• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

How can there possibly be so much smoke and no fire? Trump/Russia/Yates/Comey

jimithyashford

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 6, 2016
Messages
808
Reaction score
156
Location
Midwestern USA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
We've all heard that expression "where there is smoke there is fire" and while that doesn't always hold true, there comes a point at which the amount of smoke is so great that the existence of the fire is beyond plausible deniability.

At this point the shuffling around and outright removal of personnel close to the Trump/Russia investigation and/or which oppose Trump is so prolific that it breeches the bounds of reason for anyone to be "ok" with this, to condone it, or to not at this point be highly suspect.

A quick recap in roughly chronological order:

-Sally Yates warns White House about Mike Flynn and then refuses to enforce Islamic country travel restrictions. For one or both of those reasons, she was canned.

-Mike Flynn retroactively declares himself as an agent of the Turkish government.

-Mike Flynn resigns/is de facto fired. To this day has not yet testified but has offered to do so in exchange for immunity.

-New Attorney General Jeff Sessions recuses himself from Trump investigation.

-James Comey testifies before House committee that members of the Trump team are under active investigation in the Russian election interference case.

-House Committee immediately cancels all future hearings and the chair, Devon Nunez, recuses himself.

-Senate committee uncovers source of Mike Flynn's Turkish lobbying work may be a Russian funded front.

-Senate requests White House provide documentation regarding the vetting process of Mike Flynn to the oversight committee. The White House refuses a lawful request from the body tasked with their oversight.

-Within days senate oversight committee chairman Jason Chaffetz steps down and takes a leave of absence from Congress.

-James Comey has just been fired, story is very late breaking and exact details are not yet clear.


I mean, two committee chairs and the attorney general have recused themselves from the investigation, the House investigation has been indefinitely suspended, the national security adviser resigned, and both the attorney general and now FBI directed have been fired.


To any sensible person this reeks of massive cover up and creeping dictatorship. Bashing the press, slowly removing and replacing non-cooperative persons, refusing to cooperate with Constitutionally mandated oversight by the Senate, and grinding the House investigative body to a halt, all of that is like....dictatorship 101. Anyone with a sense of 20th and now 21st century history must be painfully aware of this fact. How could you not be? If this were happening in any other country on earth we'd be thanking our luck that we were born into a country where that kind of thing didn't fly....and yet here it is.

So I can understand a Trumper maybe finding a way to rationalize away one of those things, or two, or even three. I can understand them figuring out some mental device by which to be comfortable with any couple of items on that list....but at what point is is too much? At what point does even the most stubbornly entrenched Trump voter have to concede that there is just far far too much smoke for there to be no fire?

I hope the answer to that question is not "the point at which we are all on fire".
 
Last edited:
We've all heard that expression "where there is smoke there is fire" and while that doesn't always hold true, there comes a point at which the amount of smoke is so great that the existence of the fire is beyond plausible deniability.

At this point the shuffling around and outright removal of personnel close to the Trump/Russia investigation and/or which oppose Trump is so prolific that it breeches the bounds of reason for anyone to be "ok" with this, to condone it, or to not at this point be highly suspect.

A quick recap in roughly chronological order:

-Sally Yates warns White House about Mike Flynn and then refuses to enforce Islamic country travel restrictions. For one or both of those reasons, she was canned.

-Mike Flynn retroactively declares himself as an agent of the Turkish government.

-Mike Flynn resigns/is de facto fired. To this day has not yet testified but has offered to do so in exchange for immunity.

-New Attorney General Jeff Sessions recuses himself from Trump investigation.

-James Comey testifies before House committee that members of the Trump team are under active investigation in the Russian election interference case.

-House Committee immediately cancels all future hearings and the chair, Devon Nunez, recuses himself.

-Senate committee uncovers source of Mike Flynn's Turkish lobbying work may be a Russian funded front.

