Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst ... 345 LastLast
Results 106 to 140 of 160

Thread: The 2017-present Special Counsel investigation

  1. #106
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    23,073

    Default Re: The 2017-present Special Counsel investigation

    Sure, he's taking a little payola, but every President does it!

    (Channeling bobbys)
    Rattling the teacups.

  2. #107
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    MD
    Posts
    45,529

    Default Re: The 2017-present Special Counsel investigation

    Quote Originally Posted by AlanMc View Post
    keith, you're looking at this the wrong way. trump supporters haven't been reduced to arguing about it. yall are arguing about it, we're just telling you your argument is wrong.
    Fabricating stuff isn’t a counter argument, even if it makes you feel good.

  3. #108
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    MD
    Posts
    45,529

    Default Re: The 2017-present Special Counsel investigation

    https://www.rawstory.com/2018/05/tru...mpression=true

    Tuesday was the deadline for Donald Trump to file a required ethics form called the “Executive Branch Personnel Public Financial Disclosure Report,” which includes a list of all personal liabilities in excess of $10,000.

    That presented a problem: Trump’s previous filing had not included the $130,000 he repaid Michael Cohen for the Stormy Daniels hush money payoff.

    That left him with the choice of either filing a second form that broke the law or admitting that he had broken the law the first time by omitting the debt. The form has now been released, and it shows that Trump followed the advice of ethics experts, and admitted the previous wrongdoing.

    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=h5oCwd-fRA8
    Last edited by LeeG; 05-17-2018 at 08:23 AM.

  4. #109
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    23,073

    Default Re: The 2017-present Special Counsel investigation

    Quote Originally Posted by AlanMc View Post
    keith, you're looking at this the wrong way. trump supporters haven't been reduced to arguing about it. yall are arguing about it, we're just telling you your argument is wrong.
    Your Mendacious Messiah can do no wrong.

    He's clearly looting the Treasury AND taking millions in bribes, but you are OK with that.

    Meanwhile, back at the ranch, the Bratva have his testicles in a vise.

    So, you are celebrating the destruction of the country you claim to love, and its transfer to the direct control of the Russian mob.

    Ain't YOU a peach?
    Rattling the teacups.

  5. #110
    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    Location
    huntsville, al, usa
    Posts
    2,826

    Default Re: The 2017-present Special Counsel investigation

    Quote Originally Posted by oznabrag View Post
    Your Mendacious Messiah can do no wrong.

    He's clearly looting the Treasury AND taking millions in bribes, but you are OK with that.

    Meanwhile, back at the ranch, the Bratva have his testicles in a vise.

    So, you are celebrating the destruction of the country you claim to love, and its transfer to the direct control of the Russian mob.

    Ain't YOU a peach?


    i'll tell you what i'm NOT doing. hysteria and hyperbole. all day hysterics is all you guys got these days. RELAX, you can vote him out in 2 more years. maybe.

  6. #111
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    MD
    Posts
    45,529

    Default Re: The 2017-present Special Counsel investigation

    Quote Originally Posted by AlanMc View Post
    i'll tell you what i'm NOT doing. hysteria and hyperbole. all day hysterics is all you guys got these days. RELAX, you can vote him out in 2 more years. maybe.
    Of course you’re cool. You don’t care. For those who do you interpret their thoughts as hysterical. It’s easy to fabricate others positions.

