Mueller’s Investigation Flouts Justice Department Standards

Loading

These columns have many times observed Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein’s failure to set limits on Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation. To trigger the appointment of a special counsel, federal regulations require the Justice Department to identify the crimes that warrant investigation and prosecution — crimes that the Justice Department is too conflicted to investigate in the normal course; crimes that become the parameters of the special counsel’s jurisdiction.

Rosenstein, instead, put the cart before the horse: Mueller was invited to conduct a fishing expedition, a boundless quest to hunt for undiscovered crimes, rather than an investigation and prosecution of known crimes.



That deviation, it turns out, is not the half of it. With Rosenstein’s passive approval, Mueller is shredding Justice Department charging policy by alleging earth-shattering crimes, then cutting a sweetheart deal that shields the defendant from liability for those crimes and from the penalties prescribed by Congress. The special counsel, moreover, has become a legislature unto himself, promulgating the new, grandiose crime of “conspiracy against the United States” by distorting the concept of “fraud.”

Why does the special counsel need to invent an offense to get a guilty plea? Why doesn’t he demand a plea to one of the several truly egregious statutory crimes he claims have been committed?

Good questions.

The Multi-Million-Dollar Fraud Indictments . . . and Penny-Ante Plea

On Thursday, February 22, with now-familiar fanfare, Mueller filed an indictment against Paul Manafort and Richard Gates, alleging extremely serious crimes. Let’s put aside for now that the charges have absolutely nothing to do with the stated rationale for Mueller’s appointment, namely, Russian interference in the 2016 election and possible Trump-campaign collusion therein.

According to the special counsel, Manafort and Gates conspired to commit more than $25 million in bank fraud. In all, the indictment charges nine bank-fraud counts, each carrying a potential penalty of up to 30 years’ imprisonment (i.e., 270 years combined). Furthermore, the two defendants are formally charged with $14 million in tax fraud (the indictment’s narrative of the offense actually alleges well over twice that amount). There are five tax-fraud counts, yielding a potential 15 years’ imprisonment (up to three years for each offense), against each defendant.

Mind you, this indictment, filed in the Eastern District of Virginia, is not a stand-alone. It piles atop an earlier indictment in the District of Columbia. That one, filed back in October, accuses Manafort and Gates of an eye-popping $75 million money-laundering conspiracy, a charge that carries a penalty of up to 20 years’ imprisonment.

The two indictments contain many other felony charges. But sticking with just these most serious ones, we can safely say that, on February 22, Manafort and Gates were portrayed as high-order federal felons who faced decades of prison time based on financial frauds in the nine-digit range. And while I have previously discussed potential proof problems for the money-laundering charge, proving bank fraud and tax fraud is comparatively straightforward. The indictment indicates that the evidence of these crimes is well documented and daunting.

Yet, the very next day, Friday, February 23, Mueller permitted Gates to plead guilty to two minor charges — a vaporous “conspiracy against the United States” and the process crime of misleading investigators, each carrying a sentence of zero to five years in jail. This flouted Justice Department policies designed to ensure that federal law is enforced evenhandedly across the nation.

‘The Most Serious Readily Provable Charge’

In plea negotiations, federal prosecutors are instructed to require that a defendant plead guilty to “the most serious readily provable charge consistent with the nature and extent of his/her conduct.” (See U.S. Attorney’s Manual, sec. 27.430.) In a properly functioning Justice Department, a defendant is not accused of over $100 million in financial fraud and then, within 24 hours, permitted to plead guilty in a wrist-slap deal that drops the major allegations and caps his potential sentence well beneath the penalties applicable by statute.

As outlined above, Mueller accused Gates of significant felonies totaling over 300 years of potential incarceration. Had the special counsel simply demanded a plea to a single bank-fraud count — the most serious statutory crime charged and, according to the indictment’s description, an offense that is readily provable — Gates would have faced up to 30 years’ imprisonment.

If, as all appearances suggest, Mueller’s goal is to get Gates to cooperate, such a plea, besides honoring Justice Department guidelines, would have provided plenty of incentive. Under federal law, the prosecutor does not need to sell out the case for a song to induce cooperation. The prosecutor can demand a guilty plea that reflects the gravity of the defendant’s actual offenses. Then, if the defendant cooperates fully and truthfully, the law permits the prosecutor to ask the judge to impose a sentence beneath the severe term that would otherwise be called for — a sentence of little or no jail time.