-Senate requests White House provide documentation regarding the vetting process of Mike Flynn to the oversight committee. The White House refuses a lawful request from the body tasked with their oversight.

-Within days senate oversight committee chairman Jason Chaffetz steps down and takes a leave of absence from Congress.

-James Comey has just been fired, story is very late breaking and exact details are not yet clear.


I mean, two committee chairs and the attorney general have recused themselves from the investigation, the House investigation has been indefinitely suspended, the national security adviser retired, and both the attorney general and now FBI directed have been fired.


To any sensible person this reeks of massive cover up and creeping dictatorship. Bashing the press, slowly removing and replacing non-cooperative persons, refusing to cooperate with Constitutionally mandated oversight by the Senate, and grinding the House investigative body to a halt, all of that is like....dictatorship 101. Anyone with a sense of 20th and now 21st century history must be painfully aware of this fact. How could you not be? If this were happening in any other country on earth we'd be thanking our luck that we were born into a country where that kind of thing didn't fly....and yet here it is.

So I can understand a Trumper maybe finding a way to rationalize away one of those things, or two, or even three. I can understand them figuring out some mental device by which to be comfortable with any couple of items on that list....but at what point is is too much? At what point does even the most stubbornly entrenched Trump voter have to concede that there is just far far too much smoke for there to be no fire?

I hope the answer to that question is not "the point at which we are all on fire".


What they need to do is come out with whatever proof they have. As long as they don't give anyone concrete proof, nothing is ever settled. It's taking way too long for such a serious accusation. Either they have proof or not.
 
We've all heard that expression "where there is smoke there is fire" and while that doesn't always hold true, there comes a point at which the amount of smoke is so great that the existence of the fire is beyond plausible deniability.

To any sensible person this reeks of massive cover up and creeping dictatorship. Bashing the press, slowly removing and replacing non-cooperative persons, refusing to cooperate with Constitutionally mandated oversight by the Senate, and grinding the House investigative body to a halt, all of that is like....dictatorship 101. Anyone with a sense of 20th and now 21st century history must be painfully aware of this fact. How could you not be? If this were happening in any other country on earth we'd be thanking our luck that we were born into a country where that kind of thing didn't fly....and yet here it is.

So I can understand a Trumper maybe finding a way to rationalize away one of those things, or two, or even three. I can understand them figuring out some mental device by which to be comfortable with any couple of items on that list....but at what point is is too much? At what point does even the most stubbornly entrenched Trump voter have to concede that there is just far far too much smoke for there to be no fire?

Shouldn't this be in the conspiracy theory sub-forum. :roll:

You list a number of things you believe are tied together showing "any sensible person" a massive coverup.

IMO, any "sensible person" would prefer facts to conjecture, and reality to conspiracy theory.

The FACTS are there is nothing so far after digging and digging to tie the President to any fascist plot or Russian conspiracy.

Instead, there is just a lot of fog...mistaken for smoke by those hoping to find a fire. :coffeepap:
 
Last edited:
We've all heard that expression "where there is smoke there is fire" and while that doesn't always hold true, there comes a point at which the amount of smoke is so great that the existence of the fire is beyond plausible deniability.

There was a post I made awhile back where I picked several "well known" past administration scandals and found the start and "end" date of the scandal. For example, when the Watergate break-in occurred to when Nixon resigned.

The point of the post is that scandals normally take years to develop and for the consequences to actually play out.

Meaning that Flynn-Yates-Comey will probably not reach any sort of conclusion for another 9-36 months.
 
You left out classified documents ending up in private homes and being leaked to the press, private chats between the AG and the hubby of one being investigated by the FBI while running for president, the FBI head deciding which cases to prosecute and the soon to be ex-POTUS changing the rules for where classified FISA documents get sent as he bops out the door to earn big bucks on speaking fees and book deals.
 
Shouldn't this be in the conspiracy theory sub-forum. :roll:

You list a number of things you believe are tied together showing "any sensible person" a massive coverup.

