>>>>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...

Proving Trump's involvement is probably going to require someone saying they told Trump about it either in testimony or an email...assuming of course that either of those even happened. My speculation is that if that did happen odds are they will spill their guts to Muller to save their own skin (seems to be a pattern of that here). Either way there is still enough to impeach Trump already -- the question is if members of the GOP will care enough to do anything about it. If there is evidence of Trump being directly involved or having knowledge of such conspiracy- then I think the GOP will have no choice but to impeach....otherwise it appears they're unwilling to do their jobs and abide by the oaths they took when elected.

>>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 ;-)

We will have swamp creatures in congress as long as the laws of the country allow special interests and money to be involved in elections. Get more people like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez elected and someday those laws will change and their will be an amendment prohibiting such actions. When someone can legally fund their entire campaign with money from the fossil fuel industry, buy stocks in the fossil fuel industry, and then are not restricted on being involved in writing laws regrading the fossil fuel industry -- well you got yourself a big problem - and that is where we are today. Thankfully enough people are getting sick of this crap that they elect someone like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez who took no such money and had no super pacs. Now the problem with Trump goes deeper as this dirtbag appoints people like an oil lobbyist to head the EPA and appoints people to cabinet positions with the sole intent of destroying the departments they head....plus there is no way can not find the "best people" as he claimed he would because no one wants to be involved with this administration as it seems to end with a career death-sentence if not a prison sentence. (for example -- who the hell will ever give Sarah Huckabee Sanders another job now?? lol)

>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.