The Real Collusion Story

#51
#51
Septic said:
I'm speaking in generalities, if Mueller wonders upon evidence of a crime (e.g. Manifort), shouldn't it be investigated - even if it's not the original focus?

To my point, if there is evidence of a crime - should it be ignored for fear of looking partisan?
Click to expand...

A good analogy might be...

You take your car into a Firestone to get the oil changed and a headlight replaced. You come back at the end of the day and they tell you:

"We changed the oil and fixed the headlight. Oh, and by the way, we have evidence you need a complete engine replacement, your wife is cheating on you, your daughter got knocked up by a scrawny bartender that just got back from Columbia, your mother is six months behind in her mortgage and your house has termites."

"Now, we went ahead and scheduled an abortion for your daughter, hired a hit man for your wife, got a new engine installed, got your mom up to speed with the help of Al the local money lender and my brother in law is spraying your house."
 
#53
#53
Grand Vol said:
A good analogy might be...

You take your car into a Firestone to get the oil changed and a headlight replaced. You come back at the end of the day and they tell you:

"We changed the oil and fixed the headlight. Oh, and by the way, we have evidence you need a complete engine replacement, your wife is cheating on you, your daughter got knocked up by a scrawny bartender that just got back from Columbia, your mother is six months behind in her mortgage and your house has termites."

"Now, we went ahead and scheduled an abortion for your daughter, hired a hit man for your wife, got a new engine installed, got your mom up to speed with the help of Al the local money lender and my brother in law is spraying your house."
Click to expand...

All of which seem reasonable. I'd use that mechanic because he handles what needs to be handled.
 
#54
#54
Grand Vol said:
Possibly. I don't disagree with your premise here, however, I'm not sure how limited in scope these special prosecutors are and whether or not they would turn over such things to another investigative agency.

As for Manifort, I do believe he was part of the initial investigation, so I don't think they just "happened" onto that.

But, for instance, if Mueller discovered Trump was murdering babies and drinking their blood, I don't know how much within his purview that is to follow up on or if he's legally bound to pass such things on for another investigator.

The answer to your last question is no, evidence shouldn't be passed on because of partisan intent. On the flip side of that coin, going way beyond the intent and charter of said investigation and looking for anything incriminating for partisan purposes is equally wrong. To which, I think you agree.
Click to expand...

I concur.
 
#55
#55
Septic said:
If his firing of Comey was an attempt at obstructing the initial investigation, he opened that door himself.

This whole 'witch hunt' narrative is nothing more than speculation since none of us knows what Mueller know's or doesn't know or where he's going.

People who are innocent don't sweat this profusely.
Click to expand...

Not saying Trump is innocent.

But I’ve personally been falsely accused in the past, and been unable to eat or sleep until vindicated.

It is incredibly unpleasant, and takes a toll.
 
#56
#56
Septic said:
I'm speaking in generalities, if Mueller wanders upon evidence of a crime (e.g. Manifort), shouldn't it be investigated - even if it's not the original focus?

To my point, if there is evidence of a crime - should it be ignored for fear of looking partisan?
Click to expand...

There is difference in stumbling upon criminal activity and investigating someone to find a crime.
 
#59
#59
hog88 said:
There is difference in stumbling upon criminal activity and investigating someone to find a crime.
Click to expand...




In appointing Mueller, however, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein gave him broad authority not only to investigate "any links and/or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated" with Trump's campaign, but also to examine "any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation."

Rosenstein also gave Mueller the power to investigate "any other matters within the scope of 28 C.F.R. § 600.4(a)" — including perjury, obstruction of justice, destruction of evidence, and intimidation of witnesses.
Click to expand...

Sounds to me like he's doing his job.
 
#60
#60
Septic said:
Sounds to me like he's doing his job.
Click to expand...

B.S. he’s outside his mandate. As an example:

How Manafort’s Motion to Dismiss Could Help General Flynn | Law & Crime

The Constitutional Appointments Clause (found in Article II, Section 2, clause 2) was designed to prevent a Robert Mueller-type prosecutor — a prosecutor with all the powers of the executive branch and all the powers of the grand jury at his disposal who is: 1) not elected by the public, 2) not appointed by anyone who was elected by the public, and 3) not directly accountable for his actions to anyone who was elected by the public. In other words, the Appointments Clause is about protecting democracy and insuring civil liberty. The Appointments Clause does not give unfettered prosecutorial discretion to what the law calls “inferior officers” – those never elected, never appointed by elected officials, and never accountable to elected officials.

Thus, in my opinion, Manafort’s legal position in his motion to dismiss the Mueller indictments is constitutionally correct — the Special Counsel’s behavior makes Mueller’s appointment and actions unconstitutional, in violation of the Appointments Clause of the United States Constitution. Dismissal of both the Manafort and Flynn indictments would be the right remedy. The end of Mueller’s tenure should soon follow.