IMO, any "sensible person" would prefer facts to conjecture, and reality to conspiracy theory.

The FACTS are there is nothing so far after digging and digging to tie the President to any fascist plot or Russian conspiracy.

Instead, there is just a lot of fog...mistaken for smoke by those hoping to find a fire. :coffeepap:

And the slew of recusals, firings, halted committies, and refusal to cooperate with oversight.....none of that might have anything to with why solid proof is not forthcoming, deliberate stonewalling might have nothing to do with that?

Look, I'm not conspiracy theorist. If the doors have all been opened and we've looked inside and nothing is there, I am content to let that be the result. But what I am not content with is trying to look behind a door, and having the very people your investigating holding that door shut, and all of the people trying to open it ended up stepping down or being fired. How can that possibly not concern you?

Or to put it a different way, if this does not reek of coverup to you, what WOULD it take, what more would have to happen for you to go "Ok, something is not right here, this administration is covering something up and abusing their power to do so"

Or are you the kind of person who would just never reach that point no matter how egregious the circumstances become? Your honest and clear answer would be appreciated.
 
There was a post I made awhile back where I picked several "well known" past administration scandals and found the start and "end" date of the scandal. For example, when the Watergate break-in occurred to when Nixon resigned.

The point of the post is that scandals normally take years to develop and for the consequences to actually play out.

Meaning that Flynn-Yates-Comey will probably not reach any sort of conclusion for another 9-36 months.

I think you are probably correct, such things do take a great deal of time. I am just flabbergasted that there is still any plausible deniability left for Trump supporters to cling to.

I'd bet every dollar to my name that if that same chain of events as mentioned above had played out under Obama he would have been impeached and probably amazingly fast. Hell they impeached Clinton for lying about stooping his secretary, and here we are with what history will undoubtedly remember as one of the biggest scandals in our nation's history playing out, and we have people flippantly dismissing it as if it's nothing.

Myopic is far to gentle a word.
 
What they need to do is come out with whatever proof they have. As long as they don't give anyone concrete proof, nothing is ever settled. It's taking way too long for such a serious accusation. Either they have proof or not.

If the committees looking for proof have been shut down, or the White House has refused their requests for information, all chairs of the committees and the attorney general have recused themselves, and the head of the FBI and the previous attorney general have been fired.....then how can they get proof? Maybe the reason there isn't much proof is because the process of investigating have been stonewalled.

You do acknowledge that that is at least possible, right?
 
You left out classified documents ending up in private homes and being leaked to the press, private chats between the AG and the hubby of one being investigated by the FBI while running for president, the FBI head deciding which cases to prosecute and the soon to be ex-POTUS changing the rules for where classified FISA documents get sent as he bops out the door to earn big bucks on speaking fees and book deals.

You are aware that any potential conflict of interest or scandal around Clinton's emails and Bill talking to the AG are completely and utterly separate from Trump/Russia connections, that even if I concede there is an issue there with the clintons that needs to be investigated, that have 100% nothing to do with this case.

In fact the only reason I can even conceive of your bringing that up is as a red herring...What possible bearing can that have on the trump/russia investigations?
 
If the committees looking for proof have been shut down, or the White House has refused their requests for information, all chairs of the committees and the attorney general have recused themselves, and the head of the FBI and the previous attorney general have been fired.....then how can they get proof? Maybe the reason there isn't much proof is because the process of investigating have been stonewalled.

You do acknowledge that that is at least possible, right?

Yep, after all they only had 17 INTEL agencies and 8 months to find that golden nugget. They had no problem getting confirmation of Russian hacking just no trace of a Trump campaign connection. Maybe, just maybe, that means the Russians had their own reasons to want to dump on Clinton, Inc..
 
You are aware that any potential conflict of interest or scandal around Clinton's emails and Bill talking to the AG are completely and utterly separate from Trump/Russia connections, that even if I concede there is an issue there with the clintons that needs to be investigated, that have 100% nothing to do with this case.

