Seriati,
We are getting to serious threats to the integrity of our country when thoughtful people like yourself still are going along with the Republican efforts to disparage the Justice Department and the FBI.
We are getting to serious threats to the integrity of our country when thoughtful people like yourself are still going along with the Democratic efforts to cover up malfeasance and political misuse of government agents. I can not think of a single reason that we shouldn't want this whole thing brought out into the open. There are no legitimate secrets here.
Can you tell me one thing in the FISA Memo that should have been classified? One thing that justified the national media arguing against its release (frankly, that's grossest and most hypocritical embarrassment yet from the media)?
Can you give one credible reason why we should cover up political prosecutions?
We've been having this debate for years now, ever since the political weaponization of the IRS came out. The prior administration spied on the opposition campaign during a Presidential election, with a warrant that was based - to some extent - on unverified opposition research. I can't conceive of how anyone that believes in our Constitution doesn't have a problem with that.
There should never have been a special prosecutor. Russian interference should have been investigated by a bipartisan commission appointed by Congress. This entire process has been politically weaponized from day one, and it never should have been. Trying to use this flimsy evidence to support the left's dream of impeach was a gross mistake.
Please, I am pleading with you - think about why a investigator from the opposite political party appointed by Bill Clinton was considered too biased in favor of him by Republicans, and so they had to go with Ken Starr (who was a Republican who literally had a track record of working against Clinton).
I don't have background in those appointment decisions. I'm not seeing a good reason to conduct a two wrongs don't make a right analysis. If you want to make a point, then make one.
And somehow this was acceptable. Trump's allies are arguing that even a widely respected Republican (Mueller was extended as head of the FBI by something like a 98-2 vote) has to be a Democratic plant because he keeps finding evidence of lawbreaking. Is there any reason to believe that Mueller is more biased in favor of Democrats and against Republicans than Robert Fiske or Ken Starr?
First of all, this verbal salad is a mess. As far as I can tell, no one -ever- has said that Mueller was a Democratic plant and certainly not because he "keeps finding evidence of lawbreaking." I'm not aware that there is a serious assertion of bias.
Do you know what a conflict of interest is? Honestly, it doesn't seem like you've done even threshold level research on this point. If you want to persuade me, you need to be able to make a case for why Mueller's conflicts of interest are not disqualifying. It was bad when he was first appointed, fatal even, but if he added Comey's dismissal to his investigation, then the conflicts are truly insurmountable. This is not an arcane area of law.
Why doesn't it bother you that Mueller has insurmountable conflicts of interest? Why doesn't it bother you that multiple people on his team have even worse conflicts of interest? Heck one of his team members represented Hillary's server technician and was involved in the physical destruction of her hard drives. Another represented the Clinton foundation. The interconnection between Mueller, Rosenstein, Comey, McCabe and may of the people on this team is beyond ridiculous. The standard for recusal here is the
appearance of impropriety, and that was met on day one. So I ask, you, do you actually care about the Rule of Law, or just about a political result? Cause this investigation was grossly tainted, and it didn't have to be, and you seem to be complaining about the revelation of the taint rather than the taint itself. You are literally defending corruption.
As far as I can tell the charges brought have
next to zero to do with Russian collusion. You have charges that stem from financial crimes years before the election. You have charges from "lying to the FBI" about something that wasn't even illegal - which may have only been discovered because of the afore mentioned partisan wiretapping.
The only one that seems to have a connection was Papadopoulos, and again, he was charged with lying to the FBI. You should read the charges against him. A big part of his job as a foreign policy adviser was to try and make connections with the Russian government, which is a legitimate endeavor. When you look at what he was supposed to do, and what he got in trouble for, you won't really see a lot (or rather, I guess through partisan eyes, you'll see everything you're afraid of).
Do you want to ultimately be loyal to tribe, or to principles of justice that should be applied similarly regardless of who is accused of breaking the laws of the United States of America?
I'm pretty absolute on Rule of Law. Point me to the statute you think you have evidence that Trump violated. Show me the probable cause of its violation.
If you can't do either, then are you really sure what you are committed to is the
Rule of Law?