  7. #112
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    oklahoma
    Posts
    3,479

    Default Re: The 2017-present Special Counsel investigation

    I haven’t observed anyone reducing their arguments. I posted at least 8-10 months ago that a sitting president couldn’t be indicted. Other information i’ve given you has slowly been released by the drive-by media. The holocaust denying-covering up NYT had a firmly spun article yesterday, that attempts to explain to its nutters, how the same team of FBI agents who worked to exonerate hiliary, were almost immediately tasked with setting up and entrapping members of the Trump campaign. Virtually everything the drive-by media has released has been leaked by top Obama administration officials (meaning it was known by the FBI and Muler), or it was wrong, and often retracted. Operation “Crossfire Hurricane” was begun as a way to help hiliary get elected. When she lost, it was transformed into a sabotage of Trump’s Presidency. This, and more damning information, has been known for a long time by real journalists. The reason the NYT is releasing it now is they can’t keep the cover on it any longer, and they need to get it out with their spin on it.
    Ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country. John Fn Kennedy. (D)

  8. #113
    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    Location
    huntsville, al, usa
    Posts
    2,826

    Default Re: The 2017-present Special Counsel investigation

    Quote Originally Posted by LeeG View Post
    Of course you’re cool. You don’t care. For those who do you interpret their thoughts as hysterical. It’s easy to fabricate others positions.

    you are correct. i do not care to the point that spend all day, every day whining on the internet on a liberal echo chamber boat forum about it. +1 point to leeg

  9. #114
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    afloat with at least 6' of water under me.
    Posts
    55,877

    Default Re: The 2017-present Special Counsel investigation

    Quote Originally Posted by AlanMc View Post
    i'll tell you what i'm NOT doing. hysteria and hyperbole. all day hysterics is all you guys got these days. RELAX, you can vote him out in 2 more years. maybe.
    Hopefully, a lot sooner. Your crowd can only ignore him so much. As I said, there will be a time when even his supporters realize he's crazy, crazier then even they are. Heck two more years of him would destroy this country, he has no friends except BeBe and Putin, they don't believe him and more importantly, don't trust him.

  10. #115
    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    Location
    huntsville, al, usa
    Posts
    2,826

    Default Re: The 2017-present Special Counsel investigation

    Quote Originally Posted by S.V. Airlie View Post
    Hopefully, a lot sooner. Your crowd can only ignore him so much. As I said, there will be a time when even his supporters realize he's crazy, crazier then even they are. Heck two more years of him would destroy this country, he has no friends except BeBe and Putin, they don't believe him and more importantly, don't trust him.

    no hyperbole to see here.....

  11. #116
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    MD
    Posts
    45,529

    Default Re: The 2017-present Special Counsel investigation

    Quote Originally Posted by AlanMc View Post
    you are correct. i do not care to the point that spend all day, every day whining on the internet on a liberal echo chamber boat forum about it. +1 point to leeg
    ahh, but you do post nearly everyday responding. Even for a troll showing up is half the battle.

  12. #117
    Join Date
    Oct 1999
    Location
    St. Paul, MN, USA
    Posts
    49,151

    Default Re: The 2017-present Special Counsel investigation

    The holocaust denying-covering up NYT had a firmly spun article yesterday . . .
    Oh, sweet Jesus . . . Can you possibly get any more delusional?

    "For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations,
    for nature cannot be fooled."

    Richard Feynman

  13. #118
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    MD
    Posts
    45,529

    Default Re: The 2017-present Special Counsel investigation

    Happy Anniversary! to the Twitterer In Chief.

    https://mobile.twitter.com/realDonal...76300476055552

    Donald J. Trump
    Donald J. Trump
    @realDonaldTrump
    Congratulations America, we are now into the second year of the greatest Witch Hunt in American History...and there is still No Collusion and No Obstruction. The only Collusion was that done by Democrats who were unable to win an Election despite the spending of far more money!
    7:28 AM · May 17, 2018

  14. #119
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    MD
    Posts
    45,529

    Default Re: The 2017-present Special Counsel investigation

    You can’t stop his tweets!

    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=EBZbwdCHorQ

  15. #120
    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    Location
    huntsville, al, usa
    Posts
    2,826

    Default Re: The 2017-present Special Counsel investigation

    Quote Originally Posted by LeeG View Post
    ahh, but you do post nearly everyday responding. Even for a troll showing up is half the battle.


    sorry, can't help but laugh at yall's buffoonery.