Mueller’s authorization letter was not a Lavrentiy Beria letter, but Mueller’s team has clearly read it that way. Famously, Stalin’s State Security Minister Lavrentiy Beria promised Stalin: “you bring me the man, and I will find you the crime.” This is the kind of politicized prosecutorial abuse – from the Inquisition itself to the Star Chamber of old England – that informed and shaped the Constitution’s constrictions on prosecutorial power. Yet, that is precisely how Mueller has manifestly interpreted his own authority: show Mueller anyone within six-degrees-of-separation of the Trump campaign, and let’s see what dirt Mueller’s team can find anywhere in their life. How else do you explain investigating Paul Manafort’s tax structuring from twelve years ago? How else do you explain the prostate-exam level invasive scrutiny of so many of Mueller’s targets, especially anyone around Manafort?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#61
#61
Grand Vol said:
Possibly. I don't disagree with your premise here, however, I'm not sure how limited in scope these special prosecutors are and whether or not they would turn over such things to another investigative agency.

As for Manifort, I do believe he was part of the initial investigation, so I don't think they just "happened" onto that.

But, for instance, if Mueller discovered Trump was murdering babies and drinking their blood, I don't know how much within his purview that is to follow up on or if he's legally bound to pass such things on for another investigator.

The answer to your last question is no, evidence shouldn't be passed on because of partisan intent. On the flip side of that coin, going way beyond the intent and charter of said investigation and looking for anything incriminating for partisan purposes is equally wrong. To which, I think you agree.
Click to expand...


It's not "happening on" to financial crimes with the Russians if it exposes him to blackmail because that explains him being Putin's bi+ch this whole past 18 months.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4 people
#62
#62
Vol0725 said:
B.S. he’s outside his mandate. As an example:

How Manafort’s Motion to Dismiss Could Help General Flynn | Law & Crime

The Constitutional Appointments Clause (found in Article II, Section 2, clause 2) was designed to prevent a Robert Mueller-type prosecutor — a prosecutor with all the powers of the executive branch and all the powers of the grand jury at his disposal who is: 1) not elected by the public, 2) not appointed by anyone who was elected by the public, and 3) not directly accountable for his actions to anyone who was elected by the public. In other words, the Appointments Clause is about protecting democracy and insuring civil liberty. The Appointments Clause does not give unfettered prosecutorial discretion to what the law calls “inferior officers” – those never elected, never appointed by elected officials, and never accountable to elected officials.

Thus, in my opinion, Manafort’s legal position in his motion to dismiss the Mueller indictments is constitutionally correct — the Special Counsel’s behavior makes Mueller’s appointment and actions unconstitutional, in violation of the Appointments Clause of the United States Constitution. Dismissal of both the Manafort and Flynn indictments would be the right remedy. The end of Mueller’s tenure should soon follow.

Mueller’s authorization letter was not a Lavrentiy Beria letter, but Mueller’s team has clearly read it that way. Famously, Stalin’s State Security Minister Lavrentiy Beria promised Stalin: “you bring me the man, and I will find you the crime.” This is the kind of politicized prosecutorial abuse – from the Inquisition itself to the Star Chamber of old England – that informed and shaped the Constitution’s constrictions on prosecutorial power. Yet, that is precisely how Mueller has manifestly interpreted his own authority: show Mueller anyone within six-degrees-of-separation of the Trump campaign, and let’s see what dirt Mueller’s team can find anywhere in their life. How else do you explain investigating Paul Manafort’s tax structuring from twelve years ago? How else do you explain the prostate-exam level invasive scrutiny of so many of Mueller’s targets, especially anyone around Manafort?
Click to expand...

Blame Rosenstein. Mueller has wide latitude. Not saying it's right. Just saying it is.
 

Attachments

  • Screenshot_20180302-174519.jpg
    Screenshot_20180302-174519.jpg
    34 KB · Views: 1
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#68
#68
Grand Vol said:
Real question then.

Should Mueller interview Daniels as some of the media is implying he should?
Click to expand...

If he does, then his credibility is gone. It would be a tough spin to link that to Russian involvement in the election.
 
#71
#71
Vol_Doc said:
Blame Rosenstein. Mueller has wide latitude. Not saying it's right. Just saying it is.
Click to expand...

Gonna be interesting to see how Manafort’s case evolves then. I believe his whole stance is the latitude given to the special counsel is unconstitutional. If he wins that argument the Flynn and everybody else are gonna revisit and get dismissed I bet.

Ah I missed that Vol0725 had already posted that argument.
 
#72
#72
Septic said:
Of course not, F what the media thinks.
Click to expand...

In hind site - I'd say that the caveat being that if Mueller discovered irregularities in Trumps campaign finance payments that lead him to Ms. Daniels, that'd be fair game.

It doesn't seem to be the case however as from at least this perspective - donny covered his tracks through his lawyer, who he promptly proceeded to stiff.
 
#74
#74
Septic said:
In hind site - I'd say that the caveat being that if Mueller discovered irregularities in Trumps campaign finance payments that lead him to Ms. Daniels, that'd be fair game.

It doesn't seem to be the case however as from at least this perspective - donny covered his tracks through his lawyer, who he promptly proceeded to stiff.
Click to expand...

I disagree.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement





Back
Top