You said we “cannot allow crimes to take place” just to justify and investigation.
I repeat: what crimes are you referring to?
Not sure how I can make this more simple. You need evidence of a crime to start an investigation and a political smear campaign is not evidence of a crime. What I have an issue with is using the power of the state to persecute political rivals. Furthermore you are putting in quotes what I did not say, not sure how laws work in Italy if your location is correct but it is a crime to falsify information to a court in the United States. Back To The pOint though, When Is It ok To Use The Power of the state TO Go after Political rivals? Sorry About THe Capital Letters, Its The amazon Fire.
Your statements are so disjointed I can only come up with two possibilities - either you do not understand the publicly available facts of this dicussion (not entirely surprising, given the level of obstufication going on by multiple parties) or you do understand them but you just don't care.
To clear up a few things first so we can have an actual discussion.
1) I am currently in Canada, but a US citizen.
2) in reference to above, here is the your quote from earlier
I get it, lots here don t like the president but that does not mean we allow crimes to take place in order to be rid of him. The ends don t justify the means.
. Several people have asked you which crimes you are referring to, including myself. From what I gather in your response the (a) crime you are talking about is falsifying information to a federal court (in this case FISA). Ok, let's unpack that this entire statement a bit more
1) There were four FISA warrants issued (three renewals), with the original focusing on Carter Page. Mr Page has been has been on the intelligence community's radar since at least 2013. Ergo, the timeline is wrong - it makes no sense to claim that the warrants were issued because of the Steele dossier, as they had already been issued and renewed twice before this time period.
Ironically the latest memo discloses that it was another Trump Advisor - George Papadopoulos - that triggered the FISA warrant on Carter Page, and Papadopoulos has plead guilty for lying to the FBI about his RUssian contacts.
2) regarding the 'Steele dossier' - the complaint here seems to be that it must be rejected out of hand because it was paid for first by a conservative group and then by the HRC campaign. However, who paid for it isn't justification for rejecting what was inside it. Steele was an MI6 intelligence operative - with whom we have an ongoing alliance ("Five Eyes").
3) The idea that political affiliation has 'tainted' the investigation. This line is flawed both in theory and in practice. For theory - there's no expectation that members of the justice department will share the same political views as the people they are investigating. A 'jury of your peers' does not mean only people who think just like you. Judges sentence people with opposing political views all the time. In practice this line of attack makes even less sense. Mueller was appointed by a republican (Bush) and is republican himself. Wray was appointed by Trump. Papadopoulos (who triggered the FISA warrants in the first place) was a senior-level Trump campaign staffer. This latest memo shows that at least one of the FISA renewals was approved by Boente, who Trump appointed to temporarily replace acting AG Yates (who he fired). Rosenstein (another republican) was also appointed by Trump. Sessions (yet another Trump appointee and Republican) recused himself after giving false testimony under oath to congress about previous encounters with Russian operatives (he maintains it was an clerical error, but has not changed his recusal). If anything its noteworthy how many republicans are at the heart of this investigation.
4) undercutting the argument that this is some sort of 'witch hunt' are two grand jury indictments and two guilty pleas. This includes Michael Flynn's guilty plea - Trump's national security advisor & US Army Lt. General. The significance of this should be underplayed for three reasons; i) had Flynn's lawyers believed the case was tainted by prosecutorial misconduct (which ultimately would get the case against him tossed out) its almost inconceivable he would have pled guilty, and ii) this is someone appointed to a cabinet level position by DJT despite warnings from the previous administration and iii) his guilty plea occurred just 7 months into the appointment of Mueller - which is remarkable for its rapidity. The average duration of special councils is about two years, with many taking far longer. In all likelihood we are in somewhere in the first quarter of this investigation and we already have these charges and confessions.
To be clear - I maintain that we must 'wait and see' where the evindence goes before condemning more people in the court of public opinion. Many here see so much smoke and conclude there must be a much bigger fire, and that DJT must be at the heart of it - I don't think it is wise to make this leap.