>>>My guess is that IF anything happens from the Muller investigation targeting Trump bloodline directly, it will be held back so it can be used during (pre?)election as leverage to convince him to go without 2nd period, as possible compromize. Pretty certain he'd trow Jared to the wolves if necessary, ambivalent about offspring - he still can pardon.
>
>Mueller has been indicting and accusing as he goes. Even Schiff no longer believes Mueller has anything on Trump, hence the need for more investigations to keep the thunder rolling and Schiff's latest assertions that considering a Trump Tower in Russia was a form of collusion (he is still using that word Victor, so no point scolding me) and all sorts of other sophistry ignoring that Schiff's own party funded the attack dossier used to spy on the Trump campaign and kick off the Mueller investigation.

You saw the uppercased IF in my post ? I am not too certain Trump direct involvement can be proven if his taped bid for Russian help is not enough/can be argued away with his "truthful hyperbole" style...

>They were quick to scream that Sessions should recuse himself because he met a Russian, so why wouldn't Schiff have to recuse himself when it was his party's collusion with foreigners including Russians that started the tales of collusion he wants to investigate?!

In a perfect world a lot of the "swamp" would have been pumped away in the last 2 dozen years via courts. I'd be cheering if a couple of heads from BOTH parties would be given more than a token slap on the wrist. Saying this with a hydro-static picture - constant drain will not lower swamp much, as new stuff flows in, but it could be minimally cleaner ;-)

But other tried forms of keeping "swamps" out of ruling did not establish themselves: remember Greeks at first trying to fill ruling benches by lot similar to jury rows are often disparaged nowadays as opening doors on the way to hell (ahem, populism...), as even the mixing in of lottery (Italic city states tried it) did not rule for long.

Which is why I argue for letting population vote on issues like the Swiss do today, in the knowledge that this is sometimes throwing stones into the smooth working of the body politic (cheers to Herberts BuSab and McKie). My guess is that the total effect is beneficial, even if sometimes ludicrous results can be expected (Brexit comments welcome). I hate to see the Brits leaving EU, esp. using that incident as a reason to argue against ballots - more forethought would have been better in the first place and such ballots should have a defined way to be started from % of population, not from top as political manouver.

And there definately is some truth to Bills steady reminder that this is truly part of our circenses, keeping attention diverted.