http://www.businessinsider.com/michael-bahar-trump-russia-watergate-2017-7?utm_source=feedburner&%3Butm_medium=referral&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+businessinsider+%28Business+Insider%29
Michael Bahar, a former top Democratic aide on the House Intelligence Committee, said the panel's investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election and President Donald Trump's campaign's possible role in it is the "successor to Watergate."
Bahar's comments were published in a Politico report on Saturday, which said that Bahar had had "unparalleled" access to the committee's most sensitive deliberations and inner workings. He recently left the committee to take a job at the law firm Eversheds Sutherland.
Bahar said that although his leave was planned far in advance, he found it difficult to depart because of the Trump-Russia probe's significance at this time.
"This is in a sense having to step aside from history," he said.
Too bad for the democrats that no actual crime has been committed
A breakdown in bipartisanship
Bahar said the deterioration in the relationship between committee chairman Devin Nunes and ranking member Adam Schiff was difficult to watch for staffers who had taken pride in the intelligence committee's reputation for bipartisanship.
"For those people that had been around the longest, I think there was - I would describe it as sadness through this, because this is not what we're used to," the former staffer told Politico.
Nunes initially spearheaded the House Russia probe but was forced to step aside following his decision to bypass the rest of his committee and brief Trump on classified documents he said showed that members of Trump's transition team had been swept up in government surveillance. Reports have indicated that he received the documents from White House officials.
Following Nunes' departure from the Russia investigation, Republican Rep. Mike Conaway of Texas took over leadership. But because he remains the committee's chairman, Nunes is still somewhat involved
>>153720
Like you know.
>>153717
Lol k
>>153723
Present the evidence that Trump committed a crime, otherwise your statement is as worthless as the anon you replied to.
All the hysteria, none of the evidence or journalistic integrity. Also Trump hasn't fired his special prosecutor.
>>153720
All they really need is the political will. They don't have to produce the same burden of proof as a criminal prosecutor. The obstruction of justice charge is serious enough that all we need now is for Trump to become unpopular enough that republicans will turn on him.
>>153790
The obstruction of justice charge has no more evidence than the charge that Obama wasn't eligible to be President.
>>153717
Anything is Illegal if you believe hard enough - Democrats
>>153790
but there was no obstruction of justice
>>153790
There wad no obstruction or just
Also, what do got call Hillary having private meetings with comey and lynch
She actually committed a felony and comey covered it up
>>153717
bait
RIDF out in full force
>>153790
There is no charge and the obstruction of justice "meme" had been debunked.
Seriously, dude. The election is over. She lost and we can only hope she will never be seen again.
Trump's actions should be judged on the merits. The election tactic of pointing the finger at Shillary was just that - an election tactic. Get over it and move on.
You don't get off a speeding ticket by pointing the finger at some guy speeding past you as the cop is writing out your ticket.
>>153875
Legal precedent is a thing. You can't make new rules for someone because you don't like them.
>>153884
1. My reply was prompted by your reference to Hillary - unnecessary and irrelevant.
2. "Legal precedent" is the product of "Legal" proceedings in a court of law. It is the findings that set a "legal precedent". It is not set just because some government functionary makes a questionable decision not to prosecute.
>>153885
I didn't type out that first post you were replying to
1. There are no crimes that Trump has been implicated in as of yet other than maybe breaking some foreign finance laws that everyone else has broken in far shadier ways
2. Hillary, Obama, Lynch and possibly Comey MAY be implicated in obstruction of justice
3. The only case that has been made for Trump obstructing justice is that he held both a public and private belief that Flynn was innocent. Obama also held a private and public belief that Hillary was innocent, yet none of you at the time claimed he was obstructing justice by doing so. You cannot change how a law is enforced because you don't like a guy.
>>153888
>You cannot change how a law is enforced because you don't like a guy
I agree, absolutely.
>none of you at the time
My comments are not related to the guilt or innocence of Trump. Please don't draw me that madness!
>MAY be implicated in obstruction of justice
Quite possibly but I don't think it will happen.. Whether by conspiratorial design, circumstance or evidence, I think that boat has sailed. But if there evidence of a case to answer then "have at 'em"
>There are no crimes that Trump has been implicated in...
That does not mean that it should not be discussed or investigated. Just because Shillary may have dodged a prosecution does not give Trump a pass from an investigation, (at least to see if there is a case to answer), nor, if there is a case to answer, should he get a pass from prosecution because the she-wolf did.
>>153889
What, exactly, is being investigated?