  16. #121
    Join Date
    Oct 1999
    Location
    St. Paul, MN, USA
    Posts
    49,151

    Default Re: The 2017-present Special Counsel investigation

    More on the subject (source).

    Trump Says There’s No Evidence of Collusion. There Is So Much Evidence Already.
    By Jonathan Chait

    “Would any defense lawyer advise @realDonaldTrump to meet with SC Mueller? In the absence of any evidence of collusion, why?” asks conservative pundit Hugh Hewitt. “No collusion = end of inquiry.” The idea that Robert Mueller has no evidence of collusion, and that he has instead diverted his interest into the secondary crime of obstruction of justice, has been taken up by Trump and repeated on the right so frequently it has settled into seeming hardened fact.

    Of course, what Mueller knows about collusion and what the public knows about collusion are two different things. Even we mere civilians have access to a great deal of information on cooperation between the Trump campaign and Russia. Whether this body of information amounts to proof of collusion is something you could dispute if you took an especially stringent definition of the terms “proof” and “collusion.”

    You might know that a man ran into a building with a gun, then a person was shot in the building, and then the man ran out. All this would be evidence he committed the murder, while perhaps falling short of proof. Proof is a very high standard to meet. But evidence of collusion? There’s simply no question that there is evidence. Lots and lots of it.

    Paul Manafort’s lawyers adopted a version of the Trumpian defense, that the Mueller probe is a fishing expedition for unrelated crimes. The Department of Justice answered this with a legal filing specifically affirming that he is investigating whether Manafort “committed a crime or crimes by colluding with Russian government officials with respect to the Russian government’s efforts to interfere with the 2016 election.” What do we know about Manafort? We know he ran the campaign of a pro-Russian candidate on behalf of Russia previously; that he had taken on massive debt to a foreign patron, Oleg Deripaska; that Deripaska was working on behalf of the Russian government’s foreign policy; that Manafort accepted his position as Trump’s campaign manager for free; and that he hoped his work for Trump would help him “get whole” with Deripaska.

    Does that prove Trump’s campaign manager was working with Russia? No, but it certainly counts as evidence.

    Want more evidence? Okay. Trump campaign adviser George Papadopoulos met with a Russian agent who told him he had dirt on Hillary Clinton, later boasted that Russia had obtained damaging Clinton emails, and lied to the FBI about his contacts with Russia. That would also qualify as evidence of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia.

    Peter W. Smith, a veteran Republican political operative, attempted to obtain stolen Clinton emails and told the people he contacted in pursuit of these emails he was working on behalf of the Trump campaign. When one of the cybersecurity experts he contacted warned Smith that his work might involve collusion with Russia, it did not dissuade him at all. That also seems like evidence.

    Trump confidant Roger Stone reportedly knew about stolen Clinton emails, emailed with the person who had the stolen material, publicly flaunted his advance knowledge of these emails, and also spoke regularly with Donald Trump during the period when he had this knowledge. It is a virtual certainty Stone colluded with Russia on the email hack, and highly probable he made Trump an accessory after the fact.

    Then of course there is the 2016 Trump Tower meeting. I would argue that the publicly available information pertaining to that episode amounts to proof of Trump campaign collusion with Russia. You have a Russian agent dangling Russian assistance in the election (“part of Russia and its government’s support for Mr. Trump”), and the offer of help being accepted (“if it’s what you say I love it”). It doesn’t even matter to what degree or even whether the offer was actually followed through. If you take a meeting to plan a crime, and the crime later happens and you benefit, you are an accessory to the crime whether or not you participated after the meeting.

    But even if you don’t consider the Trump Tower meeting to be absolute proof of collusion, it is certainly evidence of collusion. It was, after all, a meeting held for the express purpose of furthering cooperation — or, as it were, collusion — between the Trump campaign and Russia. And there is no reason to believe that the publicly available evidence of this meeting — which Trump and his family have lied about, repeatedly — contains the entire extent of the information about it.