The Justice Department’s manual further admonishes prosecutors to refrain from guilty pleas that could “adversely affect the investigation or prosecution of others.” That is exactly what Mueller has done to the ongoing prosecution of Manafort. By giving Gates a pass on the bank-fraud (and tax-fraud, and money-laundering) charges, Mueller signals that these allegations are inflated. A jury could well feel justified in giving Manafort a pass on them, too.

By contrast, let’s imagine that Mueller had followed Justice Department protocols by insisting to Gates that nothing less than a guilty plea to the most serious readily provable charge — a 30-year bank-fraud count — would suffice. In his plea allocution, Gates would inevitably have implicated Manafort as his bank-fraud co-conspirator. Manafort would know that, were Gates to testify at trial, he would tell the jury that Manafort conspired with him in the bank-fraud scheme. That would markedly increase the likelihood that Manafort would be convicted of the bank-fraud charges. It would ratchet up the pressure on Manafort to plead guilty. It would help the investigation and prosecution.

Read more

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
29 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Without parameters this investigation began as an unconstitutional farce.

This flouted Justice Department policies designed to ensure that federal law is enforced evenhandedly across the nation.

Low level criminals are commonly offered immunity, reduced charges, or reduced sentences as an incentive to provide evidence against high level figures who are the actual targets of federal criminal investigations. Surely everyone knows this.

Nor do figures under investigation get to set limits concerning what possible criminal activities may be investigated. It doesn’t work that way. Using your power of office to protect yourself from scrutiny when criminal acts are suspected can quickly turn into obstruction of justice charges.

From The Hill, March 17 – Trump-linked firm Cambridge Analytica had private data of 50M people: report

Cambridge Analytica, the data firm the Trump campaign used during the 2016 election, obtained the private information of more than 50 million people without their permission, The New York Times reported Saturday.

Facebook suspended the firm on Friday for not fully deleting data given to them by Aleksandr Kogan, a University of Cambridge professor.

The 50 million Facebook profiles the firm harvested without permission allowed it to plan techniques for President Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign, the Times reported.

Kogan obtained the information from an app he created, which used a Facebook login.

Thirty million of the profiles provided by Kogan contained enough information for the firm to create psychographic profiles, according to the Times, which reported that only 270,000 people had given permission for their data to be collected.

Also from The Hill – Trump-linked data firm met with Russian executives: report

@Greg: I guess that means using your logic that anyone who used the internet during 2016 also colluded with the Russians. I guess that includes all of us! Does that also include all of us who used Russian dressing on our salads? Greg, even you should have the intelligence to find a better source to support your faulty premises.

@Greg:

Low level criminals are commonly offered immunity, reduced charges, or reduced sentences as an incentive to provide evidence against high level figures who are the actual targets of federal criminal investigations. Surely everyone knows this.

You probably should have read the article. The defendant is supposed to be charged with the most serious offense that can be “readily proven”, THEN the plea bargaining begins. Apparently, Mueller thought the most serious, provable offense HE had was an intent to do something bad. That’s a really big embarrassment.

Nor do figures under investigation get to set limits concerning what possible criminal activities may be investigated.

Well, SOMEBODY should, shouldn’t they? Or, are you yourself willing to be arrested and sit in a cell while authorities sift through your life to try and find something with which to keep you in jail with? I believe we have something that protects against such abuse… we call it “the Constitution”.

Mueller is a great, big dud. Fizzzzzzzzzzz…. PFFT! Keep grasping at those slippery, slimy straws, though. Good luck with all that.

On another note, don’t you just love it when She Who Was To Be Crowned goes to India and accuses the sitting President of the United States (not HER, by the way) of hating Indian-Americans? Imagine having such a sorry, slimy, corrupt, lying, racist, America-hating piece of $h!t as President. I threw up a little bit….

You probably should have read the article. The defendant is supposed to be charged with the most serious offense that can be “readily proven”, THEN the plea bargaining begins.

The charges brought against Manafort could result in 20 years of imprisionment. The same is true in the case of Rick Gates. The charges Flynn pleaded guilty to could result in up to five years in prison and a $250,000 fine. He could also be charged in connection with the $15 million Turkish dissident plot, an unreported payment from Russia, and unreported compensation for lobbying for the Turkish government. What, to your way of thinking, constitutes a “serious” offense?

