The purpose of an investigation is NOT to bring charges! At least not in the USA where people are presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

This presumption is based on multiple amendments in our US Constitution including the 6th and the due process clause in the 5th and 14th amendments. That is the difference between a totalitarian state and a republic. The point of an investigation is to find out the t***h. Whether that t***h leads to any charges or not is beside the point. An investigation might lead to evidence of guilt of the one you thought was guilty, or to another. A good investigator follows where the evidence leads. But if your assertion is what is commonly believed by the left, it explains the attitude regarding the Mueller investigation. When Trump called for an investigation, I'm sure he expected an investigation would be conducted like good police work. This would mean look for evidence and follow it to find the t***h. Also investigations are usually not of a person but are to look into certain actions which may be illegal, or to look into a crime to find the guilty party or parties. You mentioned multiple Hillary investigations. Yet these were not investigations into any possible wrongdoing of Hillary. But each were specific. The most recent was an investigation on whether she violated her oath she took as secretary of State by mishandling classified information. The investigation covered ONLY the time she was Secretary of State, and only regarding her handling of information. For instance it did not look into whether or not she engaged in pay to play. Previous investigations included her actions in the B******i disaster, her involvement in Whitewater, and her cattle futures trading. These were all separate investigations with defined areas of investigation. In the Mueller investigation which is suppose to be investigating whether or not Russia interfered with our e******ns, evidence is ignored when it doesn't fit the goal of finding Trump guilty of something. There is no search for the t***h, but instead a search for anything which can be pinned on Trump who is already presumed guilty by the leaders on the left.

As for my not searching through the entire body of law to find the law you complained about but never identified -- since you refuse to identify what law you were referring to; I will assume you made it up unless and until you produce it.

Lord you are pathetically helpless, no wonder you are a right winger..

a few dozen other article if you do not like this one..

https://www.bustle.com/p/the-nras-biggest-donors-will-now-be-allowed-to-remain-anonymous-heres-why-9799240


Holding politicians accountable for where they choose to donate large amounts of money is about to be a little bit more difficult. Many of the NRA's biggest donors are now going to be able to keep their donations anonymous, according to a new law that will allow nonprofit groups to keep private the information of donors who give $5,000 or more. The rule was announced on Monday by the Treasury Department, which said that this information was never supposed to be subject to public disclosure to begin with.

Rather, Senior Treasury officials clarified that "donor lists have been inadvertently released in the past," CNN reports, and that groups from both the left and the right side of the partisan aisle were becoming concerned that people would soon feel nervous about giving donations if their names were easily disclosed to the public.

Here's what's going to change, and what won't: nonprofit groups which receive tax-deductible donations (like charities) will still have to report the information of their biggest donors, but other nonprofits that don't receive tax-deductive donations will not. The NRA falls into the latter bracket, which means that it will no longer have to report information on its major donors.

This is a potential problem for several reasons. For one, it will make it more difficult for the American people to be able to ascertain which politicians are supporting politically active nonprofits like the NRA. But perhaps more importantly, these new rules might make it easier for nonprofits like the NRA to hide foreign contributions.

You don't "find" charges. You "find" evidence. And you "press" charges. And in the case of Congressional hearings, you find out what happened, when, and who was responsible. Congress has no authority to charge anyone for a crime. But they do have the authority to impeach. For criminal charges, what Congress discovers is turned over to the Justice Department. It is their responsibility to bring any charges if they so choose. Then it is the judicial branch's responsibility to try the case.

Please take that elementary school civics class.

This is neither new nor a law. It is a rule. Nor is it about foreign contributions. If you would actually look the rule up instead of relying on news articles you would know that what the article is portraying is inaccurate. Until the Obama administration, private donations to non profits by US citizens were NOT publicized. This was to protect private citizens. Suppose you lived or operated a small business in a fundamental religious community but believed that the rights of gays were important and needed improving so donated to that cause. How would you like it if that donation were revealed and publicized? You might be ostracized. You might lose business. You might be threatened or worse. If you worked in a field involving children (such as a teacher), you might be rumored to be gay yourself and pressured to quit because the religious parents were outraged.

It is not the public's right to know what other private citizens donate to. Government officials come under other rules. And foreign contributions under others as well as under laws. This rule was not about government or government official's t***sparency. This rule was about protecting the privacy of citizens. It is disingenuous to claim returning to abiding by the rule will hide foreign contributions. This is covered multiple places elsewhere. Here are examples:

52 USC 30121: Contributions and donations by foreign nationals
http://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=(title:52%20section:30121%20edition:prelim)

11 CFR 110.20
https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/11/110.20

So while the right wing effort to "find" evidence on Lady Hillary, produced nothing to allow you to "press" charges. Nothing but money and time..

Now we have near 30 indictments, 5 people in jail and upcoming trials because of the "finding" of evidence that made it clear to "press" charges we have not been waisting time on witch hunt, we have gotten closer and closer
to the orange witch..

Yet you do not yoorah for this investigation.. Does it not match your twist of the words???

There have been zero indictments related to collusion between Trump and Russia to interfere in our p**********l e******n. As for the Hillary investigations, the investigators (such as the FBI) have found evidence. The prosecutors (DOJ) have NOT charged her. Not every time, or even most of the time that evidence of a crime is found are charges made, indictments handed down, or trials held. There can be various reasons for this ranging from inconclusive evidence to political agendas. Lack of a trial is not the same thing as no evidence found.

In regards to Hillary evidence was presented to Congress and publicized. But not prosecuted.
In regards to Trump no evidence has been claimed to have been found let alone presented to Congress let alone publicized. All evidence uncovered has been unrelated to Trump/Russia collusion.