In fact the only reason I can even conceive of your bringing that up is as a red herring...What possible bearing can that have on the trump/russia investigations?

What makes you think that Russia being anti-Clinton requires them being pro-Trump? Nobody doubts the Russian hacking but that in no way means that Trump was behind it. Don't you think that Obama with the vast and loyal resources under his control would have found that Trump/Russia connection if it existed? It would have guaranteed a demorat POTUS win.
 
If the committees looking for proof have been shut down, or the White House has refused their requests for information, all chairs of the committees and the attorney general have recused themselves, and the head of the FBI and the previous attorney general have been fired.....then how can they get proof? Maybe the reason there isn't much proof is because the process of investigating have been stonewalled.

You do acknowledge that that is at least possible, right?

No. It's been going on since June/July. Before they were in the White House.
 
Shouldn't this be in the conspiracy theory sub-forum. :roll:

You list a number of things you believe are tied together showing "any sensible person" a massive coverup.

IMO, any "sensible person" would prefer facts to conjecture, and reality to conspiracy theory.

The FACTS are there is nothing so far after digging and digging to tie the President to any fascist plot or Russian conspiracy.

Instead, there is just a lot of fog...mistaken for smoke by those hoping to find a fire. :coffeepap:

We can include the tax returns as a concern about Trump's transparency. Right now, it's like Schroedinger's cat, it may be evidence of wrongdoing and maybe not. But if it's not evidence of wrongdoing, why the unusual secrecy? And, don't give me that audit BS.
 
We've all heard that expression "where there is smoke there is fire" and while that doesn't always hold true, there comes a point at which the amount of smoke is so great that the existence of the fire is beyond plausible deniability.

At this point the shuffling around and outright removal of personnel close to the Trump/Russia investigation and/or which oppose Trump is so prolific that it breeches the bounds of reason for anyone to be "ok" with this, to condone it, or to not at this point be highly suspect.

A quick recap in roughly chronological order:

-Sally Yates warns White House about Mike Flynn and then refuses to enforce Islamic country travel restrictions. For one or both of those reasons, she was canned.

-Mike Flynn retroactively declares himself as an agent of the Turkish government.

-Mike Flynn resigns/is de facto fired. To this day has not yet testified but has offered to do so in exchange for immunity.

-New Attorney General Jeff Sessions recuses himself from Trump investigation.

-James Comey testifies before House committee that members of the Trump team are under active investigation in the Russian election interference case.

-House Committee immediately cancels all future hearings and the chair, Devon Nunez, recuses himself.

-Senate committee uncovers source of Mike Flynn's Turkish lobbying work may be a Russian funded front.

-Senate requests White House provide documentation regarding the vetting process of Mike Flynn to the oversight committee. The White House refuses a lawful request from the body tasked with their oversight.

-Within days senate oversight committee chairman Jason Chaffetz steps down and takes a leave of absence from Congress.

-James Comey has just been fired, story is very late breaking and exact details are not yet clear.


I mean, two committee chairs and the attorney general have recused themselves from the investigation, the House investigation has been indefinitely suspended, the national security adviser resigned, and both the attorney general and now FBI directed have been fired.


To any sensible person this reeks of massive cover up and creeping dictatorship. Bashing the press, slowly removing and replacing non-cooperative persons, refusing to cooperate with Constitutionally mandated oversight by the Senate, and grinding the House investigative body to a halt, all of that is like....dictatorship 101. Anyone with a sense of 20th and now 21st century history must be painfully aware of this fact. How could you not be? If this were happening in any other country on earth we'd be thanking our luck that we were born into a country where that kind of thing didn't fly....and yet here it is.

So I can understand a Trumper maybe finding a way to rationalize away one of those things, or two, or even three. I can understand them figuring out some mental device by which to be comfortable with any couple of items on that list....but at what point is is too much? At what point does even the most stubbornly entrenched Trump voter have to concede that there is just far far too much smoke for there to be no fire?