Well, SOMEBODY should, shouldn’t they?

Using one’s power of office to limit or obstruct an investigation of one’s own possible wrongdoing is an abuse of power. This should not be difficult to understand.

Imagine having such a sorry, slimy, corrupt, lying, racist…

I don’t need to try to imagine it. We presently have an example in the White House.

@Greg:

The charges brought against Manafort could result in 20 years of imprisionment. The same is true in the case of Rick Gates.

Again, you should read the article and get caught up.

Using one’s power of office to limit or obstruct an investigation of your own possible wrongdoing is an abuse of power.

Yeah, well when someone other than Obama or Hillary does such a thing, you just let us know.

@Deplorable Me, #7:

Again, you should read the article and get caught up.

I don’t know what you think you’ve been caught up on.

In plea negotiations, federal prosecutors are instructed to require that a defendant plead guilty to “the most serious readily provable charge consistent with the nature and extent of his/her conduct.” (See U.S. Attorney’s Manual, sec. 27.430.) In a properly functioning Justice Department, a defendant is not accused of over $100 million in financial fraud and then, within 24 hours, permitted to plead guilty in a wrist-slap deal that drops the major allegations and caps his potential sentence well beneath the penalties applicable by statute.

That paragraph is highly misleading. Plea agreements may be offered for different reasons. One is to achieve a sentence acceptable to the prosecution and the court, when establishing guilt of more serious charges by way of a jury trial might prove unsuccessful or turn into years of litigation. Another, which is apparently what Mueller’s team has done, is to offer a genuine incentive for witness cooperation in connection with a more important investigation.

The goal in the second situation is very different from the goal in the first. What Mueller’s team has done is sound to the degree that it furthers their investigation. They know exactly what they’re doing.

@Greg: Mueller is way beyond the search for collusion with the Russians in the 2016 Election. He is grasping at straws just like he did on every other major investigation he conducted. The prosecution of the FT Detrick scientist want way off base, caused the scientist pain and suffering and Mueller could prove anything. Others showed the anthrax was of a middle east origin. Mueller is a friend of McCabe and Comey. Remember that old saying that “birds of a feather flock together”? They certainly are birds!

@Randy, #9:

Mueller is way beyond the search for collusion with the Russians in the 2016 Election.

Where did you get the idea that Mueller was appointed as Special Counsel to conduct a narrow, highly restricted investigation? Did you ever read his order of appointment? You might want to pay particular attention to parts b(i) and b(ii):

(b) The Special Counsel is authorized to conduct the investigation confirmed by then-FBI Director James B. Comey in testimony before the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence on March 20, 2017, including:

(i) any links and/or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump; and

(ii) any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation; and

(iii) any other matters within the scope of 28 C.F.R. § 600.4(a).

Then we have section (c):

(c) If the Special Counsel believes it is necessary and appropriate, the Special Counsel is authorized to prosecute federal crimes arising from the investigation of these matters.

Mueller is doing precisely what he is supposed to be doing, and what should be done, given all the indications of Russian intrusion into the election process and of possible coordination with people inside the Trump campaign. Every bit of evidence he’s going after—including Trump’s tax returns—is directly related to that mandated investigation.

@Greg: Yes, Greg you are right. Mueller is doing his job and will do it until he joins his buddies Comey and McCabe. This weekend, I was talking to one of my friends in the DOD who worked in intel. It seems that there is renovation activity in GITMO. I wonder, is this to handle the influx of terrorists from Afghanistan or traitors from the swamp? If you think about this in depth, most federal prisons are in “fly over” states. If our justice system wants to keep these traitors alive while serving their prison term, GITMO is likely the safest place to house them. It looks like there are more and more of them being revealed every day.

@Greg:

Mueller is doing precisely what he is supposed to be doing, and what should be done, given all the indications of Russian intrusion into the election process and of possible coordination with people inside the Trump campaign.

Mueller is doing exactly what the left wants him to do: conduct a fishing expedition and, finding nothing, simply continue it endlessly to try and create the taint of an ongoing investigation upon the Trump administration. You use that yourself, touting the fact that this person or that is under investigation. Like the constant barrage of accusations of “racism” that cascades from the left every time a discussion gets too close to the point, so are “investigations” becoming meaningless as an indication that someone “might” have done wrong.

