What The Russia Investigation Grand Jury Means and Does Not Mean.

 

 
Mueller’s Appointment of a grand jury in his investigation of the Trump Campaign is a big deal, but not definitive.

August 3d was a big day in the Russia collusion investigation even though no major new factual revelations involving connections of the Trump Campaign to Russian election meddling emerged. Let’s review what did happen.

 

-The Washington Post reported Special Prosecutor Mueller has empaneled a grand jury for his investigation of potential Trump Campaign collusion with Russia meddling in the election.

 

-Reuters reports the grand jury has subpoenaed information related to Trump Jr’s June 2016 meeting with Russians set up to collude with Russians regarding dirt on Hillary Clinton.

 

-CNN reports the investigation is focusing on financial ties between Trump, and his associates, with Russians connected to Russian “spy agencies.” This would cross the “red line” against Mueller’s investigation including his finances and business dealings that Trump declared on July 19th.

 

-A bipartisan group of Senators submitted a bill to limit Trump’s ability, either directly or through surrogates, to fire Special Prosecutor Mueller.

 

That night at a rally to a crowd of his personality cult in West Virginia Trump declares the investigation is “totally made up” and a “complete fabrication” designed to be an excuse for Hillary losing the election.

 

Unrelated to Mueller’s investigation, but breaking on the same day, Trump appears uninformed and weak in January conversations with the Prime Minister of Australia and the President of Mexico after the Washington Post published leaked transcripts of the calls.

 

There is a lot of confusion regarding this grand jury and how much Mueller’s empaneling of it means. So let’s talk about what grand jury’s creation means and does not mean.

Why It Means A Lot.

It means there is something to this investigation and more than just a little. Empaneling this grand jury would not happen if early stages of the investigation turned up nothing. It means Mueller believes there is a very good chance felony indictments are likely. The 5th Amendment of the United States Constitution requires a grand jury for any felony indictment, so this was necessary before any indictments could happen.

 

Most grand juries result in indictments. In fact, almost (but not quite) all do. So when anyone tries to tell you this is not a big deal, the truth is it is a big deal.

 

Mueller’s grand jury is quickly going right where Trump attempted to intimidate Mueller into not going, into his business dealings and finances. Trump said that was a “red line” Mueller had better not cross. Mueller has now danced upon it and run right over it.

 

The grand jury is also looking at Trump Jr’s meeting with Russians. But then again, how could it not? Trump Jr’s email chain establishes the meeting was arranged to engage in precisely the kind of the Russian meddling in the election with Trump Campaign collusion that is the purpose for the investigation. This is also significant because Trump Jr. is tied to the investigation of the businesses and finances. President Trump put him and brother Eric in charge of the Trump financial empire upon becoming President. This thin (effectively non-existent) separation is supposedly what divested Trump’s interest in his own businesses when he became President. If nothing else that meeting, and the President’s putting Trump Jr. in charge of his business empire, provides the nexus justifying Mueller’s investigating the business empire’s connections to Russia.

 

The potential scope of the grand jury’s investigation is broad. When Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein appointed Mueller as Special Prosecutor he authorized the investigation to include:

“1) any links and/or connection between the Russian government and individuals associated with the campaign of Donald Trump, and
2) any matters that arose, or may arise, directly from the investigation, and
3) any matters that fall within the scope of 28 C.F.R. Section 604(a).”

Not only is the “any matters” of clause 2 broad, but you might want to follow the link to that C.F.R. section in clause 3. It defines the jurisdiction of a special prosecutor as specifically including the authority to “investigate and prosecute federal crimes committed in the course of, and with intent to interfere with, the Special Counsel’s investigation, such as perjury, obstruction of justice, destruction of evidence, and intimidation of witnesses.”

 

Accordingly President Trump’s arguable attempts to interfere with the investigation by firing Comey, or the “better hope there are no tapes” attempt to intimidate Comey’s testimony, or for that matter Trump’s own intimidating “red line” statements telling Mueller he had best not take this investigation precisely where Mueller has taken it, are all fair game for Mueller and his grand jury to investigate.

What It Does Not Mean.

It does not mean any indictments will necessarily happen. While most grand juries eventually produce indictments, a very few do not. It is possible for this grand jury to conclude its work finding there is not sufficient evidence to support any prosecutions after all.

 

It does not mean any indictments will necessary implicate President Trump personally. There are a lot of other names out there that could, in theory, be indicted without implicating President Trump personally. These names include (but are not limited to) Carter Page, Paul Manafort, Michael Flynn, and Roger Stone. However, some of the names that appear to be targets of the investigation, such as Trump Jr., are obviously very close to the President and his businesses.

 

The grand jury cannot indict President Trump. A strong Constitutional case can be made that the only criminal proceeding permitted against a sitting President is the impeachment process. While this is not absolutely clear, I doubt Mueller would push it by seeking an indictment against a sitting President. Instead, similar to what Ken Starr did with Bill Clinton, Mueller would refer the evidence to the Republican dominated House of Representatives to take action as that body deems fit. If Trump is removed from office by impeachment the Constitution is clear normal criminal prosecution is then allowed.

 

Comments

Autumn Cote Added Aug 4, 2017 - 3:25pm
Please note, the second best way to draw more attention to your work is to comment on the work of others. I know this to be true because if you do, I'll do everything in my power to draw more attention to your articles.
 
PS - There is a lot I can do and would like to do on your behalf.
Infidel753 Added Aug 4, 2017 - 7:43pm
This is a good summing up, thank you.
 
On the point that "a strong Constitutional case can be made that the only criminal proceeding permitted against a sitting President is the impeachment process", do you know if this is the consensus among actual Constitutional scholars?  I'm not expert, but I had rather a different impression.
Keith Added Aug 4, 2017 - 8:03pm
Well you know what they say about "Constitutional Scholars", if you laid them all end to end they would never reach a conclusion.  I'd say it is a predominant view among Constitutional scholars.  Criminal prosecution of a sitting President would present so many Constitutional headaches that most believe the Constitution avoids it by creating the impeachment process as a substitute.
 
It was a sufficiently strong doctrine that the judge in Clinton's case said avoiding that concern was her reason for finding him in civil, rather than criminal, contempt.  
Jeff Jackson Added Aug 5, 2017 - 9:27pm
Keith, a sitting president is very, very unlikely to face criminal prosecution. Now, an impeached president certainly could. Being prosecuted while president would impede the president in his duties to the extent that the presidency would become irrelevant. I would bet a substantial amount of money even if Trump was found to have committed a crime, he will not be prosecuted as president; that is exactly why there is an impeachment process. Sitting presidents are not criminally prosecuted, for good reasons. The entire concept is moot, as it is highly improbable. Even the "activist" judges know better than to try it.
One aspect that continually is ignored is what will the people who ordered all of these investigations face as ramifications if this all turns out to be nothing? I am not of the mind to allow members of the government to investigate just anything they want, especially when the investigation is heavily partisan. If this all turns out to be nothing, I expect accountability on the part of the perpetrators (yes, perpetrators) of this fallacy upon the judicial system, as well as the American people. Being elected does not mean you may investigate anyone for some made-up fake news that may or may not have any factual basis. As I said, if it turns out to be nothing, I want heads to roll.
 
Keith Added Aug 5, 2017 - 10:08pm
Jeff, I think I said that. 
 
Dino Manalis Added Aug 7, 2017 - 8:50am
The investigation is a waste of time; money; and brain cells and delays serious policymaking!
Keith Added Aug 7, 2017 - 9:05am
Any assertion the investigation is not necessary fell apart with Trump Jr's, emails describing a meeting set up with Russians intended to arrange precisely the kind collusion alleged.
Glenn Verasco Added Aug 7, 2017 - 9:43am
Trump should have fired Mueller right away instead of letting this witch hunt reach this point. The Jeff Sessions appointment was idiotic, and Trump deserves what he's getting for that error.
 