I hope the answer to that question is not "the point at which we are all on fire".

How many Benghazi investigations where there?
 
Yep, after all they only had 17 INTEL agencies and 8 months to find that golden nugget. They had no problem getting confirmation of Russian hacking just no trace of a Trump campaign connection. Maybe, just maybe, that means the Russians had their own reasons to want to dump on Clinton, Inc..

So your position on this is that the lack of irrefutable proof has nothing at all to do with obstruction and stonewalling of investigatory efforts, but is for sure only because such proof doesn't exist because there is nothing to find?

That is your position?

And it's not even possible that there is something there that is being hidden and obstructed through an abuse of executive power? That's just flat out off the table as far as you're concerned?
 
No. It's been going on since June/July. Before they were in the White House.

So, in your opinion, it is just flat out not possible, completely off the table that the Trump Administration is covering something up? It's inconceivable that all of these terminations and resignations and recusals have anything at all to do with anything untoward being hidden?

That is what you believe?

What do you think of the White House's flat out refusal to provide documentation of Mike Flynn's vetting when requested by the chair of the Sentate oversight Commission, the body Constitutionally tasked with overseeing the white house's conduct and with full legal authority to make that request? The White House refusing to comply is completely coincidental? Has nothing at all to do with anything?
 
We've all heard that expression "where there is smoke there is fire" and while that doesn't always hold true, there comes a point at which the amount of smoke is so great that the existence of the fire is beyond plausible deniability.

At this point the shuffling around and outright removal of personnel close to the Trump/Russia investigation and/or which oppose Trump is so prolific that it breeches the bounds of reason for anyone to be "ok" with this, to condone it, or to not at this point be highly suspect.

A quick recap in roughly chronological order:

-Sally Yates warns White House about Mike Flynn and then refuses to enforce Islamic country travel restrictions. For one or both of those reasons, she was canned.

-Mike Flynn retroactively declares himself as an agent of the Turkish government.

-Mike Flynn resigns/is de facto fired. To this day has not yet testified but has offered to do so in exchange for immunity.

-New Attorney General Jeff Sessions recuses himself from Trump investigation.

-James Comey testifies before House committee that members of the Trump team are under active investigation in the Russian election interference case.

-House Committee immediately cancels all future hearings and the chair, Devon Nunez, recuses himself.

-Senate committee uncovers source of Mike Flynn's Turkish lobbying work may be a Russian funded front.

-Senate requests White House provide documentation regarding the vetting process of Mike Flynn to the oversight committee. The White House refuses a lawful request from the body tasked with their oversight.

-Within days senate oversight committee chairman Jason Chaffetz steps down and takes a leave of absence from Congress.

-James Comey has just been fired, story is very late breaking and exact details are not yet clear.


I mean, two committee chairs and the attorney general have recused themselves from the investigation, the House investigation has been indefinitely suspended, the national security adviser resigned, and both the attorney general and now FBI directed have been fired.


To any sensible person this reeks of massive cover up and creeping dictatorship. Bashing the press, slowly removing and replacing non-cooperative persons, refusing to cooperate with Constitutionally mandated oversight by the Senate, and grinding the House investigative body to a halt, all of that is like....dictatorship 101. Anyone with a sense of 20th and now 21st century history must be painfully aware of this fact. How could you not be? If this were happening in any other country on earth we'd be thanking our luck that we were born into a country where that kind of thing didn't fly....and yet here it is.

So I can understand a Trumper maybe finding a way to rationalize away one of those things, or two, or even three. I can understand them figuring out some mental device by which to be comfortable with any couple of items on that list....but at what point is is too much? At what point does even the most stubbornly entrenched Trump voter have to concede that there is just far far too much smoke for there to be no fire?

I hope the answer to that question is not "the point at which we are all on fire".

Sometimes there's a lot of smoke because the production crew is running a massive smoke machine.
 
