Supposedly Trump colluded with the Russians to get elected. All the intelligence agencies up and to the point that Sessions recused himself stated that there was no evidence of that. Still…a special prosecutor was formed to investigate it. Now…who inserted the few words defining the scope of the investigation outside of Russian collusion? Why would he do that? If you can answer that honestly, you’ll understand that Rosenstein is very smart and didn’t do it by accident.
I’m not sure if you are being intellectually dishonest, or if you really do not understand the facts of this discussion.
The SC was appointed because it was confirmed that Russia attacked our sovereignty and interfered in our election process. There was enough circumstantial evidence to warrant a full investigation into these facts, coupled with looking at whether any Americans assisted them in their attack. Part of that included investigating members of Trump’s campaign team, like Paul Manafort, who had incredibly close ties to people associated with the Putin regime. The scope of the appointment had to include looking to see if other crimes were committed in relation to the known fact of election interference. As an example, if Manafort did collude with Russia and people associated with Putin, and received financial rewards as a quid-pro-quo, Mueller would be required to investigate this angle. In doing so, he uncovered a litany of other crimes committed by Manafort.
Trying to make it seem like this is some sort of plot to take out the President is not only completely and ridiculously absurd, but it is shameful as well. As the judge stated who is overseeing one of the trials of Manafort, everything that Rosenstein did in his appointment of Mueller was completely and totally above board, procedures were followed to the letter, and the scope is exactly what it should have been.
That is the honest truth, and it is disappointing to see someone attack an American who has devoted his life to upholding our rule of law, and the very institutions he represents, based on some weird desire to defend someone as indefensible as Donald Trump of all people. A lying, sleazy, immoral, unethical, con-man turned politician. The way you, and others like you are acting, will go down in history as one of the darkest times in America, and you all will be judged harshly for the damage you are attempting to do to our nation.
I appreciate your honesty…I truly do but you’re naïve.
Hillary destroyed no evidence.
It’s not naive to base judgments on evidence, facts, and logic as opposed to wild eyed conspiracy theories devoid of facts or logic. Nor is it naive to desire to defend Americans who have devoted their life to the rule of law from baseless attacks on their character and integrity and continued commitment to ensuring our nation’s laws are upheld.
Trump and his supporters are proving themselves to be a cancer on this nation’s soul. They are giving rise and legitimacy to unethical, immoral, and fallacious beliefs which will cause untold, long-term damage to this great nation I love. It’s disturbing what you all are doing in the name of Donald Trump of all people. This goes well beyond sticking it to the establishment Smyrna.
Alright. We’ve both said our piece, now let’s watch it unfold.
Personally?
Absolutely not.
That’s what starry eyed lackeys are for.
Not even indirectly. In December 2014, after handing over work emails to State, Cheryl Mills instructed the IT company to destroy Clinton’s emails. The congressional subpoena was t issues until the following March. Some days later, the employee at the IT company had an “oh ■■■■ moment” (his description) and destroyed the emails. There’s no evidence that anyone associated with Clinton instructed him to do so after the subpoena (why would they? They assumed they’d been deleted for months.
So no, Clinton did not directly or indirectly destroy evidence.