What's funny is that no one actually knows what law has been broken (because none have been). Some of the statutes that have been mentioned are wholly unconstitutional and have not been used to get convictions.
 
Part of me hopes that Trump is charged with one of those obscure laws, and then SCOTUS deems the law unconstitutional. That would make my day.
Keith Added Aug 7, 2017 - 9:50am
You have no idea what Mueller knows in the way of laws that might have been broken.  Particularly in regards to Flynn false statements were likely made to the FBI violating 18 USC 1001.  
 
As for Trump, his efforts to interfere with this investigation and intimidate witnesses may violate quite specific statutes.  
https://medium.com/@KeithDB/president-trump-sticks-toe-into-the-felony-pool-f9923e07d2ee 
 
Glenn Verasco Added Aug 7, 2017 - 9:56am
I know Mueller will find something. There are so many laws on the books that it's impossible to be a non-criminal. That's why Trump should have canned him. He's just snooping around looking for some petty violation.
 
I wish Trump would really ramp up his assault on the Deep State. He should be firing people and hollowing out the federal government in general. He's missing a great opportunity to make the world a better place.
Keith Added Aug 7, 2017 - 10:07am
I love how Trump supporters have to make up fictional boogeymen and conspiracies.  From Birtherism, to anti-vaxers believing the medical community is lying to us, millions of illegals voting, to the undefined "Deep State."  I mean the words sound ominous, so it must be aminously true.  
 
Just an updated version of the Alex Jones lizard people illuminati running the world.  Just nutters being nutty.
 
Glenn Verasco Added Aug 7, 2017 - 10:18am
I'm not a "Trump supporter." I didn't vote for him. I just look at his policies and point out what I like and don't like.
 
But any sober person can see that this whole conspiracy theory about Russia is political hackery. And I understand political hackery. Politics is dirty and violent. We're talking about a monopoly on force, so it's insane to assume it's going to be an honest and fair competition. So, I empathize with hacks.
 
But no one genuinely believes anything illegal has transpired unless they take New York Times headlines at face value (which I would say disqualifies them from being sober).
 
The Deep State is not undefined. When elected officials leave office, a bunch of bureaucrats remain. We The People have no control over their presence, but they sometimes work at high clearance levels in the federal government for decades. Aside from the fact that their departments are completely unauthorized by the Constitution in the first place, they constantly violate our rights, especially our 4th Amendment rights. They also encourage foreign interventionism, and profit greatly from it.
 
This country was founded on the right to life, liberty, and property. And that includes privacy. Establishment cucks (that's right, I said it) have lost so much perspective via cognitive dissonance over the election that they are willing to throw away all of We The People's power.
 
It's time to sober up before it's too late.
William Stockton Added Aug 7, 2017 - 10:30am
If there is an indictment against either Trump or one of Trump's campaign team, you will see a huge backlash and many passionate efforts to finally get indictments on the previous corrupt administration . . . including Clinton.
 
This Muller investigation is the left's last great hope of removing Trump.  The left knows very well that massive corruption by the DNC and the Obama regime is coming to a head.
 
The bottom line is that Muller has to find something.  There is no way in hell he is not going to find something.  This would be another left failure.  We expect it.  However, that won't be the last word or indictment.
Keith Added Aug 7, 2017 - 10:39am
Ah yes, the mythical "right to privacy" upon which Roe v. Wade was decided.  
 
Anyone with half a brain realizes all the Clinton talk is nothing but deflection trying to shift administration from this incredibly scandalous Trump administration.  From rampantly open nepotism to self serving financial dealings that Trump never legally separated himself from, it's been over the top.
 
Glenn Verasco Added Aug 7, 2017 - 10:41am
Mythical "right to privacy"? It's written in the Constitution. Obviously, the Deep State does not respect our rights. This is why we should be cheering on any president who goes to war with them. Even cynical Democrats should get on board.
Keith Added Aug 7, 2017 - 10:44am
By golly, show me that "written in the Constitution" part.  Quote it and cite it.  
 
I'll be waiting.
 
Glenn Verasco Added Aug 7, 2017 - 10:46am

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."-4th Amendment to the US Constitution

 
Glenn Verasco Added Aug 7, 2017 - 10:46am
Sorry, buddy. You have a Constitutional right to privacy. Deal with it.
Keith Added Aug 7, 2017 - 11:37am
That's not a general "right to privacy."  It is a right to be protected against unreasonable searches and seizures, and extends no further.  Put simply, unless there is a search or seizure, that amendment provides no protection.
 
Perhaps you think I am just making that up.  
 
"the Fourth Amendment cannot be translated into a general constitutional "right to privacy" . . . the protection of a person's general right to privacy -- his right to be let alone by other people is, like the protection of his property and of his very life, left largely to the law of the individual States."  --United States Supreme Court, Katz v. United States.
Glenn Verasco Added Aug 7, 2017 - 11:48am
The court case you quickly Googled because you know nothing about this topic INCREASED PROTECTIONS AGAINST GOVERNMENT SURVEILLANCE! WE THE PEOPLE DEFEATED THE FBI (DEEP STATE) IN THAT CASE!
 
You have no idea what you are talking about and should apologize.
Keith Added Aug 7, 2017 - 12:32pm
You have no idea what you are talking about.  Yes, Katz v. United States expanded the definition of what constitutes a "search" for 4th Amendment purposes, eliminating the physical intrusion requirements of Olmstead v. United States.  
 
But it said what it said and it said what I said it does.  It still requires a search under its larger definition.  
 
The more general right to privacy cases, such as Roe v. Wade and Lawrence v. Texas, were not decided based on 4th Amendment search and seizure evaluations but rather based on the 14th Amendment and a doctrine called "substantive due process."  Go ahead, look it up.  Feel free to Google it if you need to, but I do not need to.
 
I didn't Google up either that or Katz, I am quite familiar with these things.  I know this stuff, and in making your false allegation you expose yourself a damn liar.  I'll be awaiting your apology for that lie.
Mike Haluska Added Aug 7, 2017 - 3:53pm
There is one teensy, weensy little problem with the Democrat's "wet dream" of invalidating the election, throwing Trump out and replacing him with Hillary - there is NO EVIDENCE to show a Grand Jury! 
 
Before you bring charges, you must provide solid, tangible evidence of CRIMINAL WRONGDOING - not people digging up dirt on opponents.  If they want a Grand Jury to send down an indictment, they should be investigating Bill & Hillary, Obama, Comey, Lynch, Wasserman-Schultz, Susan Rice and the entire bureaucracy left over from the Obama Administration.  We have already seen tangible evidence and confessions (e.g. Comey admitting he leaked his conversation with Trump to the media) to secure convictions on all of them!!!
Keith Added Aug 7, 2017 - 5:02pm
There is likely tangible evidence that Mike Flynn, as just one example, lied to the FBI.  There is tangible evidence that Jared Kushner's initial security application form was false.  There's additional tangible evidence that he has provided misleading explanations for that.  These things are tangible evidence of criminal wrongdoing.
 
There is tangible evidence that Trump fired Comey because of his Russian investigation.  That is tangible evidence of obstruction of justice.  There is tangible evidence that Trump made up the whole "better hope there are no tapes" thing to intimidate and influence Comey's testimony.  That is tangible evidence of witness intimidation.  There is tangible evidence that Trump attempted to intimidate Mueller's investigation by drawing a "red line" against Mueller investigating that which it turns out he is investigating.  That too is tangible evidence of obstruction of justice.  
 
Beyond that, I don't know, and you don't know what Mueller has found that we don't know about.  Given Trump's lack of transparency about this, and that of his people, resulting in a steady drip of increasingly indicting disclosures there could be more, and for all we know much more.  With eleventy billion chances to come clean before now, there is no reason to believe he has come clean now.  Instead, every new disclosure has been met with more misleading deceptions and efforts to smear the investigators.
 