We've all heard that expression "where there is smoke there is fire" and while that doesn't always hold true, there comes a point at which the amount of smoke is so great that the existence of the fire is beyond plausible deniability.

At this point the shuffling around and outright removal of personnel close to the Trump/Russia investigation and/or which oppose Trump is so prolific that it breeches the bounds of reason for anyone to be "ok" with this, to condone it, or to not at this point be highly suspect.

A quick recap in roughly chronological order:

-Sally Yates warns White House about Mike Flynn and then refuses to enforce Islamic country travel restrictions. For one or both of those reasons, she was canned.

-Mike Flynn retroactively declares himself as an agent of the Turkish government.

-Mike Flynn resigns/is de facto fired. To this day has not yet testified but has offered to do so in exchange for immunity.

-New Attorney General Jeff Sessions recuses himself from Trump investigation.

-James Comey testifies before House committee that members of the Trump team are under active investigation in the Russian election interference case.

-House Committee immediately cancels all future hearings and the chair, Devon Nunez, recuses himself.

-Senate committee uncovers source of Mike Flynn's Turkish lobbying work may be a Russian funded front.

-Senate requests White House provide documentation regarding the vetting process of Mike Flynn to the oversight committee. The White House refuses a lawful request from the body tasked with their oversight.

-Within days senate oversight committee chairman Jason Chaffetz steps down and takes a leave of absence from Congress.

-James Comey has just been fired, story is very late breaking and exact details are not yet clear.


I mean, two committee chairs and the attorney general have recused themselves from the investigation, the House investigation has been indefinitely suspended, the national security adviser resigned, and both the attorney general and now FBI directed have been fired.


To any sensible person this reeks of massive cover up and creeping dictatorship. Bashing the press, slowly removing and replacing non-cooperative persons, refusing to cooperate with Constitutionally mandated oversight by the Senate, and grinding the House investigative body to a halt, all of that is like....dictatorship 101. Anyone with a sense of 20th and now 21st century history must be painfully aware of this fact. How could you not be? If this were happening in any other country on earth we'd be thanking our luck that we were born into a country where that kind of thing didn't fly....and yet here it is.

So I can understand a Trumper maybe finding a way to rationalize away one of those things, or two, or even three. I can understand them figuring out some mental device by which to be comfortable with any couple of items on that list....but at what point is is too much? At what point does even the most stubbornly entrenched Trump voter have to concede that there is just far far too much smoke for there to be no fire?

I hope the answer to that question is not "the point at which we are all on fire".

The Clintons made it a common practice to make sure there was so much smoke in the room that you could not see the smoking gun.
 
And the slew of recusals, firings, halted committies, and refusal to cooperate with oversight.....none of that might have anything to with why solid proof is not forthcoming, deliberate stonewalling might have nothing to do with that?

Look, I'm not conspiracy theorist. If the doors have all been opened and we've looked inside and nothing is there, I am content to let that be the result. But what I am not content with is trying to look behind a door, and having the very people your investigating holding that door shut, and all of the people trying to open it ended up stepping down or being fired. How can that possibly not concern you?

Or to put it a different way, if this does not reek of coverup to you, what WOULD it take, what more would have to happen for you to go "Ok, something is not right here, this administration is covering something up and abusing their power to do so"

Or are you the kind of person who would just never reach that point no matter how egregious the circumstances become? Your honest and clear answer would be appreciated.

Ok I keep seeing recusal posted like a bad thing, question is do you even have a clue to what recuse means?
 
Sometimes there's a lot of smoke because the production crew is running a massive smoke machine.

Are the things I mentioned smoke machine effects? The recusal of two investigation chairs and the AG, the firing of the former AG and FBI director, the resignation of the national security advisor, and the refusal to comply with Senate oversight committee information requests? That is all just smoke machine stuff? All just pure coincidence separate unrelated events that liberal media is threading together into a false narrative?
 