Investigating the “possibility” that anyone in the Trump team colluded with the Russians? You don’t HAVE to investigate that; anything is possible. What about investigating a PROBABILITY? What about investigating something you actually have evidence of… something other than a concocted “dossier” from a political hack, spread among political hacks and leaked to the political hack media?
Unfortunately, you don’t have any of those… except among the Democrats. But, Democrats have traditionally been off limits, haven’t they? Well, I think that era is over.

I guess some people wear the badge of “Useful Idiot and Pawn of the Democrat Party” proudly. I find that unimaginable.

Guess who was out campaigning for wing-nut Maxine’s opponent yesterday? None other than Gen. Mike Flynn. The clearest indicator to date on how his legal team must feel about his “indictment” being tossed.

Yes, Greg you are right. Mueller is doing his job and will do it until he joins his buddies Comey and McCabe.

If Trump fires Mueller, it will be the end of the Trump administration. I’m sure all of his top advisers have been telling him that, as he doesn’t seem to be able to figure it out for himself.

“I could stand in the middle of 5th Avenue and shoot somebody and I wouldn’t lose voters.” Donald Trump, Iowa, 23 January 2016

He’s wrong.

@Greg: But he hasn’t done any of that. He hasn’t colluded with the Russians, either. He hasn’t done any of the things you crybaby, sore loser liberals are accusing him of. The only crimes committed are those committed by the Obama administration, Hillary and the DNC.

But he hasn’t done any of that. He hasn’t colluded with the Russians, either.

When Mueller announces those to be the findings of his investigation, then I will believe it to be true. Until that time, it’s only an opinion.

On a different topic, you may have to add the Supreme Court your your Enemies List.

Supreme Court upholds new Pa. congressional district map, rejecting Republican challenge

The U.S. Supreme Court request for a stay, filed by state Senate President Pro Tempore Joe Scarnati (R., Jefferson) and House Speaker Mike Turzai (R., Allegheny), was sent to Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr., who has jurisdiction for cases coming out of the area. Alito, who had previously rejected a similar challenge in the case, referred the request to the whole court, which dismissed it without comment.

Pennsylvania was considered to be the most gerrymandered state in the Union. Essentially the map was rigged by republicans to heavily favor republicans.

You should be delighted. Trump has just taken on this conspiracy theorist as part of his legal team. DiGenova asserts that Trump has been framed by the FBI and DOJ. He and his wife, attorney Victoria Toensing, specialize in white collar criminal defense.

@Greg:

When Mueller announces those to be the findings of his investigation, then I will believe it to be true.

No. You won’t. You didn’t believe it when the FBI declared it to be true. You didn’t believe it when the House committee declared it to be true. When (and IF he ever gets weary of beating a dead donkey) he makes his declaration of the obvious, you will, once again, claim Trump interfered, the rancid, rabid partisan liberals on his team were somehow intimidated, the Russians hacked them… SOMETHING will serve as your excuse to, once again, spring free from reality and continue to pursue your fantastic accusations.

Pennsylvania was considered to be the most gerrymandered state in the Union. Essentially the map was rigged by republicans to heavily favor republicans.

Considered thus AFTER Hillary lost the state. Up until then, no one had a problem with it. More sore loser-ship.

You didn’t believe it when the FBI declared it to be true.

The FBI never made such a definitive statement.

You didn’t believe it when the House committee declared it to be true.

The House investigation was a partisan whitewash conducted by Nunes, a Trump errand boy. Central witnesses were not interviewed and minority views were suppressed. Everybody knows this.

When (and IF he ever gets weary of beating a dead donkey) he makes his declaration of the obvious, you will, once again, claim Trump interfered, the rancid, rabid partisan liberals on his team were somehow intimidated…

We’ll see what we have when we read Mueller’s conclusions and hear the supporting evidence. What should be obvious to anyone at this point is the effort being made by Trump and his allies to keep Mueller from ever reaching that point. They’ve done everything they can to damage public perception of the FBI and U.S. intelligence community, and have targeted, defamed, and eliminated those who mounted and support the investigation. So far they haven’t been able to destroy Mueller. That, I think, is something they can’t get away with.

Considered thus AFTER Hillary lost the state.

Apparently you’re unaware of Karl Rove’s REDMAP scheme. (aka the Redistricting Majority Project) The GOP’ strategic redistricting commenced 6 years ahead of the last presidential election.