All this is even assuming your (to be polite) uncertain proclamation that attempting to conspire with the Russian government to influence the election is not a crime.  A position which raises a very simple question.  If there is nothing wrong with it why did Trump, and everyone around him, lie about it for so long?
John G Added Aug 7, 2017 - 5:21pm
You're no better than the Trumpkins you're poking fun at. You're just mesmerised by a different faction and believe different absurd conspiracy theories.
You're just being led, along with them, in the theatre of fake democracy that your owners put on to give you the illusion of choice.
It's your choice to play along of course but please, please stop calling yourselves 'progressives'. 
You are not.
You are way over to the right along side the Trumpkins.
Bill H. Added Aug 7, 2017 - 5:33pm
 
Trump's support among his own party is down almost 20% since he took office. He is on his way to crashing and burning and I suspect that whatever he is hiding in his tax returns will be his exit ticket.
Mike - When Trump is ousted, he will be replaced by Pence, so you can quit sobbing about Hillary. You will still have one of your boys in charge.
Nobody really wants Hillary in office, anyway.
Keith Added Aug 7, 2017 - 5:43pm
John, when you can address the specific facts I present feel free to do so.
 
Bill, had Pence been the Republican nominee I would have voted for him.  Pence is not perfect, but he is not the divorced from reality lunatic that Trump is.  At no point in this discussion have I don't anything that any reasonable person could fairly characterize as "sobbing for Hillary."  Nice try in creating a strawman, but do understand that I know what you were doing.
John G Added Aug 7, 2017 - 5:45pm
Keith, I scanned your piece for facts. I saw a whole bunch of DNC talking points, innuendo and Chinese whispers.
You're part of the problem.
Keith Added Aug 7, 2017 - 6:27pm
John, I scanned your response for facts.  I saw none.  Just a bunch of made up tripe about me. 
Glenn Verasco Added Aug 7, 2017 - 6:48pm
Keith, you've gone off the deep end on this one.
 
Who the heck is talking about Roe v. Wade?
 
We're talking about your buddies in the Deep State violating our 4th Amendment right to privacy. Your hatred of Trump has caused you to be on their side. This is what we call Trump Derangement Syndrome.
Keith Added Aug 7, 2017 - 7:09pm
I just had all my "buddies" in the Deep State over a for a beer.  They send their regards, and they say you made a poor dinner choice.
John G Added Aug 7, 2017 - 7:10pm
Keith And you 'centrist' DNC types even use the same tactics as the far right fringe you have your pretend fights with.
And you wonder why you can't win elections against the fruit cases?
Keith Added Aug 7, 2017 - 7:15pm
John, do you have anything of substance to bring to the discussion or not?  Note:  I think I know the answer to this question.
 
Glenn Verasco Added Aug 7, 2017 - 7:22pm
John, we disagree on most things, but I respect you for being principled regarding this conspiracy theory. A lot of progressives are rolling their eyes at Maxine Waters and our friend Keith here. It shows consistency. Well done.
 
I think Progressives and Libertarians should make ending American interventionism and mass surveillance our top priorities.
 
Would you rather live in a free market economy that doesn't collect people's data and occupy foreign sovereign nations? Or would you rather have more Socialism while we spy and bomb?
 
The next piece I will post will talk about how I would rather live in a Socialist economy that doesn't bomb than a market economy that does. I hope we can come together on these more primary issues and argue economics later.
John G Added Aug 7, 2017 - 8:04pm
No offence intended personally, but I will never, ever agree to make common cause with the so called libertarians.
That our anti-imperialist and anti-war interests coincide does not mean our interests are compatible. 
They aren't. Libertarians are anti-progressives.
Glenn Verasco Added Aug 7, 2017 - 8:13pm
So for a $15 minimum wage and single-payer healthcare, you'd be willing to allow brown people all over the world to be bombed to smithereens and a bunch of bureaucrats to collect my phone records?
John G Added Aug 7, 2017 - 8:39pm
Don't be childish. False dilemmas are a dishonest rhetorical tactic. Dishonest rhetorical tactics is one of the many things that make 'libertarians' impossible to join with.
Lady Sekhmetnakt Added Aug 7, 2017 - 11:54pm
There may be tangible evidence that Trump obstructed justice, but there is zero evidence of Russian hacking, which is the entire basis of Russiagate. At most obstruction is all there is that can be proven. "Collusion" only amounts to freedom of association, which isn't illegal, considering a) Russia provided zero material to Trump Jr. to use in the election, and b) no one, Russia or otherwise has been shown to have hacked the DNC 
(see “There Are No Russian Hackers” @andsat https://medium.com/@andrewsaturn/hackers-everywhere-139d36f01169 ) 
 
As for there being no criminality involving the Clintons, read the following and decide for yourself... “Exposed: Bombshell Media Coverup of Clinton-Lynch Tarmac Meeting” @zachhaller https://medium.com/@zachhaller/exposed-bombshell-media-coverup-of-clinton-lynch-tarmac-meeting-5d202067dbb5
 
Incidentally this information is for everyone except Keith. Anyone who pretends the Deep State is some "conspiracy" is too nuts to be taken seriously. The only actual conspiracy are the Russian hacking conspiracy theories that Russiagate is entirely based upon. 
Bill H. Added Aug 8, 2017 - 12:04am
 
Keith - The last half of my comment was meant for Mike Haluska. For some reason he thinks I (or anyone else) that detests Trump is a Hillary worshiper. He labeled me as a Socialist yesterday.
Keep 'em coming, Mikey!
John G Added Aug 8, 2017 - 1:08am
Bill H. Apparently Hitler was a socialist, so if you're to the left of Hitler you must be a socialist/communist/pinko.
One wonders how these people can tie their own shoe laces in the mornings.
 
wsucram15 Added Aug 8, 2017 - 2:29am
Glenn;  You have no right to privacy, whenever you feel you really have that right, remember this..anything you own can be taken (they are working on that right now) w/o any charges. Also ask yourself- who views my data, cell phone, emails, banking records..etc..  Its all viewed.  Your right to privacy was invaded a long time ago, but I didnt believe it until after 2001 and then again in 2009.  You have no right to privacy, it is part of our Bill of Rights, but has not been observed for a long time.   Im beginning to think the only one that fights for those anymore is the NRA. (just kidding)
 William..I appreciate you, but no one cares.  People have fought really hard for this. They feel as strongly in opposition of Trump as any supporter would for him.
 
Keith..this is very well written. I enjoyed reading it, with legal ease.   I really enjoyed seeing Mueller at least empanel a GJ in DC along with the one in Virginia.   Although there will be push back on a Grand Jury in DC because its not Trump country,  any allegations come back to DC or New York.   I would love to see him empanel a GJ in NY.  But yes these moves are significant to the investigation as far as movement in something we dont know a great deal about.  I still feel we are far off from any charges however.
 
But seeing The Trump Gang possibly being indicted. Wow.  Sorry could not resist, I know this makes Mike mad.
 
I am glad Mueller was given such a wide scope, this way he is investigating it all, when he is done, its over. Then we can move on.
I dont know why everyone argues about it, its out of our control, and we dont have ANY of the evidence. Its better just to get it over with and learn the truth. 
 
I would love to see a major indictment come out of this, but it wont,  my money is on him actually riding this storm out with his 34%.  While anyone of significance around him takes a hit for the team.  Knowing DC like it seems like you might, how can you think they  are not already negotiating outcomes now?
 
 
Patrick Writes Added Aug 8, 2017 - 2:43am
Obstructing justice regarding a case which is investigating hot air will probably hold no penalty. 
 
Trump Jr.'s meeting is nothing because nothing happened. No info was shared. What he intended is not relevant. He's not in the Administration. He's the president's idiot son. And nothing happened at the meeting! There's nothing to get the president on with this. 
 
Flynn was a shady character but Trump fired him after a period of days. 
 