    The report from Democrats on the House Intelligence Committee reports that, on June 6, 2016, Donald Trump Jr. made two phone calls with Emin Agalarov. In between those two calls — which, based on emails he exchanged around that time with Rob Goldstone, indicate Trump successfully arranged the meeting during the calls — Donald Jr. made another call. Phone records show the call, at 4:27 p.m., was to a blocked phone number. Corey Lewandowski told the House Intelligence Committee that Donald Trump had a blocked phone number. “Despite the [Democratic] Minority’s repeated efforts to obtain home or cell phone records for then-candidate Trump to determine whether the blocked call was Trump Jr.’s father,” Democrats report, “the Majority was unwilling to pursue the matter.” This has not attracted nearly enough attention. There is clear forensic evidence to show that Donald Trump, Jr. called somebody, quite likely his father, while he was rushing to set up the Trump Tower meeting. House Republicans blocked an effort to prove that Donald Trump was the person he called.

    Trump’s own rhetoric after the meeting provides more evidence he was briefed on the Russian offer to provide dirt on Clinton. Trump promised to deliver a “major speech” within a few days. Trump promised he would be “discussing all of the things that have taken place with the Clintons. I think you’re going to find it very informative and very, very interesting.”

    The Republican narrative has embraced the fantastical interpretation first that there is no public evidence of collusion, and the even more delusional offshoot belief that Mueller therefore has no private evidence of collusion. The intent of saying this, of course, is to enable Republican efforts to obstruct or eventually end the probe, which they can justify on the grounds that there was no evidence of collusion anyway. And they are advertising in advance their intent to declare Trump innocent of wrongdoing regardless of how damning the final indictment may be.
    "For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations,
    for nature cannot be fooled."

    Richard Feynman

  17. #122
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    afloat with at least 6' of water under me.
    Posts
    55,877

    Default Re: The 2017-present Special Counsel investigation

    Quote Originally Posted by AlanMc View Post
    sorry, can't help but laugh at yall's buffoonery.
    So, by not responding to LeeG says a great deal.

  18. #123
    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    Location
    huntsville, al, usa
    Posts
    2,826

    Default Re: The 2017-present Special Counsel investigation

    Quote Originally Posted by S.V. Airlie View Post
    So, by not responding to LeeG says a great deal.

    leeG was engaging in flawed debate logic and therefore doesn't warrant a proper response. you must hate america if you don't agree

  19. #124
    Join Date
    Jun 2001
    Posts
    27,501

    Default Re: The 2017-present Special Counsel investigation

    Sweet Mother of God reds are Stupid.
    The best statement I've seen from this latest carnage came from a student who lived through it -

    "My generation will not allow this to continue!"

    Remember voting age is 18. Read it and weep reds.

  20. #125
    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    Location
    huntsville, al, usa
    Posts
    2,826

    Default Re: The 2017-present Special Counsel investigation

    Quote Originally Posted by John of Phoenix View Post
    Sweet Mother of God reds are Stupid.

    dunning kruger

  21. #126
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    23,073

    Default Re: The 2017-present Special Counsel investigation

    Quote Originally Posted by AlanMc View Post
    dunning kruger
    DK doesn't even BEGIN to explain it.
    Rattling the teacups.

  22. #127
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    oklahoma
    Posts
    3,479

    Default Re: The 2017-present Special Counsel investigation

    Quote Originally Posted by Keith Wilson View Post
    More on the subject
    I recommend moving on from Chait to someone with at least a smidgin of understanding of law, rules of evidence, and the constitution. As much as he, and you i suppose, want it to be illegal; talking to Russians, even about dirt on hiliary, is not. If, however, you pay for the cooperation, as the Clinton campaign did; the bank records are evidence, the dossier is evidence, and the testimony admitting to the act is evidence. And the act is illegal.

