Cohen

Why does Russia have to be our "sworn enemy"?  They actually have a bigger stake than we do (because of geography) in stopping Islamic extremism/terrorism.  Why can't we be allies in that fight?  Talk about sworn enemies.....our problem with Islamic extremism is still in it's infancy when you look at their history.  Those folks aren't EVER coming over to our side.

Why does Russia have to be our "sworn enemy"?  They actually have a bigger stake than we do (because of geography) in stopping Islamic extremism/terrorism.  Why can't we be allies in that fight?  Talk about sworn enemies.....our problem with Islamic extremism is still in it's infancy when you look at their history.  Those folks aren't EVER coming over to our side.

My interpretation of the law is that they cannot prove treason because Russia is not (technically or legally) our enemy. Since treason is something you do with/for an enemy and Russia has (not yet) been declared an enemy, the acts committed thus far do not meet the test of treason.

That does not eliminate conspiracy with a foreign national or government, or a whole host of other crimes.

Seemingly illegal acts continue to be brought to light. We shall see where this leads. Donald certainly doesn't tweet like an innocent guy. Rather, his flailing, gnashing, and hysteria makes him seem like he's in very, very deep doo-doo. We shall see.

Keep the rope! I'm not trying to pooh-pooh the idea that conspiring with Russia to subvert our democracy isn't an offense to our country. I consider it an act of hostility.

Many people throw around the word treason because conspiring with a country committing acts of hostility against our country really feels like treason. It's outrageous and despicable that Americans would conspire against the country.

However, treason has very specific legal meaning, so I am careful not to use that word. It muddles the issues, IMO.

It's pure speculation to try to game out what Mueller should have done, when he should have done it, why he didn't do it, what he knows, doesn't know, what he can prove, etc. We don't know what he's discovered or what he can prove. For instance, just today it was revealed that the Natl Enquirer dude has been cooperating with prosecutors. We can infer that Mueller must know lots about other hooker payouts, but we don't actually know.  Of course, that doesn't stop cable programs from spending hundreds of hours speculating, so you're in good company.

It will all unfold in due time. Maybe there was a conspiracy against the US. Maybe it was just sloppy, fly-by-seat-of-their-pants, dirtbags just shooting off their mouths. Maybe something in between. Some pieces of the puzzle have been revealed, but so much still remains unknown.

So, let me dissect and tackle this one bit at a time. (Feels like old times!)

Unless, of course, those crimes are pertinent to their overarching case.

The evidence was gathered in the process of following the Special Counsel's mandate. No so. The FBI had an ongoing investigation of Manafort even before he joined the Trump campaign. One has to ask why the FBI did not inform the Trump campaign that Manafort was under investigation? One can only imagine.... They can't just overlook crimes if it's not the case they are working on. To my knowledge, the FBI and/or IRS had no basis for investigating Manafort's earnings and tax filing prior to this investigation, so it wasn't exactly a bread/butter case.

He's building a case. He followed protocol. I see nothing untoward here. More importantly, the judges have allowed the cases to proceed.

1 Why should the Russians be spared the indictments? Prosecutors uncovered crimes committed by Russian individuals (25) and by Russian intelligence/GRU (12 agents). We are still a country that observes the rule of law, no? Why not apply our justice system in these cases?

2 You have things backwards. The intel community gave the information to the prosecutors. The intel community doesn't prosecute cases; their mission is to gather intel.

Gosh, I hope so.

In any event, I believe the allegation that Putin directly ordered the cyber attacks has already been established by our intel community.

That's what we have courts for - to ultimately decide those cases.

So, let me dissect and tackle this one bit at a time. (Feels like old times!)

Unless, of course, those crimes are pertinent to their overarching case.

The evidence was gathered in the process of following the Special Counsel's mandate. They can't just overlook crimes if it's not the case they are working on. To my knowledge, the FBI and/or IRS had no basis for investigating Manafort's earnings and tax filing prior to this investigation, so it wasn't exactly a bread/butter case.

He's building a case. He followed protocol. I see nothing untoward here. More importantly, the judges have allowed the cases to proceed.

1 Why should the Russians be spared the indictments? Prosecutors uncovered crimes committed by Russian individuals (25) and by Russian intelligence/GRU (12 agents). We are still a country that observes the rule of law, no? Why not apply our justice system in these cases?

2 You have things backwards. The intel community gave the information to the prosecutors. The intel community doesn't prosecute cases; their mission is to gather intel.

Gosh, I hope so.

In any event, I believe the allegation that Putin directly ordered the cyber attacks has already been established by our intel community.

That's what we have courts for - to ultimately decide those cases.