There's nothing here. Please show me some material evidence of wrong-doing. Operation Fast and Furious kind of stuff, something. 
wsucram15 Added Aug 8, 2017 - 2:49am
Patrick..like the rest of us, myself included, you will have to wait for the evidence, most of which is not public.  Its going to be a bit, you might want to find something to read.
Glenn Verasco Added Aug 8, 2017 - 3:03am
Wsucram, I have a right to privacy, but it's being violated. The Constitution guarantees it, but the government doesn't respect it.
 
I wouldn't expect people in power to recognize my rights, but I would expect my fellow citizens to. Keith is siding with the Deep State and against us.
Glenn Verasco Added Aug 8, 2017 - 3:04am
John, it's not a false dilemma. If you refuse to work with Libertarians to end interventionism because Libertarians don't support your economics, you care more about your economics than ending our wars abroad.
 
I'm willing to risk my economics to end war. But, evidently, you are not.
John G Added Aug 8, 2017 - 3:38am
Verasco. Ultimately, your economics lead to interventionism. Your 'economics' are the economics of the oligarchs.
The oligarchs are the very people who the wars are fought for.
The problem with dismissing Marx and any socialism is that you develop oblivious to the class war that is being waged against you. You're easy prey.
The liberals of today are what progressives that compromise with the right become. Right wing nut jobs that stand for nothing.
I can sing against the wars in tune with you but I'm not going to join a choir that involves you.
Where were the libertarians when Occupy was happening?
Saint George Added Aug 8, 2017 - 3:46am
For whom do you shill, johng? The Russians? Is your cadre officer named Ivan or Lyudmila? Do you eat borscht while being indoctrinated? Do tell.
 
Curious minds want to know.
Lady Sekhmetnakt Added Aug 8, 2017 - 3:49am
WSU wait for the evidence? You mean after over a year it is finally going to materialize? Like Elvis back from the grave, aliens, unicorns, and Iraqi WMDs I'll believe it when I see it, and I'm certainly not holding breath until. 
Keith Added Aug 8, 2017 - 8:11am
Quote:  "Keith is siding with the Deep State and against us."
 
I sometimes wonder if folks like you realize you sound like lunatics.  
 
All this "Deep State" BS and "right to privacy" crap really has nothing to do with what I originally posted, but since you "only will talk about one topic Charlies" are so damn adamant about talking about it, I'll state what I really believe.
 
The Constitution should not be properly interpreted as conferring a general right to privacy.  Decisions such as Roe v. Wade and Lawrence v. Texas rooted in a general right to privacy were wrongly decided. 
 
The Constitution does confer a right to be protected against unreasonable search and seizure.  Much of the broad based surveillance of ordinary Americans has violated this right.  
 
It's also true that with over half a year in office Donald Trump has not lifted a finger to do a damn thing about it, other than his usual ineffectual Twitter blustering.
Mike Haluska Added Aug 8, 2017 - 10:15am
Keith - your statement:
 
"There is likely tangible evidence that Mike Flynn, as just one example, lied to the FBI.  There is tangible evidence that Jared Kushner's initial security application form was false.  There's additional tangible evidence that he has provided misleading explanations for that.  These things are tangible evidence of criminal wrongdoing."
 
shows you are either a lousy attorney or just don't understand the law.  You can't prosecute someone for a felony based on "likely tangible evidence someone other than the true target of your "investigation" (witch hunt) committed a misdemeanor. 
 
You guys are enjoying this "mental masturbation" because it is directed at someone you detest.  What you don't realize is that granting the government the power to "investigate" anyone based on ZERO TANGIBLE EVIDENCE is a license to go after YOU next time. 
 
Suppose you had a politically connected neighbor who hates your guts.  One day this neighbor decides to call his buddies at the police station and prosecutor's office and tell them that you are running a child porn business out of your home.  Since we are now in the "investigate without evidence" modus operandi, it doesn't matter that your neighbor has NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER - hating you personally is good enough!  The next day the police, FBI and who knows else break down your door, arrest you, confiscate everything and issue a statement to the eager news media that you are under arrest for running a child porn business.     
 
Nothing you Trump bashers has anything to do with policy, law enforcement, immigration, etc.  It has everything to do with blind hatred and jealousy that your sacred cow candidate lost to a political novice despite having blown $1.4 BILLION, had the support of the entire mainstream media, Hollywood, RINO's, elitists in BOTH parties, the federal bureaucracy, illegal immigrant votes (YES - it happened a LOT).
 
Here is the truth about the status of your Democratic Party:
 
1) Republicans now have 26 state governorships since W Va Democrat switched to Republican Party
2) 36 State governments are controlled by Republicans
3) the propaganda arm of the Democratic Party is near broke and has single digit credibility as a new source
4) Overall government participation nationally is at an all-time low of 22% and falling
5) the Democratic Party is $3 million in debt and having increasing trouble raising money at the grass root level
6) the socialist-leaning millennials are pulling votes away from Democrats
7)  there is no leader of the Democrat Party - it is so bad that Maxine Waters is talking about running for President
 
So, if I were a member of the Democratic Party I would spend a lot more time BUILDING my party than spending enormous amounts of time, money and energy trying to overturn the election.
Mike Haluska Added Aug 8, 2017 - 10:21am
Bill H - your claim:
 
"He labeled me as a Socialist yesterday.
Keep 'em coming, Mikey!"
 
merits a reply.  If you're not a socialist, name ONE socialist program (Social Security, ACA, Welfare State, etc.) you oppose.
 
You can't walk and talk like a duck and tell everyone you're a parakeet!
 
Keith Added Aug 8, 2017 - 12:08pm
Quote:  "Here is the truth about the status of your Democratic Party."
 
Here's the truth.  I'm not, and have never been, a Democrat.  I voted Republican in every Presidential election of my life until this one.  Yes, I voted against Obama twice.  I voted for Reagan twice, both Bush's twice.  
 
So feel free to retreat to your next dumb lie about me. 
 
The evidence described is not just the rumor of someone else saying something about these people.  It's their own statements and things we know they have done.  
 
Deal with it.
Mike Haluska Added Aug 8, 2017 - 12:58pm
Keith -
My sincerest apologies.  The only person I am aware of that has ADMITTED he committed a crime is the FBI Director when he stated under oath that he deliberately leaked his conversation with the President to the news media. 
 
What say you about my point regarding conducting a year long "investigation" with no evidence whatsoever of any "Trump-Russia" collusion?  Any thoughts on who Mueller hired to "investigate" and his limitless scope of "investigation"????
Keith Added Aug 8, 2017 - 1:25pm
My thoughts are that Mueller was appointed May 17th.  He's been on the job for all of 2 1/2 months.  Perhaps you would care to review that to the length of time other special prosecutors investigating Presidents took. 
https://medium.com/@KeithDB/why-is-muellers-trump-russia-investigation-taking-so-long-77c50aed5871 
 
Bill H. Added Aug 8, 2017 - 1:31pm
 
So Mike (as usual) concludes that since one disagrees with him, they must be a Commie Pinko Socialist Left Wing Democrat!
Not everyone who is a Republican is lost in your extreme bubble with you.
Mike, our system was built employing many factors from other existing systems over the years. A mix of Socialism, Capitalism, Fascism, and Corporatism. This is what has historically kept it as the "ideal" system over the years. If I was to pick something negative about the system, it would be the Corporatism factor, which is now spiraling out of control and upsetting what once was a delicate balance of all positive factors.
My pet peeve socialist program? The subsidizing of GMO farming.
Mike Haluska Added Aug 8, 2017 - 2:35pm
Keith - the duration of the "investigation" shouldn't be a concern IF it's legitimate.  The point I made that you dodged is this:
 
Other than the unfounded accusations of "collusion" by politically motivated President Trump haters who want to overturn the election, there was ZERO evidence brought forth PRIOR to the "investigation" of any collusion.  We have an UNCONSTITUTIONAL "investigation" taking place WITHOUT PRIOR EVIDENCE just because a lot of politically entrenched people in Washington don't want President Trump draining their "swamp"!
 
