any problem with the investigation though, just the impropriety (or appearance thereof) shown by those investigating the alleged crime. If a crime did occur, why should it matter who investigates it?

Although I don't personally believe Russia engaged in any actions outside the "normal" espionage of a nation-state, I have no problem with any investigation being conducting to determine whether or not that was the case. After all, if some sort of vote tally tampering really did take place, then it is good we know about/know how it happened so we can prevent it.

And you're right about flipping lower hanging fruit, but that will only help if POTUS truly did break a law. And if he did, then I'm sure his comeuppance is coming too.

Manafort is another target that will be going to jail. He is connected much more fluidly with people like Jared Kushner and DT Jr. so they too could be swept up in this.

I also believe he will be going to jail, but his guilty plea covered events spanning more than a decade in DC. Surely no one is arguing that all of that is related to the Trump campaign. I realize that is not what you're saying at all, but it is important to remember that Manafort engaged in a lot of shady behavior over the years (likely to include his time in the campaign).

Primary point. The investigation isn't over. As it stands I am NOT saying that Trump is guilty of anything. For probably the thousandth time on ATS I am withholding my judgement against Trump on this until the investigation wraps up and we are privy to all the information that Mueller has looked over.

Fair enough, and I appreciate that point as well. I may have said it earlier (as it is indeed my opinion), but I too cannot say for certain he is innocent either. As far as I know, he could've done things far worse than he's alleged to have done and broke a host of US laws in the process. I can't and won't rule that out as well

If you want to bring up the Hillary investigations as counter points since I commonly call them witch hunts, keep in mind that 8 of those have started and finished. We are already privy to all the facts those investigations reviewed.

Admittedly, some (or even many) of them are witch hunts. However, my main point by bringing this up is to show the connection between her server investigation and the Russia probe (with the same agents and all that). I find the impropriety to be striking, given the fact that this agent Strozok didn't take Clinton or her aides' statements under oath, but did when it came to Manafort/Flynn/etc. At their core, they're all guilty of lying to federal agents (based on what evidence we do have) but only some of them were charged with those crimes. That being said, I realize this investigation will not be changed by assigning blame to Clinton. My only point (or more of a question really) is why does it have to be Mueller/those exposed agents conducting the investigation? If a crime were truly committed, couldn't any federal agent (or team, most likely) conduct the investigation?

After all, we are talking about the potential unseating of a US President. That is a pretty big deal, and I don't think we should allow even the slightest hint of impropriety to cloud the real issues.

Let me just pose this scenario to you. What if you guys are 100% right about Trump (and more, really), and the probe determines Trump did in fact commit several felonies (or maybe even treason) against the United States? Now what if, by some stroke of fate, all or most of that evidence is thrown out by a trial judge (or congress, or whomever)? What if a guilty man walks because the agents conducting the investigation (or collecting the evidence) is decided to have been acting other than impartially and objectively?

What do you personally make of the many text messages that have so far been released? I find the discussion regarding the "insurance policy" against Trump quite disturbing, as well as the demonstrable pro-Clinton beliefs which just so happen to coincide with totally different handling of that case compared to the Russia investigation. Why did Strozok change Comey's language (which reflected the crime of espionage) to that which reflected no crime and only some degree of negligence? I realize this doesn't exonerate Trump or change the investigation, but it absolutely casts doubt on the investigators involved.

I just don't understand why this *has* to be investigated by certain people, as opposed to having a transparent and impartial process. That is to say, even if there is no *actual* impropriety, why risk the entire investigation on the appearance of it? There is simply too much at stake here for that. The precedent that could be set by this alone is truly sobering.

Speaking of which. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Just because right now we don't know any criminal activities Trump did or have any proof of them doesn't mean they won't come down the line later. This has nothing to do with Clapper's words on the matter either. Mueller isn't Clapper. He may come to different conclusions than him.

Agreed, but that is a two way argument. Not everyone supporting the investigation is as clear minded as you. There are several people who make claims about Trump/Russia treason as though it was already a foregone conclusion and proven beyond any reasonable doubt. Clearly that is not the case. Of course that isn't to say those things are impossible, of course they are possible. But it is irresponsible for anyone to claim he's definitively guilty (stating it as a fact vs. opinion - not saying you did this) when legally he is indeed innocent until proven guilty.

Mueller may not be Clapper, but I find it unusual that both Obama and Clapper would publically state Russia wasn't involved in any tampering or the like. Not to say they are the ultimate holders of knowledge either, but you have to admit it is unusual to see this narrative spun in such a way.

(continued)

a reply to: Krazysh0t

I HIGHLY disprove of Trump and right wing media's attempt to discredit this investigation and it smells like they are trying to derail it to hide something. This # is unAmerican to the core and any tried and true patriot should be speaking out against it. It's is disgusting. If there is nothing to hide then let it play out. Liberals have been saying this for months now. If you'd take time to actually LISTEN to us you'd know that.

OK, and I agree with the belief that discrediting the investigation itself is wrong. However, they are (IMO) trying to say that even the appearance of bias or impropriety is unacceptable when you're talking about removal of a sitting President. There simply must be a higher standard here, especially in light of the revelations demonstrating at least some degree of bias against the President.

Now unless you'd be comfortable with an all pro-Trump investigative team, we must acknowledge that personal politics can and will spill over into professional endeavors. That is to say that even if all the team members were behaving appropriately, we must at least acknowledge the belief that these individuals are compromised in the sense that their integrity is no longer ironclad.

I wouldn't be comfortable with a pro-Trump team of investigators either. Because I can assure you they'd come to a finding of "no guilt" whereas an all anti-Trump team would certainly find he violated some kind of law (whether he did or not). So in that sense, attempts to discredit the investigation are admittedly misguided/wrong. However, attempts to raise some frankly valid and legitimate concerns about the integrity of certain investigators is totally within the realm of reasonable expectations for an investigation of this magnitude.

Just my two cents, and I sincerely appreciate the discussion

JB

a reply to: dasman888


Thank you for clearing that up dasman

That is exactly my sentiments as well. There are still a few who won't even address the facts, although I give Krazy credit for at least being willing to discuss the facts without arguing with one another over them

a reply to: JBurns

Ok there was a lot to digest there and for the most part even though we stand on opposite sides of the aisle, we are in agreement on things. What I gather is your biggest hangup is the appearance of bias. So let's explore that avenue.

Do you think it is possible, at this juncture, to even hire someone without any bias for or against Trump? Let's say, hypothetically, that Mueller's investigation is tainted beyond salvaging. Where would we hire someone without bias? Surely you don't think Trey Gowdy would be a biased investigator? It's not like nobody has ever heard of Trump before and the pool of qualified federal agents who could head an investigation like this and haven't heard of him is probably even slimmer.

Also, since we brought up Clinton. Gowdy was CLEARLY biased against Clinton. He even admitted to it. Granted he performed the Congressional investigations and wasn't part of any special inquiries. Though it should be noted that the current Congressional investigations into Trump are heavily biased for Trump.

But let's circle back to Mueller. Mueller has been doing the right thing when these accusations of bias arise. He kicks those people off of the investigation. Instead of even debating the issue, he cuts them loose. That is the right thing to do. It should also be noted that Trump's man Deputy AG Rosenstein stands by Mueller.

I'm not saying that it is wrong to be weary of bias here, but you have to accept that some bias has to exist and the best way to deal with it is to minimize it as it is exposed. Mueller is a Republicans. So that has to mean something at the least. If anything, I'M the one who should be worried about the bias not you.