TrumpPutingate III: the beginning of the end

#3,308
#3,308
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#3,313
#3,313
hog88 said:
Sure is taking his sweat ass time then. I'd figure he'd move swiftly to take down a traitor.
Click to expand...

Will not have the votes until after the midterms. Of course I'm on record as saying Trump will not be in office at that point.
 
#3,317
#3,317
luthervol said:
This is another point on which we disagree. I think Muller is finding what he's looking for.
Click to expand...

Ok, let me lay this out for you, unfortunately the media won't say this. Please read it thoroughly, so you get it.

As we have noted here on since before Mueller was appointed, the Justice Department has improperly assigned a prosecutor in the absence of grounds to believe a crime has been committed. “Collusion with Russia” is not a crime, and there are presently no grounds to believe the president conspired with Putin’s regime to violate any American law.

And again, it is not criminal obstruction for a president to weigh in on whether a subordinate (such as Michael Flynn) should be investigated, or to fire a subordinate — including a subordinate (such as James Comey, or theoretically Mueller himself) who is involved in conducting an investigation, particularly an investigation that continues uninterrupted despite the firing. Whether we think these are foolish things for the president to have done is beside the point. We are talking here about whether they are criminal actions, and they are not. If the voters are repulsed and want to take it out on Trump and his party come election time, that’s democracy. It is not, however, the business of prosecutors.

Every other independent-counsel investigation in which an American president has been a subject was triggered by an actual crime. Those presidents were on notice of the contours of the probe, and of the criminality that rendered it appropriate for a prosecutor to be appointed and for a president to be questioned. That is not the case in Mueller’s probe. It has been formally described as a counterintelligence investigation, which is a national-security inquiry about a foreign country’s designs against the United States, not a criminal investigation targeting an American for prosecution on a known offense.

Furthermore, Deputy Attorney General Rosenstein could do a great service by amending his special-counsel appointment to make clear that

(a) Mueller is to investigate Russia’s actions to interfere in our election;

(b) the previous statements about possible Trump campaign “coordination” with the Russian government were unnecessary and are withdrawn; and

(c) President Trump is not personally suspected of wrongdoing in connection with the 2016 election.

Obviously, the last clarification would require Rosenstein to consult with Mueller; but given that the matter was under investigation for a year before Mueller’s appointment, that Comey repeatedly told Trump he was not a suspect prior to Mueller’s appointment, and that no other evidence of actionable collusion between Trump and Russia has publicly come to light, Rosenstein should relieve the president of the burden of this suspicion if that can be done honestly.

Note: What I am proposing would not preclude Mueller from continuing to explore possible obstruction offenses — notwithstanding my personal view that the obstruction angle is meritless.

If Rosenstein did that, Mueller’s investigation would have the public support it should have, and Congress could proceed with its inquiry into possible investigative abuses. The two are important and separate. They should not be at odds.
 
Last edited:
#3,318
#3,318
Vol0725 said:
Ok, let me lay this out for you, unfortunately the media won't say this. Please read it thoroughly, so you get it.

As we have noted here on since before Mueller was appointed, the Justice Department has improperly assigned a prosecutor in the absence of grounds to believe a crime has been committed. “Collusion with Russia” is not a crime, and there are presently no grounds to believe the president conspired with Putin’s regime to violate any American law.

And again, it is not criminal obstruction for a president to weigh in on whether a subordinate (such as Michael Flynn) should be investigated, or to fire a subordinate — including a subordinate (such as James Comey, or theoretically Mueller himself) who is involved in conducting an investigation, particularly an investigation that continues uninterrupted despite the firing. Whether we think these are foolish things for the president to have done is beside the point. We are talking here about whether they are criminal actions, and they are not. If the voters are repulsed and want to take it out on Trump and his party come election time, that’s democracy. It is not, however, the business of prosecutors.

Every other independent-counsel investigation in which an American president has been a subject was triggered by an actual crime. Those presidents were on notice of the contours of the probe, and of the criminality that rendered it appropriate for a prosecutor to be appointed and for a president to be questioned. That is not the case in Mueller’s probe. It has been formally described as a counterintelligence investigation, which is a national-security inquiry about a foreign country’s designs against the United States, not a criminal investigation targeting an American for prosecution on a known offense.

Furthermore, Deputy Attorney General Rosenstein could do a great service by amending his special-counsel appointment to make clear that

(a) Mueller is to investigate Russia’s actions to interfere in our election;

(b) the previous statements about possible Trump campaign “coordination” with the Russian government were unnecessary and are withdrawn; and

(c) President Trump is not personally suspected of wrongdoing in connection with the 2016 election.

Obviously, the last clarification would require Rosenstein to consult with Mueller; but given that the matter was under investigation for a year before Mueller’s appointment, that Comey repeatedly told Trump he was not a suspect prior to Mueller’s appointment, and that no other evidence of actionable collusion between Trump and Russia has publicly come to light, Rosenstein should relieve the president of the burden of this suspicion if that can be done honestly.

Note: What I am proposing would not preclude Mueller from continuing to explore possible obstruction offenses — notwithstanding my personal view that the obstruction angle is meritless.

If Rosenstein did that, Mueller’s investigation would have the public support it should have, and Congress could proceed with its inquiry into possible investigative abuses. The two are important and separate. They should not be at odds.
Click to expand...

But he is suspected of wrongdoing.
 
#3,321
#3,321
Mick said:
The "lock her up" message worked great and you bought that. I think a "lock him up" message might just work.
Click to expand...

Doubt it. There was actual proof that HRC committed multiple felonies. Yet she wasnt charged for any of them. So how would lock him up work with Trump when he hasnt broken any laws?
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement

Back
Top