@Deplorable Me:

Considered thus AFTER Hillary lost the state. Up until then, no one had a problem with it. More sore loser-ship.

What’s your take on this article, published in Dec 2011 (shortly after 2011 redistricting lines were approved by committee):

http://triblive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/news/regional/s_771978.html

Common Cause of Pennsylvania issued a statement this afternoon blasting the plan as “breathtakingly brazen in its defiance of the interests of Pennsylvania’s voters.” The group’s lobbyist Barry Kauffman said the plan “is a clear-cut case of politicians picking their voters in order to prevent voters from having a meaningful opportunity to pick their elected officials.” Pennsylvania lost one congressional district, going from 19 to 18, because of population shifts from 2000 to 2010. Pennsylvania grew at a lower rate than other states and the Western part of the state generally lost population.

The Senate State Government Committee approved the bill 6-5 on the “proxy” vote in the affirmative by Senate President Pro Tempore Joe Scarnati, R-Jefferson County. Scarnati wasn’t there but committee chairman Charles McIlheny, R-Bucks County, cast his vote for him, which is allowed under Senate rules.

The vote was along party lines except for Sen. Mike Folmer, R-Lebanon County, who said there are constitutional problems with the bill and that he believes it was drawn to dilute the Democrats’ approximate 1 million voter registration edge in the state. It’s a prime exhibit on the need for redistricting reform, he said.

“All you have to do is look at it (the map,)” Folmer said.

The 7th congressional district in Southeast Pennsylvania looks like “a three-headed dog,” said Sen. Andrew Dinniman, D-Chester County.

If lawmakers took their oaths of office seriously, to follow the Constitution, this map would never have been produced, Folmer said.

@Greg:

The House investigation was a partisan whitewash conducted by Nunes, a Trump errand boy.

You only approve when an investigation is staffed with liberal lackeys, right?

We’ll see what we have when we read Mueller’s conclusions and hear the supporting evidence.

WHEN do you think that will be? At what point would you admit that if evidence has not popped up by now, it simply ain’t there and the accusations are false? Two years? Five? Ten? Twenty? Fifty? This isn’t like the investigations during the Obama administration where there is evidence destroyed, requests stonewalled, witnesses refusing to appear, witnesses claiming the 5th… Mueller’s “investigation” has been met with almost 100% cooperation and… nothing. Not a whiff of collusion (well, except for Hillary, the DNC or Warner).

They’ve done everything they can to damage public perception of the FBI and U.S. intelligence community, and have targeted, defamed, and eliminated those who mounted and support the investigation.

Such as? Public statements as to the bitterly partisan aspect of this entire witch hunt is not only justified, but totally accurate. However, who has been “eliminated”?

@Kevin Kirkpatrick:

What’s your take on this article, published in Dec 2011 (shortly after 2011 redistricting lines were approved by committee):

I guess I would say I was wrong.

However, who has been “eliminated”?

James Comey was fired. Andrew McCabe was fired. James Baker was demoted and reassigned. James Rybicki was forced out of the bureau. All of the last three were FBI officials that Comey had informed regarding his private conversations with Donald Trump, prior to his own removal. They’d be potential witnesses in an obstruction of justice case.

Firing Mueller presents a serious problem. Trump would first have to get rid of Rod Rosenstein. He has no believable excuse for doing so.

@Greg:

James Comey was fired. Andrew McCabe was fired

Comey told Trump he was not investigating him, so he was not involved in the investigation. Comey had proven himself incompetent and leaked information. Trump had nothing to do with McCabe’s firing; he was fired for violating polices and laws. I know you like to think those doing the liberals’ dirty business are above the law, but those days are likely over. Baker was another flunky leaking information to the media.

“Jim Rybicki notified me last month that he will be leaving the FBI to accept an opportunity in the corporate sector,” Wray said in a statement.

Doesn’t sound like he was “forced” out.

All of these people are deep state rodents. There are others, too. They WILL be dealt with. Just because they are setting justice aside to do the liberal bidding of their masters does not mean that violating laws, rules and regulations still gets to be routinely disregarded. Those days are long past. It stopped January 20, 2017.

@Deplorable Me: Seems firing liars out of the FBI is new policy, a damn good one In the past year, the FBI fired 19 people for showing a lack of candor while not under oath and 12 for doing so under oath — though those figures might represent double-counting if a person lacked candor in both settings.
Per WaPoop, yet no screaming at the sky for them.