    Rosenstein, nor Muler, has revealed the scope order that initiated the Muler investigation. The reason is that circumstances were not sufficient to order a Special Counsel in the first place, and that Muler went off the tracks from the beginning. For all the talk of his straight shooterism, court proceedings are proving him and his staff to be the bumbling, partisan, bullies that their true history belies.
    Ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country. John Fn Kennedy. (D)

  23. #128
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Entry Level
    Posts
    16,734

    Default Re: The 2017-present Special Counsel investigation

    The DOJ:

    1. Doesn't say the President can't be indicted. It says he can't be prosecuted.
    2. Is run by Rosenstein, who can cancel the policy at will.
    3. Isn't the final word in any case. It's a policy, not the law.

    The prosecution of a chief executive has precedent in the cases of

    1. Benjamin Netanyahu
    2. Rod Blagojevich
    He's a Mexican. -- Donald Trump.
    America cannot survive another four years of Barack Obama. -- Governor Chris Christie (R) New Jersey
    It wasn't racism, it was an attack on Christianity. -- Fox News
    Crying white mothers are ratings gold. -- National Rifle Association

  24. #129
    Join Date
    Sep 1999
    Location
    Louisville, Kentucky
    Posts
    25,782

    Default Re: The 2017-present Special Counsel investigation

    Quote Originally Posted by Osborne Russell
    It's a policy, not the law.
    Exactly.
    War is peace.
    Freedom is slavery.
    Ignorance is strength.
    Trump is doing beautifully.

    "OK. Fine. So he exaggerated a little on that."





  25. #130
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    afloat with at least 6' of water under me.
    Posts
    55,877

    Default Re: The 2017-present Special Counsel investigation

    Quote Originally Posted by Osborne Russell View Post
    The DOJ:

    1. Doesn't say the President can't be indicted. It says he can't be prosecuted.
    2. Is run by Rosenstein, who can cancel the policy at will.
    3. Isn't the final word in any case. It's a policy, not the law.

    The prosecution of a chief executive has precedent in the cases of

    1. Benjamin Netanyahu
    2. Rod Blagojevich
    Actually, Rudy says that Trump, as a sitting president, can't be indicted. Rudy is also saying that as he can't be indicted, he can't be questioned by Mueller either. To me, one is questionable, the other is just a Rudy lie.

  26. #131
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Entry Level
    Posts
    16,734

    Default Re: The 2017-present Special Counsel investigation

    He's wrong. Also a liar. Mueller didn't tell him that.
    He's a Mexican. -- Donald Trump.
    America cannot survive another four years of Barack Obama. -- Governor Chris Christie (R) New Jersey
    It wasn't racism, it was an attack on Christianity. -- Fox News
    Crying white mothers are ratings gold. -- National Rifle Association

  27. #132
    Join Date
    Oct 1999
    Location
    St. Paul, MN, USA
    Posts
    49,151

    Default Re: The 2017-present Special Counsel investigation

    Keep digging mdh, there's GOT to be a pony in there somewhere! You are defending the indefensible.

    Chait does not claim that the Trump campaign collusion with the Russians, at least that part of it we know of at this point, was illegal. He's pointing out that the 'no collusion ' mantra is complete and total bullsh!t, a flat-out lie.
    "For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations,
    for nature cannot be fooled."

    Richard Feynman

  28. #133
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Entry Level
    Posts
    16,734

    Default Re: The 2017-present Special Counsel investigation

    Quote Originally Posted by mdh View Post
    Rosenstein, nor Muler, has revealed the scope order that initiated the Muler investigation. The reason is that circumstances were not sufficient to order a Special Counsel in the first place . . .
    I thought Manfort's motion to dismiss on that ground was denied.
    He's a Mexican. -- Donald Trump.
    America cannot survive another four years of Barack Obama. -- Governor Chris Christie (R) New Jersey
    It wasn't racism, it was an attack on Christianity. -- Fox News
    Crying white mothers are ratings gold. -- National Rifle Association

  29. #134
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    afloat with at least 6' of water under me.
    Posts
    55,877

    Default Re: The 2017-present Special Counsel investigation

    Quote Originally Posted by Osborne Russell View Post
    He's wrong. Also a liar. Mueller didn't tell him that.
    Mueller didn't say anything, someone on his team did.

