If you agree that these other things should have been investigated - and they have been - then clearly the Mueller investigation should continue. We shouldn't let the partisan media drive investigations. We shouldn't let the loudest politicians drive investigations.Wayne in Maine wrote:I'm curious about what you base this statement on.Dan Z wrote:Partisan instincts on either side want to predispose the results. Non-partisans and moderates see the accusations of collusion and the Muller process as reasonably credible- and are content to wait for the results before passing judgement.
In light of events during the Obama Administration (The IRS "Tea Party" scandal) and Hillary Clinton's tenure as secretary of state (Benghazi, Clinton Foundation, Uranium One) do these same "non-partisans and moderates" also see accusations of active FBI/DOJ bias and the investigations of House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence as credible?
Most of these things you list have had multiple investigations. I don't think we want trial by media, and I think we really do need to accept the results of investigations and get on with our lives at some point. If politicians decide they want to reopen other investigations, I'm more inclined to listen if they explain what new information justifies reopening it. If they just keep repeating claims that previous investigations found to be false, I wonder if they might be trying to distract from the Mueller investigation.
The Mueller investigation into Trump has not come to a conclusion. Given the seriousness of the charges, I think we really should have at least one investigation into that. And I think we need to accept the results of such investigations and not keep stirring up warring hostility over these things, whether or not we got the results a particular partisan side might prefer.
Some people claim they don't have a dog in the fight, but can't ever seem to let these things go.