Believe whatever b.s. you want to believe. The bottom line is that Trump can’t fire Rosenstein and can’t touch Mueller without serious repercussions. Mueller’s investigation will continue. It will only end when he has turned over and looked under every suspicious rock. Then and only then will we know, one way or the other, whether Trump has a very serious Russia problem.

@Greg:

The bottom line is that Trump can’t fire Rosenstein and can’t touch Mueller without serious repercussions.

You fantasy addicts are absolutely salivating over the prospect of Trump doing something like that, aren’t you? Trump has shown no indication to do so and has, in fact, denied it. Sorry, but what is going to happen is the phony “investigations” will continue and the result will be the widespread realization of exactly what they were intended to achieve: the IMPLICATION of guilt simply by virtue of an ongoing (and going, and going, and going, and going, and going) “investigation” to impact elections. That realization is going to hurt Democrats, not Republicans.

It will only end when he has turned over and looked under every suspicious rock.

Of course, the first step is to convince yourself that is a suspicious rock. It’s just a plain old rock and it looks like all the other rocks; it’s been laying there, just like that, for years, but suddenly, it is suspicious and triggers a fishing expedition.

Then and only then will we know, one way or the other, whether Trump has a very serious Russia problem.

I already know. Three years of investigation, including illegal surveillance, without a single shard of evidence to even justify suspicion has convinced me. You, on the other hand, will never accept anything but a conviction and since that will never happen, you will never accept any real results.

@kitt: Seems the left believes, however, that the firing of those who lie and leak classified information should be allowed to leave with million dollar supplements to their pensions because they have been good liberal soldiers and fell in the line of their duty to protect criminal liberals.

@Deplorable Me, #26:

Sorry, but what is going to happen is the phony “investigations” will continue and the result will be the widespread realization of exactly what they were intended to achieve: the IMPLICATION of guilt simply by virtue of an ongoing (and going, and going, and going, and going, and going) “investigation” to impact elections.

You mean something on the order of the 7 successive Benghazi investigations republicans mounted prior to the 2016 elections? Or the endless investigations regarding Clinton’s then entirely legal use of a private server, while totally ignoring the fact that the Bush White House routinely used GOP owned servers and somehow disappeared an estimated 22 million messages?

I’m predicting there’s going to be a big difference. In the case of Mueller’s investigation, there are plenty of indications that there’s something serious to find.

If you want a sideshow for diversion, there’s the expanding tale of Trump’s adulterous philandering and related payoffs. I seem to recall republicans once taking great interest in such matters. This guy’s election was a gift to the tabloids. Former Playboy model who alleges affair with Trump sues company that didn’t publish her story

@Greg:

You mean something on the order of the 7 successive Benghazi investigations republicans mounted prior to the 2016 elections? Or the endless investigations regarding Clinton’s use of a private server, while totally ignoring the fact that the Bush White House routinely used GOP owned servers and somehow disappeared an estimated 22 million messages?

You know, when you present such silly and weak arguments, you show the world you have simply given up but lack the courage to admit you have been wrong. Bush’s emails were RNC emails, not State Department classified data. There is a difference.

As explained previously, all involved in the Trump organization have cooperated and provided everything asked of them. Now, that didn’t stop Mueller’s GESTAPO from raiding Manafort’s home with guns drawn, but you have almost 100% cooperation from anyone involved (because Mueller is running such a professional, non-partisan “investigation”, you see). There is NO excuse for that investigation, based on what everyone now acknowledges are campaign lies, to drag on for years and years and years.

The Benghazi and email investigations, on the other hand, were characterized by delays, stalling, stonewalling, refusing to testify, claiming the 5th, destruction of evidence and obstruction. Every time they turned around, new evidence was uncovered, at great effort, and new questions were raised. The length and cost of those investigations are the sole responsibility and fault of the Obama administration and Hillary.

If you want a sideshow, there’s the tale of Trump’s adulterous philandering and the related payoffs.

Sideshow is the best description. It has nothing at all to do with the US government. Basically, it is just another slimy straw you desperate liberals are grasping at. Seems sex is just sex… unless you think you can use it for political purposes.

Waa, waa, waa.

@Kevin Kirkpatrick: @Greg: See

Why Republicans Are Right To Impeach Pennsylvania’s Rogue Supreme Court Justices Over Gerrymandering