Now - a simple "yes" or "no": 
Keith, are you in favor of the government "investigating" you based solely on the word of someone who fundamentally hates you to the core of their being (no evidence necessary)???
(  ) Yes, I am in favor of investigations without prior evidence
(  ) No, I am not in favor of investigations without prior evidence
 
Check the appropriate box. 
Keith Added Aug 8, 2017 - 3:14pm
Your claim is false.  Comey stated the FBI was investigating potential Trump collusion.  You don't know what they knew.  
 
What we do know is this.  The Russians sought to meddle in the election in Trump's favor.  Prior to the appointment of the special prosecutor various Trump Campaign officials including Page Carter, Mike Flynn and Paul Manafort lied about their contacts with Russians.  Since appointment of the Special Prosecutor we have learned that Trump's son and SIL arranged a meeting with the stated purpose of participating in the exact kind of collusion of concern.  
 
There was evidence, and that evidence has continued to grow.  
 
Deal with it.  
John G Added Aug 8, 2017 - 4:12pm
There has been no evidence of any Russian meddling whatsoever.
Stone-Eater Friedli Added Aug 8, 2017 - 5:27pm
The proof of Russian meddling would be the same as the proof of WMD in Iraq......
wsucram15 Added Aug 8, 2017 - 5:58pm
Jenifer..that is how ALL investigations proceed.  ALL of them...it is an investigation..no charges have been filed.
When this was done at taxpayer expense to the tune of 100 million on the Clintons, none of you were bitching.  I dont want to hear it. I complained..only because it is a waste of money over this political bias. BUT..  Who is he, a public servant subject to investigation when a MAJORITY of US citizens demand it.  Get over it!  The sooner its over the less the damn thing will cost.


I want to know what happened with the laundering through New York and the Russian crime that has gone on here, which has two investigations going on now.  If Trump had something to do with it, then its his ass for being so greedy or screwing up so much that he was such a credit risk US banks refused to deal with him.    There is something to this, Im not sure Trump was involved, but there is something to the financial/loan thing and Russia. 

However, I will say in his defense, he has had these type of affiliations in his business since he was young.  Not Russian just the illegal type, he has been under investigation, including RICO several times, other people always go to jail.
I expect this will be no different  so OMG..calm down.
wsucram15 Added Aug 8, 2017 - 6:15pm
Keith..we know very little, but the Trumpites on here dont understand the difference between evidence, investigation, Arraignment, Grand jury  proceedings or Preliminary hearing, formal charges, discovery, plea bargain, discovery, pre-trial motions, prosecution, defense, trial..etc.    No one on this page has any idea of the evidence or status of investigation.
This is a VERY LONG process and TRUMP and STAFF are public servants being investigated over involvement in what is considered by all sides a crime against democracy.  Im not sure I agree its that simple. 
Everyone on here, especially MIKE  will Fight, argue and scream. None of us know what happened. Only time will tell.
Lady Sekhmetnakt Added Aug 8, 2017 - 6:16pm
I'm dealing with moving on to another article not written by this delusional bigoted Russophobic McCarthyite. Good bye. 
wsucram15 Added Aug 8, 2017 - 6:18pm
Hence the problem..instead of discussing, or trying to understand, you get screamed at or ignored.
ok Jenifer, like I said, time will tell.
Lady Sekhmetnakt Added Aug 8, 2017 - 6:40pm
One last thing, no investigations are not ran like this. There is some evidence to go on, then an investigation. Not wild baseless conspiracy theories as per Russiagate. "Why Russiagate Is Nothing Like Watergate” https://medium.com/@caityjohnstone/why-russiagate-is-nothing-like-watergate-b9a0ee82f91d
Russiagaters are entirely bigoted “US Anti-Russia Sentiment Is Built On Racism, Xenophobia, Homophobia, And Demagoguery” https://medium.com/@caityjohnstone/us-anti-russia-sentiment-is-built-on-racism-xenophobia-homophobia-and-demagoguery-b1ebef57ddb6 so if that’s what you want to align yourself with, says a lot about you. And the true end goal of Russiagate is nuclear war with Russia and human extinction
How the World May End – Consortiumnews - https://consortiumnews.com/2017/08/04/how-the-world-may-end
I hope when the mushroom clouds rise over your city and your loved ones pay the price it will have been worth it for you. Now I'm done.
 
Keith Added Aug 9, 2017 - 7:55am
So Jennifer is it "bigoted Russophobic McCarthyite" delusion that Russians contacted Trump's son saying they wanted to help the Trump campaign by giving him dirt on Hillary?  
 
I mean, I've read those emails.
Keith Added Aug 9, 2017 - 10:21am
While others try to convince us there is nothing to see here, The Washington Post just reported that the FBI on July 26th conducted a predawn raid of former Trump Campaign Chairman Paul Manafort's home. They came armed with a search warrant to seize records and materials.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/fbi-conducted-predawn-raid-of-former-trump-campaign-chairman-manaforts-home/2017/08/09/5879fa9c-7c45-11e7-9d08-b79f191668ed_story.html?tid=sm_tw&utm_term=.2fd27ff758d1
 
This means two things:
 
1. This is a criminal investigation.
 
2. A judge determined there is probable cause evidence of criminality would be found there.
wsucram15 Added Aug 9, 2017 - 1:32pm
Jenifer..it is how they are run, on both sides. You dont get to find out what either side has until discovery, unless you detain a prisoner and then you show enough to create probable cause to a judge.  Hey read section 3-3.6 here...ABA Criminal Justice..https://www.americanbar.org/publications/criminal_justice_section_archive/crimjust_standards_pfunc_blkold.html
Evidence is disclosed during discovery asap.   What are you talking about?  Russiagate?  Thats insane, its another ploy for the base to freak out...
 
Keith ..I am thrilled about that, maybe we will finally get somewhere so this drama with the Trumpites can end.   Mannafort is a connection since he lived in Trump Towers for so long, but there are so many others.  I hope they can prove his links in Cypress and with the VEB.    The links to finances in Russia is what I am looking to see connected. 
 
Mike Haluska Added Aug 9, 2017 - 3:16pm
Keith -
 
I have been following this "investigation" since the beginning.  There has been NO EVIDIENCE found to support the "collusion" charge.  The FBI Director stated under oath during Congressional testimony that President Trump was NOT being investigated.
 
Now - since you defy logic and common sense, LIST ONE PIECE OF EVIDENCE PRESENTED TO SUPPORT THE COLLUSION CHARGES!  And just so you know, conducting an investigation is NOT evidence! 
 
And buy the way, learn the FRAKKIN difference between KNOW and SUSPECT, I'm tired of explaining it to you!!!
 
We don't KNOW that the Russians interfered in any way with the election.  If they did, the RUSSIANS should be investigated and PROOF shown that it happened.  The DNC computer was hacked - by whom NOBODY knows. 
 
We do KNOW that the DNC was warned that they had been hacked and promptly DID NOTHING ABOUT IT!  Hillary continued to use a non-secure private server (ever wonder why someone would spend $500K on an email system when they can access a FREE government secured system???) and morons like Podesta used "PASSWORD" for their security password.
 
Here's what I KNOW:
 
1) The ONLY reason Hillary used a private server is to avoid being subject to FOIA requests.  That's kinda necessary when you're using your the Office of the Secretary of State to peddle influence and launder money through your "Clinton Initiative" foundation.
 
2)  Hillary LOST - get over it!  You guys were so sanctimonious before the election, worrying that "Trump wouldn't accept the results of the election"!  You're all the worst losers and hypocrites ever seen in politics - who is causing the riots, forbidding opponents from speaking in public, acting out weird death wishes on the President, refusing to accept the election results, trying to overturn the election, etc.
 