Are the things I mentioned smoke machine effects? The recusal of two investigation chairs and the AG, the firing of the former AG and FBI director, the resignation of the national security advisor, and the refusal to comply with Senate oversight committee information requests? That is all just smoke machine stuff? All just pure coincidence separate unrelated events that liberal media is threading together into a false narrative?

Again you mention recusal, do you even know what that term means?
 
Ok I keep seeing recusal posted like a bad thing, question is do you even have a clue to what recuse means?

Do you? If you think it's cut and dry then you're a fool.

In theory recusal means that you have a known conflict of interest so you step aside to let a person without said conflict conduct the affairs.

Two points;

1~ is it not alarming that Jason Chaffetz, Jeff Sessions, and Devon Nunez all have conflicts of interest that do not permit objective investigation of the POTUS?

But more importantly

2~ Recusal can also be a very convieniant way to torpedo investigation under the guise of defending the investigations integrity, for example when Devon Nunez cancels all scheduled hearings for the house investigation committee, and promptly recuses himself, leaving the committee leaderless and stalled for weeks. Or like Jeff recusing himself from the investigation and leaving it in the hands of people with far less clout with which to conduct the investigation. In other words, recusal can be a convieniant way to neuter a process while appearing to uphold it if you, let's say, either hand the investigation off to no one or to entities poorly equipped to deal with it.

Is there utterly no chance at all that that exact thing has happened here?
 
Do you? If you think it's cut and dry then you're a fool.

In theory recusal means that you have a known conflict of interest so you step aside to let a person without said conflict conduct the affairs.

Two points;

1~ is it not alarming that Jason Chaffetz, Jeff Sessions, and Devon Nunez all have conflicts of interest that do not permit objective investigation of the POTUS?

But more importantly

2~ Recusal can also be a very convieniant way to torpedo investigation under the guise of defending the investigations integrity, for example when Devon Nunez cancels all scheduled hearings for the house investigation committee, and promptly recuses himself, leaving the committee leaderless and stalled for weeks. Or like Jeff recusing himself from the investigation and leaving it in the hands of people with far less clout with which to conduct the investigation. In other words, recusal can be a convieniant way to neuter a process while appearing to uphold it if you, let's say, either hand the investigation off to no one or to entities poorly equipped to deal with it.

Is there utterly no chance at all that that exact thing has happened here?

No and especially in sessions case, recusal was the right thing, he was one of those called out for talking to the russians, and had been close to the trump campaign, if he knew he could not investigate without bias, he did the right thing stepping aside.

On nunez would you rather him be there and be bias slowing or halting the investigation, or stepping aside to let someone else do it.

You seem to have an issue with people doing the honorable thing, of course if sessions and nunez had remained in the investigation and nothing turned up you could scream bias destroyed the investigation, while both stepping aside gives you no excuse when the investigations turn up nothing.
 
What they need to do is come out with whatever proof they have. As long as they don't give anyone concrete proof, nothing is ever settled. It's taking way too long for such a serious accusation. Either they have proof or not.

They, whoever they are, may have already come out with all the proof they have.
 
So your position on this is that the lack of irrefutable proof has nothing at all to do with obstruction and stonewalling of investigatory efforts, but is for sure only because such proof doesn't exist because there is nothing to find?

That is your position?

And it's not even possible that there is something there that is being hidden and obstructed through an abuse of executive power? That's just flat out off the table as far as you're concerned?

You make it appear as though Trump had executive power since the beginning of the hacking investigation - which is ridiculous. Trump's recent rise to power (a couple of months ago) and the ability to (possibly) implant a few political hacks into important positions has not changed the picture entirely. There are no doubt hundreds of folks looking into this matter and many of them have been at it for far longer than Trump or his appointees have been in power. The Trump/Russia investigation will continue for as long as the demorats (and their supporters) manage to keep at it - see Benghazi.
 
Back
Top Bottom