  30. #135
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Sharon, MA
    Posts
    19,771

    Default Re: The 2017-present Special Counsel investigation

    Quote Originally Posted by mdh View Post
    I recommend moving on from Chait to someone with at least a smidgin of understanding of law, rules of evidence, and the constitution.
    Hmmm... I wasn't aware that you were a legal expert, on constitutional law. Where did you graduate from?

    Quote Originally Posted by mdh View Post
    As much as he, and you i suppose, want it to be illegal; talking to Russians, even about dirt on hiliary, is not.
    THAT part may or may not be true.

    Quote Originally Posted by mdh View Post
    If, however, you pay for the cooperation, as the Clinton campaign did; the bank records are evidence, the dossier is evidence, and the testimony admitting to the act is evidence. And the act is illegal.
    Really? Where is the evidence of this accusation? Do I find it in ZeroHedge or Newsmax?

    Quote Originally Posted by mdh View Post
    Rosenstein, nor Muler, has revealed the scope order that initiated the Muler investigation.
    No, actually, he hasn't.... large portions of the order are redacted.... although I suppose you have x-ray eyes and can see through the redaction?

    Quote Originally Posted by mdh View Post
    The reason is that circumstances were not sufficient to order a Special Counsel in the first place, and that Muler went off the tracks from the beginning.
    Hmmm... are you quoting anonymous sources? Where does your information come from?

    Quote Originally Posted by mdh View Post
    For all the talk of his straight shooterism, court proceedings are proving him and his staff to be the bumbling, partisan, bullies that their true history belies.
    Hmmm... he's charged 19 individuals, and 3 corporations, so far.... are you going to tell us that ALL of those charges are illegitimate?

    Here's a clue, mdh... there's plenty of reasons for partisans of BOTH sides to argue their opinions.. There is NOT any room for unsupported allegations, and charges without any evidence to back them up. Neither you, nor I, know what Mueller is going to eventually reveal, so neither of us has a clue. I don't pretend to know.....

    ...and you shouldn't, either.
    "Reason and facts are sacrificed to opinion and myth. Demonstrable falsehoods are circulated and recycled as fact. Narrow minded opinion refuses to be subjected to thought and analysis. Too many now subject events to a prefabricated set of interpretations, usually provided by a biased media source. The myth is more comfortable than the often difficult search for truth."







  31. #136
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    oklahoma
    Posts
    3,479

    Default Re: The 2017-present Special Counsel investigation

    Quote Originally Posted by Keith Wilson View Post
    He's pointing out that the 'no collusion ' mantra is complete and total bullsh!t, a flat-out lie.
    Speculating with no admissible evidence or proof of a crime. Hang in there, bud.
    Ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country. John Fn Kennedy. (D)

  32. #137
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Entry Level
    Posts
    16,734

    Default Re: The 2017-present Special Counsel investigation

    Quote Originally Posted by S.V. Airlie View Post
    Mueller didn't say anything, someone on his team did.
    1. How do you know?
    2. What's the diff?
    He's a Mexican. -- Donald Trump.
    America cannot survive another four years of Barack Obama. -- Governor Chris Christie (R) New Jersey
    It wasn't racism, it was an attack on Christianity. -- Fox News
    Crying white mothers are ratings gold. -- National Rifle Association

  33. #138
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    oklahoma
    Posts
    3,479

    Default Re: The 2017-present Special Counsel investigation

    Quote Originally Posted by Osborne Russell View Post
    The DOJ:

    1. Doesn't say the President can't be indicted. It says he can't be prosecuted.
    2. Is run by Rosenstein, who can cancel the policy at will.
    3. Isn't the final word in any case. It's a policy, not the law.

