Reply With Quote
You said you don't know what the charges are but it's totally worth investigating. Why?Who said no crime was committed?So you're not accusing Mueller of McCarthyism anymore?
Good boy.
Who said no crime was committed?So you're not accusing Mueller of McCarthyism anymore?(never compared your hypothetical to McCarthyism btwonly an idiot would fabricate that comparison. Oops!)
You said you don't know what the charges are but it's totally worth investigating. Why?Who said no crime was committed?So you're not accusing Mueller of McCarthyism anymore?
Fox News’s Chris Stirewalt: If Trump Wants The Russia Probe to End, He Should Sit Down With Mueller
https://www.mediaite.com/tv/fox-news...-with-mueller/
Because a candidate's son, son-in-law and campaign manager met with Russians who claimed to have "do ents and information that would incriminate" that candidate's opponent.
What's the crime there? Be specific please.
Jeff Sessions is blatantly violating his Mueller investigation recusal — and corporate media has barely noticed
Attorney General Jeff Sessions can’t stop meddling in matters that violate his recusal for conflict of interest.
I previously covered how Sessions’ involvement in the firing of former FBI Director James Comey and Deputy Director Andrew McCabe appears to have violated his pledge to recuse himself from all Justice Department matters related to the 2016 campaign.
Now, Sessions announced that he’s assigned a prosecutor to specifically investigate the FBI’s conduct during the campaign in what would appear to be another clear violation of his recusal.
The reason Republican lawmakers want a special counsel to investigate the FBI is that
it would help make the case that the allegations against the bureau are at least as serious the allegations against the Trump team.
This is nothing short of gratuitous politicization of law enforcement.
https://www.rawstory.com/2018/04/jef...e+Raw+Story%29
The crime was the hacking and information theft and there could definitely be more crimes surrounding that.
Specifically.
You can't do anything about it.
It's happening.
one of Trash's many partners in crime
Former Trump Biz Associate Felix Sater Meeting With Senate Intel Panel
Sater’s work for the Trump Organization and alleged involvement in a pitch for a “peace plan” between Ukraine and Russia have made him a figure in the Russia probe.
He has already spoken to the House Intelligence Committee and special counsel Robert Mueller’s team.
He worked for the Trump Organization to help fund the Trump SoHo building and tried to land a deal for a Trump building in Moscow.
He went on to serve as an adviser to Trump’s presidential campaign in 2015.
In 2017, Sater sent a “peace plan” for Ukraine and Russia to longtime Trump lawyer Michael Cohen
while he was working with a Ukrainian politician on an energy trading deal.
Cohen then passed along the Russia-friendly plan to the Trump White House.
https://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/felix-sater-senate-intelligence-committee?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&ut m_campaign=Feed%3A%20tpm-news%20%28TPMNews%29
Of course, the Senate Repugs won't ask any real questions or seek any real information.
Smh derp
it would be a really weird system if you have a criminal conviction before being investigated for said crime
lol
granted, this civil lawsuit is separate from the criminal proceedings, but in that one, manafort's motion to dismiss was along the same grounds, and the mueller opposition brief i linked to a few pages ago basically confirms what the judge said here. so that motion is probably dead in the water, too.
Manafort's motion got spanked. HARD.
Conservatives fail sooooo badly when they get into courts and actually have to meet standards of evidence. Propaganda talking points fail so hard, its funny to watch.
The Report that Trump Is Not a Target of the Mueller Probe Is Actually Terrible News for the President
This would imply that Mueller does not yet see substantial evidence linking Trump to a crime, which
implies that he’s unlikely to find such evidence in an obstruction probe that appears to be winding down.
In actuality, though, it implies no such thing.
As University of Missouri School of Law professor Frank Bowman notes, that is not all that the DOJ guidelines say about the definition of a “target.”
The full DOJ definition also offers that a target is someone “who, in the judgment of the prosecutor, is a putative defendant.”
This is relevant, because current Department of Justice guidelines say that a sitting president cannot be indicted,
which means that according to these guidelines he cannot technically be a putative defendant—at least not while in office.
“The ‘not a target’ designation doesn’t convey much of real substance concerning Mueller’s assessment of the current evidence against Trump,” Bowman told me over email.
“If Mueller really said Trump is not a ‘target,’ all he may be saying is that,
while there is substantial evidence linking him to a crime,
DOJ policy precludes making him an actual indicted ‘defendant.’”
The upshot is that his “subject” versus “target” designation could be relatively meaningless given the unusual cir stances.
It might just mean that Mueller accepts the current DOJ guidance on whether or not a sitting president should be indicted,
which would seem to be an in character, small “c” conservative approach.
What would be consequential, however, is the news that
Mueller is seeking to issue a report on whether Trump obstructed justice or not. From the Post:there has long been a significant amount of public evidence that Trump obstructed justice.
“They’ve said they want to write a report on this — to answer the public’s questions — and they need the president’s interview as the last step,” one person familiar with the discussions said of Mueller’s team.
That Mueller wants to issue a public report is
an indication that he feels some sort of legal conclusion about the evidence in the case is warranted.
It’s generally DOJ protocol to not issue a full public finding in cases where someone has been exonerated ( except for Hillary!
Additionally, if Mueller does accept the DOJ guidance that precludes him from recommending indictment,
he would have to get permission from Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein to issue a public report on his findings.
That he would seek such a dramatic step sounds like more terrible news for Trump.
If Mueller ultimately were to? issue a finding that the president engaged in a conspiracy to obstruct justice but could not be indicted because of DOJ guidelines,
then the issue would be kicked to Congress
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/...s-for-him.html
Last edited by boutons_deux; 04-04-2018 at 01:15 PM.
It is easier to compel a subject of an investigation to testify than a target, given the analysis I have seen.
... in the middle of a blue wave election cycle.
Summer is going to get HOT.
So we just investigate everything then looking for crimes? ... and you're a lawyer??
So we just investigate everything then looking for crimes? ... and you're a lawyer??
lol so many *ding*s
Why is Trump afraid of an interview?
TSA seems nervous
Where did you get that from? Everything I’ve read says the opposite.
There are currently 2 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 2 guests)
Posting Permissions