    
Mike Haluska Added Aug 9, 2017 - 3:20pm
Keith - just for the record:
 
Comey admits Trump didn't obstruct investigation
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5gleewHxt7k
 
Comey confirms Trump not under investigation
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JkVNiozqmXU
John Minehan Added Aug 9, 2017 - 3:23pm
Nice lay-out of the questions presented.
 
Just a thought: Sol Wachler to the contrary, complex financial crimes are often not a "ham sandwich" and can produce No True Bills just because the people on the Grand Jury don't understand the evidence.
 
This (as people like Thomas Ricks have been saying) looks more like a case of undisclosed financial ties than direct collusion and may or may not reach Trump himself. 
Mike Haluska Added Aug 9, 2017 - 3:29pm
Liberal "Logic" 101:
 
The purpose of an investigation is to check and see if someone you oppose has done anything imaginable wrong even though you have no tangible evidence of any wrongdoing.  It is deliberately vague and non-specific so that there aren't the legal constraints of a well-defined search order which state specifically what is being looked for and the justification for that suspicion.
 
 
John Minehan Added Aug 9, 2017 - 3:29pm
"One aspect that continually is ignored is what will the people who ordered all of these investigations face as ramifications if this all turns out to be nothing."
 
The potential ramifications of such a goose chase can be seen in 1998, where the GOP lost Congressional Seats (including Alphonse D'Amato's) and seats in state legislatures and in state-wide office (Spitzer became AG in NYS that year).
 
I doubt this is a goose chase, but I also am less than sure it leads to Trump. I suspect the impact will be felt by people who were too "forward in the foxhole," for example, possibly Maxine Waters.  
Keith Added Aug 9, 2017 - 3:32pm
Mike Haluska Added Aug 9, 2017 - 3:33pm
More Liberal "Logic" 101:
 
Going into a sealed chamber with a large bunch of people that think exactly as you and venting your hatred and animosity makes your delusions "real" because so many people are loudly and repeatedly (it's an echo, dumbass) screaming the same lunacy.
 
It's a variation of "Consensus Science"
Mike Haluska Added Aug 9, 2017 - 3:43pm
wsucram15 - your backward logic statement:
 
"Keith..we know very little, but the Trumpites on here don't understand the difference between evidence, investigation, Arraignment, etc"
 
NO - it is the Democratic "Progressives" that have no Frakkin' clue.  There has been an "investigation" going on for a year that started with and still has yet to present a SHRED OF EVIDENCE.  Think I'm wrong?  NAME ONE PIECE OF EVIDENCE.
 
Now you dumb-asses will come back with your "circular logic" that says: "well, the evidence is that there must be evidence since there is an investigation". 
 
Since the above makes perfect sense to you, I suggest you somehow find a mature, objective, intelligent adult and have him/her attempt to explain the problem of circular logic to you.  My money says the adult will become frustrated and walk away thinking he/she was better off talking to a box of rocks than a "Progressive"!!!
Keith Added Aug 9, 2017 - 4:24pm
Quote:  "Now you dumb-asses will come back with your "circular logic" that says: "well, the evidence is that there must be evidence since there is an investigation". "
 
Notwithstanding this absurd strawman argument, nobody has suggested any such thing.  Specific evidence has been cited repeatedly, to include emails released by Trump's son, numerous false statement made by Trump and others regarding the campaign's communications with Russians, and words and acts taken by Trump to interfere with the investigation and intimidate the investigators and witnesses.  
 
Today we discovered that a judge made a determination there was probable cause evidence of criminal misconduct would be found at the home Trump's former campaign manager.  
 
You can continue with your lame name calling and misrepresentations of what has been said here, but anyone with half a brain can understand why you are resorting to such feeble tactics.
John Minehan Added Aug 9, 2017 - 4:31pm
But we still don't know whose "criminal misconduct."
 
This is starting to sound more "Scooter" Libby and less E. Howard Hunt.
 
Issues with Paul Manafort and  LTG (R) Flynn, probably don't match expectations, though, and could cause political backlash.
 
Let's see . . . .
Keith Added Aug 9, 2017 - 4:38pm
John, I agree Manafort may have potentially illegal financial entanglements with Russia, and legal problems from his failure to register as an agent for a foreign government, that will not necessarily directly implicate Trump.  
 
Still, this is a man who was (however briefly) the head of Trump's campaign and he appears to probably have had illegal involvements with Russians.  Trump and others in his campaign repeatedly asserted nobody in the campaign had any involvements with Russians.  
 
My point is not that a case against Trump has been proven, it obviously has not.  However, the concerns related to this are "fake news."  This investigation is based on real, and credible evidence that warrants the appointment of the Special Prosecutor and continued investigation of the question we are seeing.  
 
John Minehan Added Aug 9, 2017 - 4:41pm
Impeachment?
 
I'm thinking "No."
 
Why?  The fact that the IC released the dossier makes me think there is something there.  IC does not lightly get cross-wise with POTUS.
 
On the other hand, why didn't they release something damning?
 
My thought is they can't, either it blows a human source or unveils a technological method that is classified or it reflects evidence that was illegally obtained ("fruit of the poison tree"). 
 
The vague rumblings about "unmasking" makes me think it might be the latter.
 
If so, they can't impeach Trump successfully absent more. 
 
The release of the dossier did not embarrass him into resigning.  Maybe issues with subordinates might be that "more" or possibly issues with the family business before he ran (which seem likely but not necessarily impeachable.
 
Of course, this could all backfire with the voters, especially with regards to those who were "too far forward in the foxhole," like Maxine Waters.
 
Let's see . . . .
Keith Added Aug 9, 2017 - 5:01pm
Assuming illegally taken evidence, or fruits thereof, is irrelevant for impeachment purposes.  Congress, and the impeachment process, are not subject to the exclusionary rule.  Congress can consider any evidence, no matter how it was acquired, during impeachment proceedings.
 
Riley Brown Added Aug 9, 2017 - 9:20pm
As a non-partisan I must say that I've become bored to death with all this Trump / Russia crap.  It's been months and months and all they do is speculate about what they might find.
 
They have had hundreds of people scouring the landscape for anything incriminating and no one has been able to find anything that makes it look like Trump has made any deals with anyone from Russia.  I'm sure Russian officials try to influence all potential candidates and there is nothing illegal or new about that.
 
At this point it's not even good entertainment, I already know Trump has quite a big mouth and says lots of stupid things, but by now I'm pretty darn sure he didn't wast his time colluding with the Russians to defeat Hillary.  She did that to herself by pissing off more voters than Trump pissed off, and that's hard to do.
 
Ask yourself, however you voted, could anything the Russians had to say possible have changed your mind about who to vote for?  I didn't think so.
Keith Added Aug 9, 2017 - 10:11pm
The investigation of this very guilty guy named Nixon took like five times as long.  
 
Special Prosecutors investigated Bill Clinton for pretty much the full 8 years of his Presidency.  
 
By comparison, Mueller has been on the job for less than three months.
 
John G Added Aug 9, 2017 - 10:42pm
Mueller has a lot of experience in criminally framing people.
John G Added Aug 9, 2017 - 10:44pm
Usually poor homeless muslims with limited IQs admittedly.
Mike Haluska Added Aug 10, 2017 - 9:33am
Keith - your response:
 
"Notwithstanding this absurd strawman argument, nobody has suggested any such thing.  Specific evidence has been cited repeatedly, to include emails released by Trump's son, numerous false statement made by Trump and others regarding the campaign's communications with Russians, and words and acts taken by Trump to interfere with the investigation and intimidate the investigators and witnesses."
 
is just more bla, bla, bla and NO FACTS or EVIDENCE.  Trump's son releasing emails (on his own before subpoenaed) is "evidence" of innocence.  NOTHING was found on the emails - NO COLLUSION was discussed - NOBODY at the meeting said anything inappropriate took place.  But your mental masturbation has overtaken your reasoning ability.  You could be convinced that a parking stub found in Donald Trump Jr.'s rental car from a parking lot 2 doors down the street from a restaurant that used to be owned by a Russian immigrant 26 years ago is "EVIDENCE" of Trump colluding with Russia.
 