    The prosecution of a chief executive has precedent in the cases of

    1. Benjamin Netanyahu
    2. Rod Blagojevich
    From the 2000 memoranda:
    The indictment or criminal prosecution of a sitting President would unconstitutionally undermine the capacity of the executive branch to perform its constitutionally assigned functions.

    https://biotech.law.lsu.edu/blaw/olc..._president.htm

    Are you suggesting that Rosenstein would, or should, disobey his agency’s policy?
    Ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country. John Fn Kennedy. (D)

  34. #139
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Sharon, MA
    Posts
    19,771

    Default Re: The 2017-present Special Counsel investigation

    Quote Originally Posted by mdh View Post
    From the 2000 memoranda:
    The indictment or criminal prosecution of a sitting President would unconstitutionally undermine the capacity of the executive branch to perform its constitutionally assigned functions.

    https://biotech.law.lsu.edu/blaw/olc..._president.htm

    Are you suggesting that Rosenstein would, or should, disobey his agency’s policy?
    Ordinarily, I'd say no... with the possible exception if a President achieved office by fraud.

    Let's hypothesize a little. Suppose, for a moment, that a hypothetical President engaged hackers in a foreign country who actually changed votes in more than enough voting districts across the country to steal the Presidency, and it was later discovered (and no, I'm NOT saying that this actually happened, in 2016).

    We all know that impeachment is the constitutional means by which a President can be removed. The criteria for impeachment is NOT clearly stated, in the constitution.... so it's a political mechanism, not a criminal one. The criteria of 'high crimes and misdemeanors' could have a myriad of interpretations.

    Let is further suppose that this same hypothetical President happens to have majorities in both the House and the Senate... so, even if the fraud is uncovered, he will not be impeached.

    Wouldn't that essentially mean that a President is indeed 'above the law', if he is subject only to a political removal?

    There's room for argument from both sides here... but I'd say that, in a case like this, then yes, the DOJ rule should not apply, and the President should be indicted.
    "Reason and facts are sacrificed to opinion and myth. Demonstrable falsehoods are circulated and recycled as fact. Narrow minded opinion refuses to be subjected to thought and analysis. Too many now subject events to a prefabricated set of interpretations, usually provided by a biased media source. The myth is more comfortable than the often difficult search for truth."







  35. #140
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    MD
    Posts
    45,529

    Default Re: The 2017-present Special Counsel investigation

    Back to those missing SARS (suspicious activity reports)...

    https://talkingpointsmemo.com/muckra...sal-cohen-sara

    For months, good-government groups and some Democratic lawmakers have been calling on Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin to recuse himself from matters related to the federal investigation into Russian election meddling. Mnuchin’s role as finance chair of Donald Trump’s 2016 campaign means he can’t impartially oversee a probe that delves into Trump associates’ financial affairs, they have argued.

    Those calls took on a new urgency this week when The New Yorker revealed that Suspicious Activity Reports (SARs) filed on long-time Trump fixer Michael Cohen were removed from a database kept by the Treasury Department’s Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) division.

    Their removal, which is highly unusual, so alarmed a longtime law enforcement official that he or she leaked some of the documents to the press out of concern that information was being intentionally withheld from law enforcement.

    In multiple letters sent since late 2017, Democratic lawmakers have asked Mnuchin to recuse himself from the Russia probe, and to detail any information Treasury has received about potential illegal activities by Trump and his associates.

    “Have you ever directed, or has any other Trump administration official, Trump campaign official, or Trump family member called on you to direct U.S. Treasury officials or staff members to obscure, destroy, or withhold information implicating the president, Trump campaign officials, Trump family members, or his associates?” the Democrats wrote in January.

    They received no response from Mnuchin.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •