It's a question about Oliver's credibility, and whether or not he is more or less legally insulated than the 13 Russian satirists that Moooler recently busted. What does it mean to go "full Oliver"?
So in this 17 minute, 49 second video the only thing speaker came up with was one meeting that Trump, Jr. had with an Russian attorney. In the United States, it is not unusual for businesses to talk to Government officials, such as city planners as part of the permitting process on a large building project. In Russia, I would imagine even more hoops would be required to be cleared and would involve more Russian government officials. This meeting was probably related to Trump's business interests in Russia. If they talked about Hiliary, would you say that is sufficient to bring charges of collusion? If there was collusion, is there a law that prohibits it? If there is a law that prohibits it, has not the status quo been to not enforce laws against sitting or former President's involved in subversive activities such as U.S. President Jimmy Carter visiting a foreign country and apparently saying things that undermined Bush's agenda, the then current President? The sanctity of our elections must be preserved, but in practice, there appears to be vulnerabilities to our system that are regularly exploited, such as the ones listed below: 1. The inability of identifying a voter allowing multiple voting opportunities for that person. 2. Ballots being "lost" do either by "glitches" or physical means in a precinct that is heavily weighted toward one political party. 3. Registration of ineligible voters. 4. False accusation planted just before Election Day that can't effectively be countered in time. 5. Media biased reporting and commentary, where you have talking heads and entertainers telling people how they should think. There are lots of ways to unfairly influence election results. Although both parties have been complicit, The Democrats appear have more active in using the above techniques. This Russia Collusion Investigation appears to be an attempt to undermine Trump's Presidency for the potential political gain of the accusers. As far as investigation related plea agreements, it is most likely the Mueller team used dirt in other aspects of the affected politician's life and used that as leverage to encourage a plea agreement for the apparent overriding objective of giving the investigation credibility. Most modern U.S. Politicians have violated laws, such as campaign funds related laws, and thus this could be considered a known vulnerability that Mueller can exploit. Mueller has a conflict of interest in this investigation because of his prior relationship with GW Bush, Jeb Bush's brother. Jeb Bush was defeated in the U.S. Republican Presidential primary under particularly acrimonious circumstances by Trump. As Democrats will tell you, GW Bush was an extremely self-serving, partisan, and corrupt President. I personally agree with that assessment. The fact that Mueller does not recuse himself where there is at least the appearance of conflict of interest is telling, and implies he has a political agenda. Why would Mueller need to stay on the investigation if the evidence "speaks for itself"? The ultimate political result of the Russia Collusion Investigation may not turn out the way it's supporters hope, should no compelling evidence be found that a crime has been committed by Trump. In 2020, If Trump still has a strong U.S. economy and good relations with North Korea, China, and Russia are all the Democrats have is a failed Investigation, which political party would you expect be choosen for leadership over the next four years?
Excellent video on Ad Hominem attacks. The examples used were mostly one-sided, but are deserved to at least some extent, and illustrate the speaker's points effectively.