Here's the bottom line - if ANY EVIDENCE would have been found, someone would be indicted and charged with a felony.  In a year of "investigation" NOT ONE PERSON has been charged with anything.  There are NO "communications" found between Trump's campaign staff and the Russian government - period!!!   NOBODY has filed a complaint that they were "intimidated" by President Trump - even Comey denied he was "intimidated"!!!  But you insist on taking sworn testimony and interpreting it to mean the exact opposite because it fits your wet dream fantasy of Trump using the Russians to steal the election from Hillary Clinton!
 
You want to investigate "witness intimidation"?  Investigate why an IT guy who worked on Clinton's server gets murdered days before he and 5 other IT guys were going to give testimony under a grant of prosecutorial immunity!!!  You think the other witnesses that shut up even with prosecutorial immunity weren't "INTIMIDATED" by their co-worker getting murdered???   
  
Mike Haluska Added Aug 10, 2017 - 9:42am
Keith - your statement:
 
"The investigation of this very guilty guy named Nixon took like five times as long."
 
indicates you don't care about being accurate, factual or honest.  The Watergate break-in took place just prior to Nixon's second term.  Nixon resigned in August of 1974, two years after the 1972 election.  So your claim that the current investigation " took like five times as long" is pure bullshit!
 
Here's a fun FACT:   During the Nixon "investigation" a young ambitious lawyer was thrown off the case because of her lack of objectivity, fanaticism and lack of ethics - her name was Hillary Clinton.    
wsucram15 Added Aug 10, 2017 - 9:47am
Riley..
This is an investigation into so many people and layers how could you possibly know that? 
I mean they just had enough evidence to get an FBI warrant to raid Mannafort. Come on now. 
I do know this, going back to the 70s Trump has always had ties to "bad" or "questionable" people, he is still friends with a couple of them, one being his former NY attorney who rarely actually won him a case.. 
Now he has been investigated so many times for serious things that its amazing to me he never did anything but pay fines or file bankruptcies.  However, with one or two of those cases it was believed he and Felix Sater ( a criminal) served as informants.  Now there is only proof of Sater , but the FBI had them both dead to rights on a property scam of a property called Trump Soho, for inflated numbers of investors, which is fraud.  Trump bought his way out of the criminal charges in a private settlement and avoided the major economic crimes bureau.
 
My personal favorites are the Anitrust violations, the harrasment and destruction in New Jersey of a woman who refused to sell her property to Trump next to his casino (she won), the Federal violations of casino rules including having convicted mafia members in his casinos at private tables.  The violations against the polish, hispanics and black people in employment. Oh yes and he doesnt pay his bills in full.  US banks wont deal with him, his credit is poor here.
 
And the fact he bought his own books (using donor money-violation of FEC rules)  to put them on the best seller list in 2016.  OMG.
 
IS it so hard to imagine that a man and his children that live an international life of privilege like this would not take this type of risk?
Im not even sure about the election except that it did occur.   But something financial did happen and its being looked at right now.
Mike Haluska Added Aug 10, 2017 - 9:53am
Keith - when you're "investigating" the Clintons, witnesses have a strange way of dying before they testify.  That's the major reason it took so damned long to finally get Bill Clinton IMPEACHED!  Here is the list of witnesses that had "untimely deaths that were pure coincidence" (an actuarial would tell you that the odds against all of these deaths being "coincidental" are astronomical):
 
1- James McDougal – Clintons convicted Whitewater partner died of an apparent heart attack, while in solitary confinement. He was a key witness in Ken Starr’s investigation.
2 – Mary Mahoney – A former White House intern was murdered July 1997 at a Starbucks Coffee Shop in Georgetown .. The murder …happened just after she was to go public w:th her story of sexual harassment in the White House.
3 – Vince Foster – Former White House counselor, and colleague of Hillary Clinton at Little Rock’s Rose Law firm. Died of a gunshot wound to the head, ruled a suicide.
4 – Ron Brown – Secretary of Commerce and former DNC Chairman. Reported to have died by impact in a plane crash. A pathologist close to the investigation reported that there was a hole in the top of Brown’s skull resembling a gunshot wound. At the time of his death Brown was being investigated, and spoke publicly of his willingness to cut a deal with prosecutors. The rest of the people on the plane also died. A few days later the Air Traffic controller commited suicide.
5 – C. Victor Raiser, II – Raiser, a major player in the Clinton fund raising organization died in a private plane crash in July 1992.
6 – Paul Tulley – Democratic National Committee Political Director found dead in a hotel room in Little Rock , September 1992. Described by Clinton as a “dear friend and trusted advisor”.
7 – Ed Willey – Clinton fundraiser, found dead November 1993 deep in the woods in VA of a gunshot wound to the head. Ruled a suicide. Ed Willey died on the same day his wife Kathleen Willey claimed Bill Clinton groped her in the oval office in the White House. Ed Willey was involved in several Clinton fund raising events.
8 – Jerry Parks – Head of Clinton’s gubernatorial security team in Little Rock .. Gunned down in his car at a deserted intersection outside Little Rock Park’s son said his father was building a dossier on Clinton He allegedly threatened to reveal this information. After he died the files were mysteriously removed from his house.
9 – James Bunch – Died from a gunshot suicide. It was reported that he had a “Black Book” of people which contained names of influential people who visited prostitutes in Texas and Arkansas
10 – James Wilson – Was found dead in May 1993 from an apparent hanging suicide. He was reported to have ties to Whitewater..
11 – Kathy Ferguson – Ex-wife of Arkansas Trooper Danny Ferguson, was found dead in May 1994, in her living room with a gunshot to her head. It was ruled a suicide even though there were several packed suitcases, as if she were going somewhere. Danny Ferguson was a co-defendant along with Bill Clinton in the Paula Jones lawsuit Kathy Ferguson was a possible corroborating witness for Paula Jones.
12 – Bill Shelton – Arkansas State Trooper and fiancee of Kathy Ferguson. Critical of the suicide ruling of his fiancee, he was found dead in June, 1994 of a gunshot wound also ruled a suicide at the grave site of his fiancee.
13 – Gandy Baugh – Attorney for Clinton’s friend Dan Lassater, died by jumping out a window of a tall building January, 1994. His client was a convicted drug distributor.
14 – Florence Martin – Accountant & sub-contractor for the CIA, was related to the Barry Seal, Mena, Arkansas, airport drug smuggling case. He died of three gunshot wounds.
15 – Suzanne Coleman – Reportedly had an affair with Clinton when he was Arkansas Attorney General. Died of a gunshot wound to the back of the head, ruled a suicide. Was pregnant at the time of her death.
16 – Paula Grober – Clinton’s speech interpreter for the deaf from 1978 until her death December 9, 1992. She died in a one car accident.
17 – Danny Casolaro – Investigative reporter, investigating Mena Airport and Arkansas Development Finance Authority. He slit his wrists, apparently, in the middle of his investigation.
18 – Paul Wilcher – Attorney investigating corruption at Mena Airport with Casolaro and the 1980 “October Surprise” was found dead on a toilet June 22, 1993, in his Washington DC apartment had delivered a report to Janet Reno 3 weeks bef
Mike Haluska Added Aug 10, 2017 - 9:57am
Number 15 - Suzanne Coleman is a great example of the absurd levels people like Keith go to when protecting the Clintons.  Ms. Coleman allegedly committed suicide by shooting herself "IN THE BACK OF HER HEAD"!!!  Keith must believe that Ms. Coleman snuck up on herself from behind and pulled the trigger!
Keith Added Aug 10, 2017 - 10:02am
Well that's some wide ranging unrelated and total bullshit.  It's mostly lies.  
 
