It doesn't surprise me that you're not interested in answering any of those questions. The evidence appears to go directly against the narrative you've convinced yourself of. You seem to be an honest man, though, and maybe there will come a time when you become curious about these things. For me, at this time, it looks like the investigation was primarily politically motivated.
Are you actually saying that the Russians did not meddle in our election? I accept that they did, and a major part of Mueller's investigation was to describe exactly what they did. Mueller indicted 13 Russian nationals and the Internet Research Agency. And I can say that you are also convinced of a narrative: "the investigation was primarily politically motivated".
My narrative is that Russia meddled, and 140+ contacts by the Trump team with Russia absolutely justified a good, close look. There was nothing political about it. Comey torpedoed Clinton, not word one from him that Trump's campaign was being investigated. Comey, the head of the FBI, kneecapped Clinton two weeks before the election.
And I am not surprised that you think the FBI investigation and the counterintelligence investigation was unjustified. As many times as you have claimed not to like Trump, you always defend him to the hilt. So you are not an honest broker at all. You are a full throated supporter of this clown. Which is your right, but I don't buy your occasional protestations of his character at all. I concluded a long time ago, but never spelled it out to you, that you approve of his policies, and therefore can more easily overlook his character. I disapprove of both, policies and character.
You don't find it odd that there were so many contacts with Russians on the part of the Trump campaign and associates of Trump? Why would that not cause me to be suspicious? What was I to think of Trump standing in front of the cameras at Helsinki and basically saying "pound salt" to our intelligence community? That he believed Putin instead. What president, what commander in chief would ever do such a thing, and why?
Can you not see that that act alone might cause one to wonder what the hey is going on between our president and the head of a mafia state?
I can buy that it bothers him that Russian meddling might be seen as diminishing his victory, but to speak the way he did on that, and other occasions, is putting himself above his country. Again, what president would do that? And, if one accepts that the Mueller report concluded, with no shadow of a doubt, that Russia meddled, what president calls Putin, who orchestrated the meddling, and refers to it as "the Russia hoax"?
I told you several comments ago that there were two competing narratives. Even Barr admitted, when questioned about using the term "spying", that the surveillance may have been justified. Mueller's objection to Barr's 4 page "summary" was that it made it sound like there might not be evidence of obstruction of justice by Trump, whereas Mueller had made clear his decision was based on the accepted Justice Department policy that a sitting president cannot be indicted. The decision was not founded on a lack of evidence of obstruction. 5 of the 10 potential obstruction incidents Mueller documented satisfied all 3 criteria for obstruction. Barr did not make that clear. And Mueller complained to him for that reason.
Let Congress follow the money, something which Trump is fighting tooth and nail. Not because "it's over", but because he absolutely has something to hide.
I don't have One Brow's considerable gift of brevity, so novella it will be.