Clinton was not kicked off the Watergate investigation.  She left as the investigation dissolved after it was rendered moot by Nixon's resignation.  
 
As just one example of the notorious and absurd Clinton body count story, the claim Mary Mahoney was about to go public with claims of sexual harassment is simply a lie.  There is no truth to it at all.  Completely fabricated.  
 
Funny how your double standards work though.  With Trump and his people the lack of an indictment, after comparatively brief investigation, proves innocence.  But Clinton is guilty in your book even after no indictments after all these years.  
Mike Haluska Added Aug 10, 2017 - 4:00pm
 
Keith - find us the "body count story" on Trump.
 
Clinton had NO indictments??? - he was about to be prosecuted for perjury for lying about Monica under oath until he was IMPEACHED!
 
Jerry Zeifman, a lifelong Democrat, supervised the work of 27-year-old Hillary Rodham on the committee. Hillary got a job working on the investigation at the behest of her former law professor, Burke Marshall, who was also Sen. Ted Kennedy’s chief counsel in the Chappaquiddick affair. When the investigation was over, Zeifman fired Hillary from the committee staff and refused to give her a letter of recommendation – one of only three people who earned that dubious distinction in Zeifman’s 17-year career.

Why?

“Because she was a liar,” Zeifman said in an interview last week. “She was an unethical, dishonest lawyer. She conspired to violate the Constitution, the rules of the House, the rules of the committee and the rules of confidentiality.”

How could a 27-year-old House staff member do all that? She couldn’t do it by herself, but Zeifman said she was one of several individuals – including Marshall, special counsel John Doar and senior associate special counsel (and future Clinton White House Counsel) Bernard Nussbaum – who engaged in a seemingly implausible scheme to deny Richard Nixon the right to counsel during the investigation.
John Minehan Added Aug 10, 2017 - 5:14pm
"Ah yes, the mythical "right to privacy" upon which Roe v. Wade was decided."
 
And even more particularly, Griswold v. Connecticut.     
  
Keith Added Aug 10, 2017 - 5:16pm
John, that too.  I certainly don't support the kind of law Connecticut had in that case, but I am at a loss to find anything in the Constitution that forbids it.
 
John Minehan Added Aug 10, 2017 - 5:20pm
"Assuming illegally taken evidence, or fruits thereof, is irrelevant for impeachment purposes.  Congress, and the impeachment process, are not subject to the exclusionary rule.  Congress can consider any evidence, no matter how it was acquired, during impeachment proceedings."
 
But offering such evidence would be a VERY double edged sword politically, especially if the illegality was the work of or clearly on behalf of an executive/Federal Officer in the last Administration. 
 
This is looking more and more like No Way Out (1987).  Has anyone checked on Sean Young? 
  
John Minehan Added Aug 10, 2017 - 5:24pm
"Here's the bottom line - if ANY EVIDENCE would have been found, someone would be indicted and charged with a felony. "
 
. . .  and a Grand Jury has been empaneled, which is required before a felony indictment can be issued 
 
Let's see . . . .
Keith Added Aug 10, 2017 - 5:35pm
The notice that if there was "any evidence"  there would have been an indictment is absurd.  Lengthy investigations often precede indictment.  Indictment tends to occur only after a prosecutor feels he has all the evidence he is going to need. 
 
John Minehan Added Aug 10, 2017 - 6:09pm
"John, that too.  I certainly don't support the kind of law Connecticut had in that case, but I am at a loss to find anything in the Constitution that forbids it."
 
Not too clearly presented, either?  "Penumbras!!??"  Might have been better just to have said "Ninth Amendment."
  
Keith Added Aug 10, 2017 - 6:20pm
The case is noteworthy not for the decision of the court, which as you indicate was haphazard reasoning invoking a hodgepodge of Constitutional amendments to create a non-existent Constitutional right literally out of shadows.  It was the concurring opinion of Justice Harlan, rejecting the selective incorporation approach of the court, to declare that the right at issue supposedly rests solely as the "Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment stands, in my opinion, on its own bottom."
 
That was the essence of the substantive due process approach to the general right to privacy later expanded upon by the court.  The selective incorporation approach of the court would be abandoned in later "right to privacy" cases in favor Harlan's 14th Amendment substantive due process argument.  It is arguably the most influential concurring opinion of all time.
 
It's an argument I think is wrong, but I understand where it comes from.
 
Mike Haluska Added Aug 11, 2017 - 4:29pm
Keith - I agree with your statement:
 
"Lengthy investigations often precede indictment.  Indictment tends to occur only after a prosecutor feels he has all the evidence he is going to need."
 
but this is NOT what is going on with the "Trump/Russia Collusion Investigation".  The legitimate investigation you refer to is not conducted in full view of the public and no formal announcements of any wrongdoing are made until an evidence backed case can be brought forth.  Investigators work quietly in the background - not on CNN - and they don't "leak" their findings every day to the Mainstream Media. 
 
In addition, no legitimate investigation would commence solely based on someone's belief or prejudice of the accused.  No legitimate investigation would be brought before a grand jury without first having the evidence.
 
We have a very corrupt government (BOTH parties involved) that is desperate to keep in power and its snout in the government trough.  Drug money is a major factor and is the reason so many people have a vested interest to NOT DISTURB the status quo.  The federal court is the least of these people's problems - they are beholden to some very dangerous people who have no morals and will murder their families if they cooperate. 
 
I honestly believe that President Trump had no idea of the depth and scope of the corruption and how it penetrated the highest levels.  It is no accident that the mainstream media wants us distracted and at each other's throats rather than asking questions like:
 
"I have never seen a politician who was despised so strongly by the opposition party AND his own party - why would that be?"
 
The above "Mutual President Trump Hatred Club" is the primary reason I supported President Trump.  If he was really as incompetent and stupid as the establishment politicians of both parties would have us believe, the opposition party would stand back and let President Trump self-destruct.  They don't dare because every minute President Trump is in office is another minute closer to their being exposed.
 
As a nation of freedom loving people, we should ALL be ignoring the mainstream media and establishment politicians of BOTH parties and let President Trump shine the light of day on their schemes.  Just today Dr. Ben Carson of Housing & Urban Development revealed that his department's books are so bad that over HALF A BILLION DOLLARS can't be accounted for!!!  I don't care if you're Bill Gates or the corner grocer, if your company doesn't know where HALF A BILLION DOLLARS went, you're gonna be pissed, find out what happened and prosecute those responsible.   
 
It's not President Trump who is incompetent and corrupt - it is the establishment politicians and bureaucrats.  I wish more people on the other side would put their anger about losing the election aside and give President Trump a chance and some support.  President Trump didn't create the mess, neither did President Obama - but one of then decided to do something about it rather than go along with it.
 
Mike Haluska Added Aug 11, 2017 - 4:35pm
p.s. to the above:
 
If the establishment politicians "misplaced" HALF A BILLION DOLLARS of their patron's money, you can bet there would be swift and thorough consequences.  There would be dozens of state funerals every week and we would all be told by the Mainstream Media that "12 or 13 suicides connected to a missing HALF A BILLION DOLLARS  is not unusual" and we shouldn't assume any foul play!!!
Mike Haluska Added Aug 11, 2017 - 4:44pm
p.p.s.  After Hillary Clinton burned through $1.4 BILLION in campaign contributions, do you wonder why she won't admit any responsibility for blowing a "sure thing" election to the big bucks donors expecting big government favors in return for their contributions?  Do you think this might be why the DNC is $3 MILLION in debt and can't raise money?   
Keith Added Aug 11, 2017 - 5:20pm
The investigation has been quite closed and leak free.  Even news that it conducted a search warrant on Manafort, which is something anyone around could have seen, didn't leak for two weeks.
Mike Haluska Added Aug 14, 2017 - 9:26am
Keith - your claim:
 
"The investigation has been quite closed and leak free."
 
hits a new low for absurdity - even for liberals!!!

Recent Articles by Writers Keith follows.